Karzai says Afghanistan doesn't need US troops

In his final address to Afghanistan's parliament Saturday, President Hamid Karzai told the United States its soldiers can leave at the end of the year because his military, which already protects 93 percent of the country, was ready to take over entirely.
He reiterated his stance that he would not sign a pact with the United States that would provide for a residual force of U.S. troops to remain behind after the final withdrawal, unless peace could first be established.
The Afghan president has come under heavy pressure to sign the Bilateral Security Agreement, with a council of notables that he himself convened recommend that he sign the pact. The force would train and mentor Afghan troops, and some U.S. Special Forces would also be left behind to hunt down Al Qaeda.
All 10 candidates seeking the presidency in April 5 elections have said they would sign the security agreement. But Karzai himself does not appear to want his legacy to include a commitment to a longer foreign troop presence in his country.
Karzai was brought to power in the wake of the 2001 U.S.-led invasion and subsequently won two presidential elections ---- in 2004 and again in 2009. But he has in recent years espoused a combatative nationalism, with his hour-long speech Saturday no exception.
"I want to say to all those foreign countries who maybe out of habit or because they want to interfere, that they should not interfere," he said.
Karzai said the war in Afghanistan was "imposed" on his nation, presumably by the 2001 invasion, and told the United States it could bring peace to Afghanistan if it went after terrorist sanctuaries and countries that supported terrorism, a reference to Pakistan.
Pakistan has a complicated relationship with the Taliban. It backed the group before their 2001 overthrow, and although now it is at war with its own militants, Afghan insurgents sometimes find refuge on its territory.
Karzai told parliament, which was holding its opening session for this term, that security forces were strong enough to defend Afghanistan without the help of international troops.
Karzai steps down after next month's presidential elections. Under Afghanistan's constitution, he is banned from seeking a third term.
He came to power in December 2001 following an international agreement signed in Bonn, Germany, and was confirmed by a Loya Jirga or grand council that selected a transitional government to rule while preparing for nationwide elections. He subsequently won two presidential elections.
Relations between Karzai and the United States have been on a downward spiral since his re-election in 2009, in which the United States and several other countries charged widespread fraud. Karzai in turn accused them of interference.
In his speech Karzai again urged Taliban insurgents to join the peace process, while accusing Pakistan of protecting the Taliban leadership. He suggested that Pakistan was behind the killing earlier this year of a Taliban leader who supported the peace process. No one has taken responsibility for the attack.
Throughout his speech Karzai spoke of his accomplