All Things News

Obama Means Business!

Straight from Fox News: “The president’s tough talk came as Iran rejected a compromise proposal to ship its low-enriched uranium to Russia so that it could not be further enriched to make weapons.

SEOUL, South Korea — Showing impatience with Iranian foot-dragging, President Barack Obama said Thursday that the U.S. and its allies are discussing possible new penalties to bring fresh pressure on Iran for defying international attempts to halt its contested nuclear program.

Obama’s warning came after Iran rejected a compromise proposal to ship its low-enriched uranium abroad so that it could not be further enriched to make weapons. Talk of fresh sanctions also showed that Obama is preparing for the next phase should Iran fail to meet his year-end deadline for progress in negotiations.

“They have been unable to get to `yes’, and so as a consequence, we have begun discussions with our international partners about the importance of having consequences,” Obama said at a news conference with South Korean President Lee Myung-bak.

“Our expectation is, is that over the next several weeks we will be developing a package of potential steps that we could take that will indicate our seriousness to Iran.”

The tough talk came as Obama wrapped an eight-day, four-nation tour of Asia in which global issues — nuclear disarmament, climate change, economic recovery — dominated and goodwill abounded. There also were few new agreements on pending issues.

South Korea, Obama’s final stop, was a case in point.

Obama and Lee showed unity on disarming nuclear-armed North Korea and differences over concluding a free-trade agreement stalled by Congress. Obama announced that Stephen Bosworth, his special envoy to North Korea, would make his first trip to Pyongyang on Dec. 8 to test the waters for resuming nuclear disarmament talks.

Lee said Obama endorsed his “grand bargain” for North Korea — a package of economic assistance and investment in exchange for full nuclear disarmament in a single step rather than the piecemeal approaches that have twice failed over the past two decades. “I think President Lee is exactly right and my administration is taking the same approach,” Obama said.

The White House said the trip was largely about showing U.S. re-engagement with a region whose fast-growing economies are reordering global politics but that often felt neglected during the Bush administration and its focus on fighting terrorism. To that end, Obama spoke often of reinvigorating alliances with Japan, his first stop, South Korea and in Southeast Asia, and welcoming a prosperous, confident China as a partner.

“We didn’t come halfway across the world for ticker-tape parades,” senior Obama adviser David Axelrod told reporters Thursday. “We came here to lay a foundation for progress. We’ve done that.”

Obama vested political capital in salvaging next month’s climate change conference in Copenhagen. He urged leaders of Asia-Pacific nations gathered in Singapore to rally around a political agreement that would contain emissions reductions goals for countries to meet that would fall short of a full treaty on global warming. China, the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases ahead of the U.S., signed on to the idea too.

Obama addressed cheering U.S. troops stationed at Osan Air Base outside Seoul on Thursday before the return flight to Washington, and gave this assessment of the trip: a renewed U.S.-Japan alliance, commitments to work on freer trade with Asia-Pacific nations to aid the global economic recovery and a more positive partnership with China “because cooperation between the United States and China will mean a safer, more prosperous world for all of us.”

Asked how the trip went, Obama said: “We got a lot of work done.” He then boarded the plane headed for home, where he faces continued lobbying to pass a health care bill and more deliberations on how many more troops to send to Afghanistan.

In talking tough about possible sanctions on Iran for its nuclear program, Obama left open the option that diplomacy could still work. “I continue to hold out the prospect that they may decide to walk through this door” and accept the proposal to ship its low-enriched uranium out of the country, Obama said.

A senior administration official later said Obama was purposely vague on more diplomacy so as not to undermine the search for international consensus that remains in an embryonic phase. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the president’s thinking.

Possible sanctions are likely to take months to enact, if the difficulties in crafting this year’s U.N. sanctions on North Korea are any indication. China, always reluctant to support sanctions, offered no public assurances that it would agree to punish Iran. As for Russia, whose support also would be vital, White House official Mike McFaul said days ago that the U.S. is “exactly on the same page with the Russians” in exploring diplomacy and consequences.

South Korea gave Obama one of the warmest welcomes during the trip. Crowds lined the motorcade route; some shouted “Obama.” After the news conference, Obama and Lee hugged, an unusual gesture in a region noted for its formality.

The only off-note was on the pending free trade agreement, stuck in part because U.S. lawmakers worry it could hurt the struggling American auto industry. Obama said he was committed to completing a deal and that teams from both countries were trying to resolve sticking points.

Lee said the pact was not only economic but strategic — suggesting an agreement would further cement the U.S.-South Korean alliance. He urged political will to complete it.”

More Troops? Barack is takin' this shit into his own hands!

Straight from Fox News: “President Barack Obama does not plan to accept any of the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team, pushing instead for revisions to clarify how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government, a senior administration official said Wednesday.

That stance comes in the midst of forceful reservations about a possible troop buildup from the U.S. ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, according to a second top administration official.

In strongly worded classified cables to Washington, Eikenberry said he had misgivings about sending in new troops while there are still so many questions about the leadership of Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

Obama is still close to announcing his revamped war strategy — most likely shortly after he returns from a trip to Asia that ends on Nov. 19.

But the president raised questions at a war council meeting Wednesday that could alter the dynamic of both how many additional troops are sent to Afghanistan and what the timeline would be for their presence in the war zone, according to the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss Obama’s thinking.

Military officials said Obama has asked for a rewrite before and resisted what one official called a one-way highway toward war commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s recommendations for more troops. The sense that he was being rushed and railroaded has stiffened Obama’s resolve to seek information and options beyond military planning, officials said, though a substantial troop increase is still likely.

The president was considering options that include adding 30,000 or more U.S. forces to take on the Taliban in key areas of Afghanistan and to buy time for the Afghan government’s small and ill-equipped fighting forces to take over. The other three options on the table Wednesday were ranges of troop increases, from a relatively small addition of forces to the roughly 40,000 that the top U.S. general in Afghanistan prefers, according to military and other officials.

The key sticking points appear to be timelines and mounting questions about the credibility of the Afghan government.

Administration officials said Wednesday that Obama wants to make it clear that the U.S. commitment in Afghanistan is not open-ended. The war is now in its ninth year and is claiming U.S. lives at a record pace as military leaders say the Taliban has the upper hand in many parts of the country.

Eikenberry, the top U.S. envoy to Kabul, is a prominent voice among those advising Obama, and his sharp dissent is sure to affect the equation. He retired from the Army this year to become one of the few generals in American history to switch directly from soldier to diplomat, and he himself is a recent, former commander of U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

Eikenberry’s cables raise deep concern about the viability of the Karzai government, according to a senior U.S. official familiar with them who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the classified documents. Other administration officials raised the same misgivings in describing Obama’s hesitancy to accept any of the options before him in their current form.

The options presented to Obama by his war council will now be amended.

Military officials say one approach is a compromise battle plan that would add 30,000 or more U.S. forces atop a record 68,000 in the country now. They described it as “half and half,” meaning half fighting and half training and holding ground so the Afghans can regroup.

The White House says Obama has not made a final choice, though military and other officials have said he appears near to approving a slightly smaller increase than McChrystal wants at the outset.

Among the options for Obama would be ways to phase in additional troops, perhaps eventually equaling McChrystal’s full request, based on security or other conditions in Afghanistan and in response to pending decisions on troops levels by some U.S. allies fighting in Afghanistan.

The White House has chafed under criticism from Republicans and some outside critics that Obama is dragging his feet to make a decision.

Obama’s top military advisers have said they are comfortable with the pace of the process, and senior military officials have pointed out that the president still has time since no additional forces could begin flowing into Afghanistan until early next year.

Under the scenario featuring about 30,000 more troops, that number most likely would be assembled from three Army brigades and a Marine Corps contingent, plus a new headquarters operation that would be staffed by 7,000 or more troops, a senior military official said. There would be a heavy emphasis on the training of Afghan forces, and the reinforcements Obama sends could include thousands of U.S. military trainers.

Another official stressed that Obama is considering a range of possibilities for the military expansion and that his eventual decision will cover changes in U.S. approach beyond the addition of troops. The stepped-up training and partnership operation with Afghan forces would be part of that effort, the official said, although expansion of a better-trained Afghan force long has been part of the U.S objective and the key to an eventual U.S. and allied exit from the country.

With the Taliban-led insurgency expanding in size and ability, U.S. military strategy already has shifted to focus on heading off the fighters and protecting Afghan civilians. The evolving U.S. policy, already remapped early in Obama’s tenure, increasingly acknowledges that the insurgency can be blunted but not defeated outright by force.”

Obama wants you to be healthy!

Straight from Fox News: “The health care reform bill awaiting debate in the House assumes millions of workers and employers would rather pay $167 billion in fines than purchase or provide adequate coverage, according to a recent analysis, raising questions about whether the plan does enough to make insurance affordable.

Though the bill is estimated to expand coverage from the current 83 percent to 96 percent of legal U.S. residents, the windfall of projected penalty payments also exposes a potential contradiction in reform. A significant part of the plan to expand coverage relies financially on fines from the uninsured.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated in its study last week that the House bill would bring in $167 billion over 10 years — $33 billion from fines paid by individuals who decline to buy insurance, and the rest from employers who don’t offer insurance to workers or contribute enough toward premiums.

Ernest Istook, a former Republican congressman from Oklahoma who is now a fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, calculated that anywhere between 8 million and 14 million people would end up paying the fines.

This raises a few problems, he said. First, if those millions somehow get covered and don’t pay the fine, then the health program is faced with a budget hole.

Second, he said, it speaks to a flaw with the insurance packages that are being offered. “If you say people would rather pay $167 billion in penalties rather than buy insurance under your new plan, what’s wrong with your new plan?” he asked.

The answer, Istook said: “It’s expensive.”

The House plan would create a government-run insurance program intended to help extend coverage. But the plan would allow the government to negotiate rates with providers rather than set artificially low Medicare-style rates — as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other liberal Democrats were hoping to do.

While the negotiated rate structure somewhat assuages the concerns of moderate Democrats and others who projected that a system based on Medicare rates would create an irresistibly cheap public plan that would draw millions away from private coverage and hurt doctors, it also does much less to address cost concerns.

In fact, the CBO report said such a public plan “would typically have premiums that are somewhat higher than the average premiums” for private plans in the newly created insurance marketplace. This is partly because the public plan would likely attract less healthy, and more expensive, enrollees.

In addition, many analysts and lawmakers have warned that private premiums will go up as well as a result of new requirements.

Though the government is offering a bevy of subsidies to make coverage more affordable under the plan, it apparently would not be enough to lure everyone into the system.

Suggestions for reducing the number of people who are insurance-averse are wide-ranging.

Some don’t want any fines, emphasizing incentives over penalties. But political momentum in Washington has long since shifted in favor of a requirement to get coverage. President Obama, who opposed such a mandate during the presidential campaign, reversed and supported it during his September address on health care reform to Congress.

Others, especially the health insurance industry, want the fines to be increased.

“If you don’t get everybody in, the market reforms don’t work and premiums skyrocket for everybody,” said Robert Zirkelbach, spokesman with America’s Health Insurance Plans, which opposes the House Democratic plan.

Zirkelbach warned that those who choose to pay the penalty will just wait until they get sick to get covered, driving up premiums across the board. “More needs to be done to make coverage affordable.”

Zirkelbach dismissed the claim that less penalty revenue would leave the federal government with a budget hole. He said getting more people covered would help bring down health care costs overall and balance out in the end for the government’s books.

He doubted, though, that the government plan would have higher premiums. He said the so called public-option would ultimately negotiate rates down to Medicare levels.

Third Way, a think tank that describes itself as part of the “moderate wing of the progressive movement,” also released a study saying the mandate cannot be weakened. But it said several changes can be made to expand coverage. The group suggested, among other things, allowing young people to pay lower premiums and allowing people to meet the coverage requirement with even leaner insurance plans.

Democrats are standing by the mandate provisions, though, arguing that some relatively small group of uninsured people is inevitable.

“There’s just going to be some people who choose rather to pay (the fine) than to pay for health care,” said Stephanie Lundberg, spokeswoman for House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md. “There’s going to be some people that just philosophically don’t want to buy health care.”

She said individual responsibility has to be a part of the plan, but that 96 percent coverage is still pretty admirable.

“It expands coverage substantially,” Lundberg said.”

Iranian sword stabs Star of David and US flag

Straight from Fox News: “The U.N. nuclear watchdog has asked Tehran to explain evidence suggesting that Iranian scientists have experimented with an advanced secret nuclear warhead design, according to a report published Friday.

Citing what it calls “previously unpublished documentation” from an International Atomic Energy Agency compiled report, Britain’s The Guardian newspaper said Iranian scientists may have tested high-explosive components of a “two-point implosion” device.

The report said that even the existence of two-point implosion nuclear warhead technology is officially secret in both the U.S. and Britain. The technology allows for the production of smaller and simpler warheads, making it easier to put a warhead on a missile, the newspaper said.

The IAEA said in September it has no proof Iran has or once had a covert atomic bomb program.

The U.N. watchdog’s statements followed reports from the Associated Press quoting what it called a classified IAEA document saying agency experts agreed Iran now had the means to build atomic bombs and was heading towards developing a missile system able to carry a nuclear warhead.

Extracts of the report have been published before, but it was not known the document included information on such a sophisticated warhead, the newspaper said.

A nuclear site, which Iran revealed in September three years after diplomats said Western spies first discovered it, added to fears of secret Iranian efforts to develop nuclear bombs. Iran claims it is enriching uranium only for peaceful electricity use.

The Vienna-based IAEA, Iran’s Foreign Ministry and the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran were unavailable for comment when contacted by Reuters.”

Run free! Run free!

Straight from Fox News: “Suspected enemy combatants held at the Guantanamo Bay prison can now be transferred to U.S. soil for trial.

Handing President Obama a partial victory in his effort to close the military prison, House Democrats on Thursday repelled a Republican effort to block transfer of any of the detainees to the U.S.

Instead, by a 224-193 vote, the House stood by a Democratic plan to allow suspected enemy combatants held at the controversial Guantanamo facility to be shipped to U.S. soil — but only to be prosecuted for their suspected crimes.

The Guantanamo restrictions were attached by House-Senate negotiators on a $42.8 billion homeland security appropriations bill.

Obama has ordered the closure of the prison but congressional Democrats have refused to spend any money on the project until the president assembles a plan to shut down the facility and move the prisoners.

The top Republican on the House Appropriations Committee, Rep. Jerry Lewis of California, charged that Democrats have “turned a blind eye to the dangers that these prisoners of war pose to the American people.”

He went on to call the detainees “enemies of the state.”

Democratic leaders had to push hard to win the vote because many Democrats two weeks ago had cast a nonbinding but politically safe vote against any Guantanamo detainee transfers. But several Democrats from swing districts said they saw little political risk on Thursday’s vote.

“It’s a non-issue. Inside the beltway stuff,” said first-term Rep. Dan Maffai, D-N.Y. “People care about jobs, the economy, health care.”

“I haven’t had one person ask me about Guantanamo,” said Rep. Baron Hill, D-Ind. He added that he does “not in the least” fear it as an issue in next year’s elections.

Permitting Guantanamo prisoners to be transferred to U.S. soil to stand trial had been a bipartisan compromise earlier. It mostly tracks current restrictions put in place in June and is similar to a version backed by Republicans earlier in the year. In fact, Republicans such as Lewis helped fashion the compromise.

But in the absence of a plan from the administration for closing the facility, Lewis has toughened his talk, calling the administration’s plan misguided and potentially dangerous.

“Terrorists should not be treated like common criminals in federal court,” Lewis said. “These detainees are enemies of the state, and should be treated as such by being held and brought to justice right where they are — in Guantanamo Bay.”

Democrats say that Republicans are simply seeking a political opening.

Still, the public is mixed at best on the idea of closing Guantanamo and transferring some of its prisoners to the U.S. Respondents to an AP/Gfk poll in June found Americans evenly divided on whether they support Obama’s decision to close Guantanamo. A Gallup poll taken around the same time — but with the question worded differently — found that respondents opposed closing Guantanamo by a 2-1 margin and rejected the idea of moving detainees to their states by a 4-1 margin.

Several of the fiscal 2010 funding bills contain varying restrictions on the transfer of Guantanamo detainees, reflecting widespread opposition among voters. The Senate-passed defense appropriations bill, for example, contains an outright ban on releasing Guantanamo detainees into the U.S., including for trial or incarceration.

The underlying spending bill also backs the Obama administration’s refusal to release new photos showing U.S. personnel abusing detainees held overseas. The measure supports Obama’s decision to allow the secretary of defense to bar the release of detainee photos for three years.

The American Civil Liberties Union has filed suit to obtain unreleased photos of detainee abuse under the Freedom of Information Act and won two rounds in federal court. The measure would essentially trump the ACLU’s case.

In response, the administration has appealed to the Supreme Court and Obama has said he would use every available means to block release of additional detainee abuse photos because they could whip up anti-American sentiment overseas and endanger U.S. troops. His powers include issuing an order to classify the photos, thus blocking their release.

But the detainee photos provision earned a sharp rebuke from Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., normally a leadership loyalist from her perch as chairwoman of the powerful Rules Committee. She said that “the people’s right to know is more important than the government’s desire to keep things secret.”"

Hadron Collider

Straight from Fox News: “A nuclear physicist working at the world’s largest atom smasher has been arrested on suspicion of links to the Algerian branch of Al Qaeda, another blow to a project that has been plagued by glitches and was shut down after a massive electrical failure a year ago.

The scientist, arrested in France, is suspected of having links to Al Qaeda’s North African offshoot, which has carried out a deadly campaign against security forces in recent months, a French official said Friday.

The judicial official said the suspect was one of two brothers arrested Thursday in southeastern French city of Vienne. The official spoke anonymously because the case is ongoing.

The scientist has been assigned to analysis projects at the laboratory since 2003, and was one of more than 7,000 scientists working on the Large Hadron Collider, the world’s largest atom smasher, said the European Organization for Nuclear Research, known as CERN.

The physicist had no contact with anything that could be used for terrorism, it said.

“None of our research has potential for military application, and all our results are published openly in the public domain,” the organization said.

The LHCb experiment where he worked is the smallest of a series of installations along the 17-mile circular tunnel under the Swiss-French border.

The nuclear research organization said the man, whom it did not identify, was arrested Thursday in the eastern French city of Vienne, 20 miles south of Lyon.

The men were French and aged 25 and 32, police said. The arrest was part of a French judge’s probe into suspected terrorist links.

Police searched the suspects’ apartments and seized their computers.

Al Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb regularly targets Algerian government forces and occasionally attacks foreigners.

The collider started spectacularly in September 2008 with beams of particles flying in both directions on the first day of trying. But later that month an electric failure because of a construction fault caused the entire machine to shut down. It has been undergoing repairs almost ever since.

Spokeswoman Renilde Vanden Broeck said there was no indication of sabotage in the shutdown and that the arrested man would have had access only to the small experiment he was working on, and not to the tunnel itself.

The projects are aimed at making discoveries about the makeup of matter when the Large Hadron Collider starts collecting data later this year or early next year.

“LHCb is an experiment set up to explore what happened after the Big Bang that allowed matter to survive and build the universe we inhabit today,” said a description on the organization’s Web site.

The Big Bang was a vast explosion that scientists theorize was the beginning of the universe 14 billion years ago.

The European laboratory has been working for years to build the $10 billion collider.

Not all physicists working on the LHCb project were informed of the arrest.

“This is news to me,” said Ken Wyllie, one of dozens of scientists in the department.

The prosecutor’s office in the Isere region said the arrest of the physicist had been transferred to the anti-terrorist section of the Paris prosecutor’s office.

Many of the scientists at the laboratory, whether or not they are employees of the organization or of other institutes around the world, live in France, and about half the operation is on French territory.

The nuclear research organization said the man was affiliated with an outside institute.

The laboratory said it is providing the support requested by the French police in the inquiry.”

Nancy Pelosi

Straight from Fox News: “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi cast House Republicans as behind the times, or worse, after they suggested that the top American commander in Afghanistan should “put her in her place.”

“They really don’t understand how inappropriate that is,” the California Democrat said of the phrasing, contained in a news release this week from the National Republican Congressional Committee.

“I’m in my place. I’m the Speaker of the House, the first woman Speaker of the House. And I’m in my place because the House of Representatives voted me there,” she added. “But that language is something I haven’t even heard in decades.”

She was taking issue with a National Republican Congressional Committee press release that accused her of backing down to liberals in her caucus who oppose Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal’s recommendation for an escalation of troops in Afghanistan.

Pelosi had been quoted as saying that voting for an escalation was a difficult choice for members of her caucus whose constituents oppose such action.

“If Nancy Pelosi’s failed economic policies are any indicator of the effect she may have on Afghanistan, taxpayers can only hope McChrystal is able to put her in her place,” the release said.

McChrystal’s recommended approach calls for as many as 40,000 additional troops in Afghanistan for a counterinsurgency campaign to defeat the Taliban, build up the central government and deny al-Qaida a haven.

Many Democrats, aware of rising anti-war sentiment in their ranks and the war protests that have dotted Washington this week, oppose such a surge.

According to a new Associated Press-GfK poll, public support for the war has dropped to 40 percent from 44 percent in July.”

This artist's rendering shows the biggest but never-before-seen ring around Saturn, spotted by NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope.

Straight from Fox News: “The Spitzer Space Telescope has discovered the biggest but never-before-seen ring around the planet Saturn, NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory announced late Tuesday.

The thin array of ice and dust particles lies at the far reaches of the Saturnian system and its orbit is tilted 27 degrees from the planet’s main ring plane, the laboratory said.

JPL spokeswoman Whitney Clavin said the ring is very diffuse and doesn’t reflect much visible light but the infrared Spitzer telescope was able to detect it.

Although the ring dust is very cold — minus 316 degrees Fahrenheit — it shines with thermal radiation.

No one had looked at its location with an infrared instrument until now, Clavin said.

The bulk of the ring material starts about 3.7 million miles from the planet and extends outward about another 7.4 million miles.

The newly found ring is so huge it would take 1 billion Earths to fill it, JPL said.

Before the discovery Saturn was known to have seven main rings named A through E and several faint unnamed rings.

A paper on the discovery was to be published online Wednesday by the journal Nature.

“This is one supersized ring,” said one of the authors, Anne Verbiscer, an astronomer at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. Her co-authors are Douglas Hamilton of the University of Maryland, College Park, and Michael Skrutskie, also of the University of Virginia.

Saturn’s moon Phoebe orbits within the ring and is believed to be the source of the material.

The ring also may answer the riddle of another moon, Iapetus, which has a bright side and a very dark side.

The ring circles in the same direction as Phoebe, while Iapetus, the other rings and most of Saturn’s other moons go the opposite way. Scientists think material from the outer ring moves inward and slams into Iapetus.

“Astronomers have long suspected that there is a connection between Saturn’s outer moon Phoebe and the dark material on Iapetus,” said Hamilton. “This new ring provides convincing evidence of that relationship.”

The Spitzer mission, launched in 2003, is managed by JPL in Pasadena. Spitzer is 66 million miles from Earth in orbit around the sun.”

Dancing with the Czars

Straight from Fox News: “Senate Democrats, under pressure from a White House arguing separation of powers, rejected a GOP attempt Thursday to provide greater transparency and congressional oversight of 18 so-called czars appointed by the Obama administration without Senate confirmation.

Democrats employed a procedural tactic to kill the GOP proposal, which would have withheld federal funds for the creation of any new, unconfirmed czar positions until the administration agreed to allow the individuals to testify before Congress under “reasonable” requests.

The proposal also would have required every czar to produce a detailed “public, written report” biannually of their actions and involvement in the creation of policy, rules, and regulations.

But Democrats used a Senate rule that prohibits legislating on a spending bill — something that is often done by both political parties despite the rule — to kill the measure.

Sen. Susan Collins, a moderate Republican from Maine who sponsored the amendment to a spending bill that funds the Interior Department, decried the move on the Senate floor, saying she was “deeply disappointed” in her Democratic colleagues.

“My amendment has been carefully tailored to cover officials that the president has unilaterally designated for significant policy matters,” said Collins, who is the top Republican on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

“It would not have covered the president’s chief of staff, for example, and it would not cover less senior White House officials, despite some misinformation to the contrary,” Collins said, noting that her staff had worked with White House officials Wednesday night without agreement.

Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., a close ally of the White House, was not convinced. He said he sensed a more politically-motivated attack by “czar watchers,” invoking “the political wiseman” FOX News’ Glenn Beck, as well as Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, who Durbin said had found a larger number of czars than Collins, who detailed 18 unconfirmed czars for the record.

Durbin noted that both Beck, who he jokingly called a “political adviser,” and Hutchison had come up with the same number of czars, 32, which included positions that are confirmed by the Senate.

“Who’s going to define who is covered by your amendment?” Durbin implored. He also noted that the workload the Collins amendment would have imposed on the czars would be onerous.

But Democrats earlier in the week appeared to be on the cusp of accepting the amendment without objection.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., manager of the Interior spending bill, had told Collins that Democrats were prepared to include her amendment, though one objection had popped up. At the time, Collins told FOX News that it appeared to be a simple misunderstanding.

Soon after, it became clear the White House had objections. Feinstein told FOX News on Thursday that the White House had told her to back off.

“It’s a huge separation of powers issue,” the California Democrat said. “I had no idea.”

Durbin listed czars used by former President Bush, as well, which he said numbered 47, though Collins appeared to disagree, saying “there wasn’t this kind of proliferation” under Bush. Collins said her effort would be the same no matter who occupied the White House.

“Regardless of whether it’s a Democratic president or a Republican president, a Democratic Congress or a Republican Congress, I think this is an institutional issue,” she said. “And I think all of us as members of Congress should be very concerned about organizational structures that make it impossible for us to conduct productive, conventional oversight.”

Durbin refused to bend and instead offered a consolation prize.

“The good news is this: Our trusted friend Joe Lieberman (chairman of the committee on which Collins serves)…has promised a hearing on this issue,” he said.”

Medal of Honor

Official Citation: “For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty:

Staff Sergeant Jared C. Monti distinguished himself by acts of gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty while serving as a team leader with Headquarters and Headquarters Troop, 3d Squadron, 71st Cavalry Regiment, 3d Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, in connection with combat operations against an armed enemy in Nuristan Province, Afghanistan, on June 21, 2006.

While Staff Sergeant Monti was leading a mission aimed at gathering intelligence and directing fire against the enemy, his 16-man patrol was attacked by as many as 50 enemy fighters. On the verge of being overrun, Staff Sergeant Monti quickly directed his men to set up a defensive position behind a rock formation. He then called for indirect fire support, accurately targeting the rounds upon the enemy who had closed to within 50 meters of his position. While still directing fire, Staff Sergeant Monti personally engaged the enemy with his rifle and a grenade, successfully disrupting an attempt to flank his patrol. Staff Sergeant Monti then realized that one of his Soldiers was lying wounded in the open ground between the advancing enemy and the patrol’s position.

With complete disregard for his own safety, Staff Sergeant Monti twice attempted to move from behind the cover of the rocks into the face of relentless enemy fire to rescue his fallen comrade. Determined not to leave his Soldier, Staff Sergeant Monti made a third attempt to cross open terrain through intense enemy fire. On this final attempt, he was mortally wounded, sacrificing his own life in an effort to save his fellow Soldier.

Staff Sergeant Monti’s selfless acts of heroism inspired his patrol to fight off the larger enemy force. Staff Sergeant Monti’s immeasurable courage and uncommon valor are in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit upon himself, Headquarters and Headquarters Troop, 3rd Squadron, 71st Cavalry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, and the United States Army.”

Straight from Fox News: “President Obama awarded the military’s highest honor to a soldier who died trying to save his wounded comrade in Afghanistan — saying Sgt. First Class Jared C. Monti personified the values of honor and heroism.

Obama presented the prestigious Medal of Honor award to Monti’s parents during a ceremony in the East Room of the White House.

Monti of Raynham, Mass., died in Afghanistan on June 21, 2006, while trying to save a young private who was wounded. Obama said the fallen soldier “did something no amount of training can instill.”

In an interview with FOXNews.com Thursday, Monti’s mother, Janet, said the award is a “tremendous honor,” but she called the ceremony “bittersweet.”

“We’re very proud of him, but we’re also very sad,” she said.

Monti’s platoon — part of the 3rd Squadron, 71st Cavalry Regiment — was on an intelligence-gathering patrol when it was ambushed by more than 60 insurgents in Afghanistan’s Nuristan province. After calling in artillery support and directing his men’s return fire, Monti braved withering enemy fire to try to pull the comrade to safety from an exposed position. Monti, who was 31, was mortally wounded on the third attempt.

Janet Monti described her son’s innate selflessness and desire to help others, saying he “would always stick up for the underdog.” She recounted a story in which her son rescued a group of children who were being taunted by Albanian youths while he was stationed in Kosovo.

“He picked the children up in his Humvee and drove them to school,” she said. “He had so much compassion.”

Embattled U.S. troops in northeastern Afghanistan also paid homage to Monti Thursday by officially rededicating their isolated outpost in the Hindu Kush Mountains in his name.

Thursday’s ceremony in Afghanistan, at Combat Operations Post Monti in Kunar province, was attended by about 50 soldiers not on duty. It was preceded by artillery fire on nearby mountain ridges to ward off Taliban gunmen who mortar and rocket the post.

“Most of us didn’t know him personally and most of us will know him only by his citation,” Maj. Pete Granger, executive officer of the 1st Battalion, 32nd Infantry Regiment, said before a large plaque was unveiled in Monti’s honor.

“We honor his memory by continuing to fight for the same things he believed in: his soldiers, his family, his friends and his country.”

Nuristan Province, like Kunar province, earned a reputation as the “cradle of Jihad” in the 1980s’ mujahideen war against Soviet occupation forces. And the reputation sticks. Taliban insurgents use the rugged regions close to the Pakistani border as transit areas to and from central Afghanistan.

“He was a real hard-nosed NCO (non-commissioned officer),” Staff Sgt. Matthew Wolfanger, who was a member of Monti’s unit, told FOXNews.com. “He really demanded a lot out of his guys … but in the end we loved him for it because he took us from soldiers who were kinda just going through the motions doing our jobs to guys who were passionate about what we were doing.

“He brought the best out of us. We wanted to be the best because of him. He absolutely loved what he did, and he loved us, his soldiers.”

Wolfanger, 25, the keynote speaker at Thursday’s Afghanistan ceremony, said he wasn’t tasked to go on Monti’s fatal mission, but he and others listened in on the radio traffic.

“I knew it was bad from what they were saying, but it didn’t really go through my mind that my friends were out there and could actually be hurt. But at the end of it, when they said they had wounded and a KIA (killed in action) … you know … and they gave the roster numbers (of casualties) ….”

Wolfanger never finished the sentence.

The Medal of Honor, he said in prepared remarks, is “final confirmation of something that he had been to his soldiers all along, a hero.””

It's time... to have some patience!

Straight from Fox News: “The White House on Monday tried to calm the controversy over a new report from the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan warning that the United States risks failure in the long-running war without more troops.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that while President Obama has read Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s assessment, he does not expect a formal request for more troops for a “little bit.” And he said the president is not yet focused on resource decisions.

“We’re going to conduct that strategic assessment and do that in a way that lays out the best path forward before we make resource decisions, rather than having this go the other way around where one makes resources decisions and then finds a strategy. That’s not what we’re doing,” Gibbs said.

While Republicans are pressing for more troops, the prospect of a greater U.S. presence in Afghanistan makes Democrats uneasy.

But McChrystal warned about the risk of ignoring the need for more troops in a five-page Commander’s Summary.

“Resources will not win this war, but under-resourcing could lose it,” he wrote. His 66-page report, sent to Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Aug. 30, is now under review by Obama.

“Although considerable effort and sacrifice have resulted in some progress, many indicators suggest the overall effort is deteriorating,” McChrystal said of the war’s progress.

Geoff Morrell, a deputy assistant secretary of defense for communications issues, said in a statement the assessment “is a classified, pre-decisional document, intended to provide Obama and his national security team with the basis for a very important discussion about where we are now in Afghanistan and how best to get to where we want to be.”

While asserting that more troops are needed, McChrystal also pointed out an “urgent need” to significantly revise strategy. The U.S. needs to interact better with the Afghan people, McChrystal said, and better organize its efforts with NATO allies.

“We run the risk of strategic defeat by pursuing tactical wins that cause civilian casualties or unnecessary collateral damage. The insurgents cannot defeat us militarily; but we can defeat ourselves,” he wrote.

In his blunt assessment of the tenacious Taliban insurgency, McChrystal warned that unless the U.S. and its allies gain the initiative and reverse the momentum of the militants within the next year the U.S. “risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible.”

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., said in a statement that he agrees with the call to revise strategy.

“General McChrystal is attempting to shift our focus toward adopting a revised strategy that will increase the prospects for success of our efforts in Afghanistan. Focusing on the resource question before we accomplish the strategic shift is a mistake General McChrystal is wisely avoiding,” he said. Levin seemed to ignore certain portions of the report that deal with the danger in “under-resourcing” — but he said that challenge should be addressed by expanding the size of the Afghan army and police.

The content of the report was first reported by The Washington Post, which said it withheld publication of portions of the document at the government’s request.

Morrell confirmed the report, but said the Pentagon would not release McChrystal’s assessment.

“While we would have much preferred none of this be made public at this time we appreciate the paper’s willingness to edit out those passages which would likely have endangered personnel and operations in Afghanistan,” Morrell said in an e-mail statement.

The Pentagon and the White House are awaiting a separate, more detailed request for additional troops and resources. Media reports Friday and Saturday said McChrystal has finished it but was told to pocket it, partly because of the charged politics surrounding the decision.

McChrystal’s senior spokesman, Rear Adm. Gregory Smith, told The Associated Press on Sunday the report is not complete.

Obama is re-evaluating whether the renewed focus on hunting Al Qaeda that he announced just months ago has become blurred and whether more forces will do any good.

“Are we doing the right thing?” he asked during one of a series of interviews broadcast Sunday. “Are we pursuing the right strategy?”

A spokesman for Afghanistan’s Defense Ministry said Sunday the Afghan government would not second-guess international military commanders on the need for more troops, but said that the greatest need is actually on the other side of the Afghan-Pakistan border.

“The focus should be on those points and areas where the insurgency is infiltrating Afghanistan,” he said, referring to the Pakistan border region where Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters hide and plan attacks.

In Congress, the war has taken on a highly partisan edge. Senate Republicans are demanding more forces to turn around a war that soon will enter its ninth year, while members of Obama’s own Democratic Party are trying to put on the brakes. Obama said in the Sunday interviews that he will not allow politics to govern his decision.

Nor has the president asked his top commander in Afghanistan to sit on a request for U.S. reinforcements in a backsliding war.

“No, no, no, no,” Obama responded when asked whether he or aides had directed McChrystal to temporarily withhold a request for additional U.S. forces and other resources.

But he gave no deadline for making a decision about whether to send more Americans into harm’s way.

“The only thing I’ve said to my folks is, ‘A, I want an unvarnished assessment, but, B, I don’t want to put the resource question before the strategy question,”‘ Obama said. “Because there is a natural inclination to say, ‘If I get more, then I can do more.”‘

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress last week he expected McChrystal’s request for additional forces and other resources “in the very near future.”

The White House has remained vague about how long it would take to receive the report and act on it.

Obama spoke on CNN’s “State of the Union,” ABC’s “This Week,” NBC’s “Meet the Press,” and CBS’ “Face the Nation.”"

ACORN

Straight from Fox News: “ACORN, in response to an undercover expose of potential wrongdoing by some employees, pledged Wednesday to follow through on plans to conduct a thorough internal review of its practices — on the same day that the organization filed a lawsuit against the filmmakers whose hidden-camera sting brought the community organization to its knees.

The lawsuit, filed in a Baltimore court, stems from an undercover video showing ACORN employees Shera Williams and Tonja Thompson providing advice to two filmmakers posing as a pimp and prostitute on how to skirt tax laws.

The filmmakers, James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles, are named as defendants in the lawsuit, along with Breitbart.com, a Web site managed by conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart, which posted the videos. Breitbart released five similar videos that O’Keefe and Giles recorded in ACORN offices in Washington, D.C.; Brooklyn, N.Y.; San Bernadino, Calif., and San Diego, as well as the Baltimore office.

The videos prompted the Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office to launch a criminal investigation, the U.S. Census Bureau to several ties with ACORN and ACORN to fire four of the employees shown in the videos. And on Wednesday, the Internal Revenue Service announced it also was severing ties with the organization.

The IRS said it would no longer include ACORN in its volunteer tax assistance program. The program offered free tax advice to about 3 million low- and moderate-income tax filers this spring. ACORN provided help on about 25,000 returns, the IRS said.

Darrell Issa, R-Calif., issued a statement following the announcement, saying “ACORN’s failure to institute firewalls between its charitable and political activities have raised significant questions surrounding its management of federal dollars. Cutting ties is the first step, but cannot be the last one.”

“Self-investigation is not a sufficient substitute for action by the Congress, which is why I have written to the Chairman of the Oversight and Judiciary Committees to request that they convene immediate hearings into ACORN’s activities.”

But ACORN says no tax returns were actually prepared at the Baltimore office, and that the audio portion of the video recorded there was obtained illegally, since Maryland requires two-party consent for sound recordings. The multimillion-dollar lawsuit cites “extreme emotional distress” on behalf of two workers who were fired after the video was posted online.

The videos were “clear violations of Maryland law that were intended to inflict maximum damage to the reputation of ACORN, the nation’s largest grassroots organizer of low-income and minority Americans,” said ACORN attorney Arthur Schwartz. “Unfortunately they succeeded.”

At the same time, ACORN is moving forward with its pledge to review its operations. The Boston attorney hired by ACORN to conduct an independent probe of the group vowed a “no holds barred” investigation on Wednesday.

“My name is on the line and so is the name of my firm, so we will call this as we see them,” Scott Harshbarger told reporters on a conference call.

Harshbarger, the former attorney general of Massachusetts now serving as senior counsel at Proskauer Rose LLP, was hired Tuesday to lead an “independent and comprehensive” internal investigation into ACORN’s activities — a decision that was met with skepticism from some members of Congress, including one lawmaker who has repeatedly called for hearings into the use of taxpayer funds.

Harshbarger said the probe had not yet begun as of Wednesday and said there was no “specific timetable” for its completion.

ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis, who joined Harshbarger on the conference call, said the organization was “very, very serious” about the review and vowed to “set things straight” following the release of five hidden-camera videos.

“We were just as shocked and horrified as the American public was,” Lewis told reporters of the conduct seen on the videotapes. “I will not tolerate such behavior. It is incumbent upon me and my board to set things straight.”

Lewis said ACORN officials are cooperating with law enforcement agencies, adding that no subpoenas had been received by the organization as of Wednesday.

Meanwhile, House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith, R-Texas, and House Oversight and Issa called on the Government Accountability Office to investigate whether ACORN misused federal funds.

In a letter sent to GAO Comptroller General Gene Dodaro on Wednesday, Smith and Issa expressed concern that millions of taxpayer dollars may have been used to support criminal efforts by the organization.

“Congress cannot ignore allegations that federal funds are being used by an organization involved in criminal conduct,” the letter read. “American taxpayers are rightly outraged and Congress has a responsibility to act. We need a full investigation into ACORN’s use of federal funds and we need the Democratic-led Congress to put a bill on the President’s desk to ensure that no future funds are received by ACORN.”

The letter continued, “ACORN has a long history of ignoring federal laws. No organization with that kind of a record should benefit from American taxpayer dollars.”

ACORN said on Sept. 16 it would stop any “new intakes” — essentially closing its doors to new clients — until it completed an internal investigation prompted by the release of five hidden-camera videos that depicted workers advising a fake pimp and prostitute to lie to get loans for a brothel.

The scandal drew criticism from the Obama administration last week as White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs called the conduct depicted on the four videos “completely unacceptable.”

“The administration takes the accountability very seriously,” Gibbs told reporters.

In addition to a Justice Department watchdog’s probe into whether ACORN has applied for or received DOJ grant money, ACORN announced on Monday that it has suspended all 2009 tax preparation services.”

ACORN

Straight from Fox News: “Republicans succeeded in drawing overwhelming support from Democrats Thursday to eliminate federal funding to a now-scandalized ACORN, the community organizing group that has come under heavy fire in the wake of damaging undercover videos that purport to show counselors giving advice on tax fraud to a “pimp” and “prostitute.”

The House voted 345-75 to strike ACORN funding from a student aid bill with two voting present.

Later, the Senate voted 85-11 to eliminate ACORN funding from an Interior Department spending bill.

In the House, the Defund ACORN Act prohibits any “federal contract grant, cooperative agreement or any other form of agreement (including a memorandum of understanding” from being awarded to or entered into with the group. It also prohibits federal funds “in any other form” from being provided.

In the Senate, the Protect Taxpayers from ACORN Act blocks the group from receiving taxpayer dollars.

Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, suggested the House vote is essentially symbolic because the student aid bill did not actually provide any funding to ACORN.

However, the language refers to all federal contracts so it applies to any federal money.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., who introduced the “motion to recommit” attached to the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009, said the decision followed a similar Senate vote on Monday and the Census Bureau’s decision last week to cut ties to the group.

“The battle, however, to deny ACORN federal funding is not over until the president signs the bill into law. ACORN gave significant support to Democrats and Americans must remain vigilant to avoid backtracking or efforts to water down prohibitions denying Federal funds to this corrupt organization,” said

House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, R-Va., applauded the vote.

“ACORN has violated serious federal laws, and today, the House voted to ensure that taxpayer dollars would no longer be used to fund this corrupt organization,” he said in a written statement. “All federal ties should be severed with ACORN, and the FBI should investigate its activity.

“This united Republican effort to defund ACORN is a victory for the rule of law and taxpayers across the country.”

But Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y. called the ACORN measure, which he voted against “flatly unconstitutional” and said it “threatens any organization disliked by Congress.”

“Congress must not be in the business of punishing individual organizations or people without trial, and that’s what this Amendment does,” he said in a written statement. “Whatever one may think of the organization, the Constitution’s clear ban on Bills of Attainder is there for the protection of all of our liberties.”

Democrats offered overwhelming support to the ACORN measure because they didn’t want to derail the student aid bill, senior House sources told FOX News. And the measure still has to be approved by the Senate — a process that will be complicated by the differences in its bill that  blocked federal funds to ACORN.

Miller said he allowed the ACORN measure to hit the floor despite its irrelevance to the student aid bill because he was “comfortable with giving members a vote on that issue and advance the legislation.”

He also said that whether or not ACORN would be defunded was “somewhat above my paygrade.”

Whether symbolic or not, the vote gives Republicans more momentum as they continue to keep the pressure on ACORN, which is on its heels. It also gave Republicans a move to force Democrats, who control the House, to vote on an issue that may leave some of them vulnerable in next year’s mid-term elections.

Republicans now have the firepower to run ads highlighting this vote, saying: “This lawmaker voted against defunding ACORN.” The 75 lawmakers who voted “no” and two who voted “present” were all Democrats.

But at least one Democrat who did vote to strip funding, Rep. Zack Space of Ohio, said he was “outraged” by a series of videos taken by two undercover filmmakers dressed up as a pimp and a prostitute in order to get advice at local ACORN establishments on how to set up a brothel in a way that allowed them to pay taxes and get federal grants for housing.

“I am outraged at the actions of ACORN’s employees and believe they should be penalized to the full extent of the law,” said Space. “Our government must be vigilant in ensuring that organizations that are found to act fraudulently do not receive taxpayer dollars.”"

ACORN

Straight from Fox News: “Police say a worker with the activist group ACORN who was caught on video giving advice about human smuggling to a couple posing as a pimp and a prostitute had reported the incident to authorities.

National City police said Monday that Juan Carlos Vera contacted his cousin, a police detective, to get advice on what to with information on possible human smuggling.

Vera was secretly filmed on Aug. 18 as part of a young couple’s high-profile expose.

Police say he contacted law enforcement two days later. The detective consulted another police official who served on a federal human smuggling task force, who said he needed more details.

The ACORN employee responded several days later and explained that the information he received was not true and he had been duped.

Vera was fired on Thursday.

Meanwhile, an internal watchdog at the Justice Department said Monday he was reviewing the agency’s involvement with ACORN.

Conservatives have called for a criminal investigation of the group.

Inspector General Glenn Fine wrote Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, that his office would examine whether ACORN sought or received any Justice Department grant money, or conducted any reviews of ACORN’s use of such money.

More than a dozen state and local authorities are also scrutinizing ACORN, including Maryland’s attorney general.”

Straight from Fox News: “Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., and Rep. Brian Baird, D-Wash., launched a bipartisan effort Wednesday to require all legislation be made available on the Internet at least 72 hours before a vote on the House floor.

The measure would amend the Rules of the House of Representatives to mandate that all legislation and conference reports be posted in full and online in a format searchable by text, three days before a vote.

Exceptions would be made for classified material, which would continue to be handled under existing laws and rules. The resolution also would require a two-thirds majority vote to waive the 72-hour requirement for a national emergency.

On Wednesday, Walden filed a discharge petition, which requires 218 signatures to bring the legislation up for a vote on the House floor. The bill currently has 98 co-sponsors, including Democrats and Republicans.

Walden and Baird agree this is not about partisan politics. The goal is transparency.

“People always want to know, ‘Have you read these bills?’” Walden said. “Members of Congress, the public and the press all deserve the time to read these bills before we have to vote on them on the House floor. … It doesn’t guarantee good government, but it helps.”

According to Baird, this resolution is about common sense, fair play, and responsible government.

“Most members will benefit from this dramatic improvement,” Baird said.

Walden guaranteed House Republican leadership will support the resolution.

“The American people are angry that Speaker Pelosi didn’t allow the public and their elected representatives to read the trillion-dollar ’stimulus’ bill or the national energy tax before they were rammed through the House. They have every right to be angry,” House Minority Leader John Boehner said in a written statement. (The stimulus bill passed by Congress totaled $787 billion.) “Congress can, and must, do better.”

The legislation was initially introduced by Baird in June. He has introduced it in each of the last three Congresses. Walden has also been a co-sponsor in the past.

Congressmen John Culberson (R-TX) and Walt Minnick (D-ID) are also helping lead the effort.

Culberson sees this as a step towards “real-time democracy.” He also plans to use online technology to solicit contributions from his contituents on the health care bill.

“The Internet is the greatest truth detector ever invented,” Culberson said. “Where you have transparency, you have trust.”"

Ares I-X

Straight from Fox News: “NASA’s first version of the rocket slated to replace the space shuttle and send astronauts back to the moon will make its debut test launch Oct. 27, four days early, the space agency announced Tuesday.

The rocket, a demonstration booster called Ares I-X, was previously scheduled to blast off Oct. 31, but engineers preparing the booster were able to complete work in time for the earlier liftoff, NASA officials said. Launch is set for 8:00 a.m. EDT (1200 GMT) on Tuesday, Oct. 27 from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

“They are doing a launch countdown simulation today,” NASA spokesperson Amber Philman told SPACE.com from the spaceport. “That’s ongoing as we speak.”

Philman said the current launch target must still be finalized by mission managers during a series of review meetings in coming weeks. Engineers padded their work schedule by two full weeks to handle any unexpected glitches while priming Ares I-X for an Oct. 31 flight, but ultimately did not need some of that buffer, which allowed the earlier date, she added.

NASA’s new rocket

The Ares I rocket is a two-stage booster designed to launch the Orion spacecraft, which NASA plans to replace its three aging space shuttles once they retire in the next year or two. It stands about 327 feet (100 meters) tall – 14 stories higher than launch-ready shuttles – when fully assembled.

NASA has said that the rocket and its Orion vehicles will not be ready to ferry astronauts to orbit until at least 2015, but a White House-appointed committee that evaluated the agency’s exploration plans this summer has said that date could likely slip to 2017.

The committee has submitted a set of five options to overhaul NASA’s spaceflight plan for President Barack Obama’s review. Some of them do not include the Ares I rocket. NASA’s vision of returning astronauts to the moon by 2020 is critically underfunded and would require at least $3 billion a year in extra funding just to meet the lunar goal by the mid-2020s, the committee has said.

Earlier this year, NASA had hoped to launch the Ares I-X flight in July or August, but had to push the test back several times. Not so for the Oct. 27 target, Philman said.

“Everything is looking good with the hardware,” Philman said. “They’ve done the power up of the vehicle and that test went well.”

The Ares I’s first stage is a giant solid rocket similar to the four-segment boosters used to launch NASA space shuttles, but with an extra fifth segment for more power. The second stage is a liquid-fueled engine that would push Orion capsules to orbit.

NASA conducted the first successful test firing of the Ares I rocket’s first stage on Sept. 10.

For the Ares I-X test flight, NASA has built a four-segment first stage capped with a dummy fifth segment, as well as a dummy second stage. The launch is designed to demonstrate the rocket’s launch concept, ground processing and stage separation.

The test flight is expected to reach an altitude of about 25 miles (40 km) in about two minutes, with 700 onboard sensors recording its performance. After the first stage separates, the dummy upper stage and Orion simulator will crash into the Atlantic Ocean.

NASA plans to roll the Ares I-X rocket out to Launch Pad 39B at the Kennedy Space Center on Oct. 19. The pad has been refitted to host the Ares I-X rocket with the finishing touches to be completed by next week.

“They should be ready at the pad by the end of the month,” Philman said”

Obama Wants You To Chill!

Straight from Fox News: “In declaring that it is time for Middle East peace “without preconditions,” President Obama used his speech to the U.N. General Assembly Wednesday to fire a warning at Israel that “America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.”

Obama’s stark declaration, which drew applause, was coupled with a call for Palestinians to end their “incitement of Israel.”

But it was the use of the U.N. forum to carry the settlement message to Israel that drew the most enthusiastic response on the floor — and incredulous reaction outside its walls.

Obama just put Israel “on the chopping block,” said former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton.

Obama said he met Tuesday with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was not in attendance at the speech, and agreed that the two have made some progress in both strengthening security and facilitating freedom of movement, which have allowed the economy in the West Bank to grow.

But more progress is needed, he said.

“We continue to call on Palestinians to end incitement against Israel, and we continue to emphasize that America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements,” he said.

Obama said four issues separate the two sides: security, borders, refugees and Jerusalem, but the goal is clear: a secure, Jewish state for Israel and “a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967.”

He also said a new order is needed in dealing with the dispute.

“The United States does Israel no favors when we fail to couple an unwavering commitment to its security with an insistence that Israel respect the legitimate claims and rights of the Palestinians. And nations within this body do the Palestinians no favors when they choose vitriolic attacks over a constructive willingness to recognize Israel’s legitimacy, and its right to exist in peace and security,” he said.

In his first speech to the world body, Obama applied his campaign slogan to the international community and challenged the global community to step up and fix the world’s problems both at home and abroad.

He said it is no longer plausible to be bad actors and then blame the United States.

“The people of the world want change,” he said, noting that “just as no nation should be forced to accept the tyranny of another nation, no individual should be forced to accept the tyranny of their own government.”

The world’s problems are not “solely America’s endeavor,” Obama said, noting the threats from poverty, global warming, disease pandemics and overpopulation.

“Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world’s problems alone,” Obama said.

Obama said he’s led by example by prohibiting torture of detainees and ordering the closure of the military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He added that he is committed to removing all U.S. troops from Iraq by 2011 and is working to reach the goal of “a world without nuclear weapons.”

He said the G-20 industrialized nations have spent $2 trillion to keep the world from the brink of an economic collapse, and the U.S. has demonstrated its commitment to the world body by paying its bills and joining the Human Rights Council.

“Nothing is easier than blaming others for our troubles and absolving ourselves of responsibility for our choices and our actions. Anyone can do that. Responsibility and leadership in the 21st century demands more. In an era when our destiny is shared, power is no longer a zero sum game. No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold,” he said.

Speaking to the 59th opening session of the U.N. General Assembly, Obama laid out four pillars for the world community — peace in the Mideast and elsewhere, a reduction in nuclear weapons, preservation of the environment and global economic opportunity.

Obama said he wants a post-atomic age, and he will hold countries accountable for threatening the rest of the globe with nuclear weapons as the United States tries to reduce its arsenal.

Saying the United States will work with Russia to reduce its strategic warheads through an update of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, Obama pledged to move to ratify the Test Ban Treaty, work with others so that “nuclear testing is permanently prohibited,” begin negotiations in January on a treaty to end fissile material production and host a summit in April that reaffirms each nation’s responsibility to secure nuclear material on its territory.

Obama said he was not going to single out any nation, but in the next sentence he called out North Korea and Iran as threats to world cooperation.

“Those nations that refuse to live up to their obligations must face consequences. This is not about singling out individual nations — it is about standing up for the rights of all nations that do live up to their responsibilities,” he said, adding “the governments of North Korea and Iran threaten to take us down this dangerous slope.”

“I am committed to diplomacy that opens a path to greater prosperity and a more secure peace for both nations if they live up to their obligations. … But if the governments of Iran and North Korea choose to ignore international standards … then they must be held accountable.”

As Obama spoke, Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi, who followed Obama in delivering a speech from the dais, scribbled notes as he listened to the U.S. president through a translation ear piece. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also sat in the chamber, his hands cusped together in his lap. He did not take notes. Neither applauded during the speech, though Qaddafi clapped when the president ended his remarks. Ahmadinejad did not.

In his 38-minute speech, Obama pressed the world to cooperate on carbon emissions reduction, saying the “wealthy nations that did so much to damage the environment in the 20th century must accept our obligation to lead” but “the fast-growing carbon emitters who can do more to reduce their air pollution without inhibiting growth.”

Obama also pledged continued aid through the Global Fund to fight HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and polio, and by contributions of H1N1 vaccines to the World Health Organization.

He also talked about greater integration of economies through global trade and the Millennium Development Goals.

“Now is the time for all of us to do our part. Growth will not be sustained or shared unless all nations embrace their responsibility. Wealthy nations must open their markets to more goods and extend a hand to those with less, while reforming international institutions to give more nations a greater voice. Developing nations must root out the corruption that is an obstacle to progress …  That’s why we will support honest police and independent judges; civil society and a vibrant private sector,” he said.”

Obama wants you to be healthy!

Straight from Fox News: “President Barack Obama said he is confident Congress will pass “a good health care bill,” as months of rancor over reforming the nation’s health care system seemed to be easing Sunday, with the White House playing down an immediate role for a government insurance option.

At the same time, Obama was critical of Republican opponents who he said were trying to block an overhaul of the nation’s health care system for political gain.

“I believe that we will have enough votes to pass not just any health care bill, but a good health care bill that helps the American people, reduces costs, actually over the long-term controls our deficit. I’m confident that we’ve got that,” Obama said in an interview broadcast Sunday on CBS’ “60 Minutes. “There are those in the Republican party who think the best thing to do is just to kill reform. That that will be good politics.”

Obama has retaken the offensive on his key domestic policy issue, most notably with a speech last week to both houses of Congress. And sought to turn down the heat over a government-run health insurance plan.

“The public option is only a means to that end and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal,” he said.

Obama is trying to push opposing lawmakers away from positions — both left and right — that were threatening stalemate. That’s what happened when Bill Clinton, the last Democratic president, tried to push through an overhaul in the 1990s.

Obama’s spokesman, Robert Gibbs, drove home that point again Sunday.

The president “prefers the public option,” Gibbs said. “However, he said what’s most important is choice and competition.”

And Sen. Olympia Snowe, the Maine Republican who could be the party’s only senator who votes with Democrats, believes choice and competition can be ensured without the public option.

“It’s not on the table. And it won’t be,” she said Sunday. “We’ll be using the co-op as an option at this point, as the means for injecting competition in the process,” she said.

Snowe sits on a six-member panel — three from each party — of the Senate Finance Committee that is writing a version of the health care overhaul bill.

Instead of the government running a program that provides low-cost health insurance, Snowe and fellow negotiators are considering a not-for-profit cooperative system. Those backing the measure contend it would substantially lower health insurance premiums by cutting out private-industry profits and guarantee coverage to all who want it.

Such systems exist in some areas of the country but their success has been spotty.

And Obama will have to be convinced that such a plan can succeed.

“I have no interest in having a bill get passed that fails. That doesn’t work,” Obama told CBS. “You know, I intend to be president for a while and once this bill passes, I own it.”

Obama wants to make sure that any overhaul imposes strict measures to ban companies from refusing insurance to people with existing medical conditions, dropping coverage when policyholders become ill and imposing caps on what a person can claim for one illness or in his lifetime.

He told CBS he didn’t want Americans to say in the future: “‘You know what? This hasn’t reduced my costs. My premiums are still going up 25 percent, insurance companies are still jerking me around.’

“I’m the one who’s going to be held responsible,” Obama said. “So I have every incentive to get this right.”

Obama is trying to sweeten the deal for Republicans by indicating he is open to their ideas.

In his Wednesday speech and again in the CBS interview, the president signaled he was open the idea of so-called tort reform. Under current practice, doctors and hospitals must pay huge amounts to insure themselves against malpractice lawsuits by patients seeking large court-ordered settlements for poor treatment.

Democrats, thanks to heavy backing from lawyers, have not supported Republican efforts to limit such payments. Doctors — and Republican politicians — say the current system drives up costs through unneeded medical procedures ordered by physicians who fear being sued.

“I would be willing to … consider any ideas out there that would actually work in terms of reducing costs, improving the quality of patient care,” Obama said in the Sunday interview, which was taped Friday.

While he said he did not back limits on court-ordered rewards for malpractice, he said “there are a range of ideas that are out there, offered by doctors’ organizations like the AMA (American Medical Association), that I think we can explore.”

Gibbs spoke on CNN’s “State of the Union.” Snowe appeared on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”"

Reaper Drone

Straight from Fox News: “The U.S. believes Central Intelligence Agency drone attacks have killed two prominent Islamic militant figures in Pakistan affiliated with Al Qaeda, one of whom was on the U.S.’s list of top 20 targets, according to officials briefed on the matter.

One drone attack Monday is believed to have killed the leader of the Islamic Jihad Union, Najmiddin Kamolitdinovich Jalolov, an Uzbek native implicated in terrorist plots and attacks in Germany and Uzbekistan. Officials said they are almost certain he was killed, though a DNA test hasn’t yet been performed.

A drone attack on Sept. 7 appeared to have killed another prominent Islamic militant, Ilyas Kashmiri, who had been briefly detained in Pakistan for alleged involvement in a 2003 assassination attempt against then-Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf. There is less certainty about his death, however.

The two men are “solid midlevel commanders,” said Bruce Hoffman, a Georgetown University professor who specializes in terrorism. Targeting middle-level officers is important, he said, because “when you do kill the senior commanders, there’s no one to fill their shoes.”

CIA drone attacks intensified in the early months of the Obama administration. A drone last month claimed Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud, who was believed to have been responsible for the assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.”

Obama wants you to be healthy!

Straight from Fox News: “Health care policy researchers are contradicting President Obama’s claim that a government-run health insurance program would be self-sufficient and could rely on premiums, saying it’s not possible to insure up to 30 million people with better coverage and reduce costs at the same time.

“The numbers don’t hold up,” Grace Marie Turner, president of the Galen Institute, a think tank devoted to health policy, said Thursday.

In his case to the joint session of Congress Wednesday night, Obama cited the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office to contend that less than 5 percent of Americans would sign up for a so-called public option.

The July report by the CBO projected that 6 million people would enroll in a government-run program, considerably fewer than the 100 million estimated by The Lewin Group, a health care policy research group, or the 47 million predicted by the left-leaning Urban Institute.

The CBO offered its figure as part of an evaluation of one of the four congressional health bills floating through Congress right now. Asked whether a public plan would draw a significant number of Americans covered by private insurance, the congressional budget arm acknowledged that larger companies were not included in the assumptions.

The CBO added that because several factors are uncertain, “estimating enrollment in the public plan is especially difficult.”

Speaking Thursday, Obama repeated his claim that the cost of the plan — estimated at $900 billion over 10 years — will not add to the deficit. He also said that slowing the growth of health care costs will reduce the deficit by $4 trillion “over the long term.”

“That’s real money,” he said of the $90 billion per year price tag. “But it’s far less than we’ve spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.”

At a separate event, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters that half the bill “will be paid for by squeezing excesses out of the system” by finding $500 billion in reduced waste, fraud, abuse and redundancy. The rest will be paid for in pay-as-you-go funding and cuts in other spending.

“Squeeze it out of the system, and that means out of the providers and the rest as well,” she said.

She added that despite the price tag, there’s no limit on the help people will receive.

“There’s a cap on what you pay in in premiums. There’s no cap on what you receive back,” Pelosi added.

Turner said a self-sustaining model will depend, among other things, on the cost of the premiums and who’s eligible. She added that in his assessment, the president doesn’t account for the initial $7 billion to $8 billion of taxpayer money it may cost to launch the plan or whether taxpayers would bail out the public plan if it falls into financial trouble.

“There’s too many unknowns to make a claim like that,” she said of the president’s estimates.

The renewed push for new health care legislation came as the Census Bureau reported Thursday that the number of people without health insurance rose to 46.3 million in 2008, up from 45.7 million in 2007. The bureau’s total was attributed to a continuing erosion of employer-provided insurance as a result of job losses. The number also includes illegal immigrants whom Obama insists are not covered under his proposed plan.

Robert Moffit, director of the Center of Health Policy Study at the conservative Heritage Foundation, expressed doubt that a public plan would or could be self-reliant.

“I don’t know what government program is self-sufficient,” Moffit told FOXNews.com. “It’s conceivable. It’s theoretically possible. You can imagine an alternative universe not run by [Democratic House leaders] Henry Waxman, Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer where such a thing exists. But on planet Earth, it’s highly unlikely.”

Moffit also questioned the purpose of having a public plan if less than 5 percent of Americans enrolled.

“Why would we need it?” he asked. “You’re not keeping private insurers honest. At the end of the day, that is the elephant giving birth to the flea.”"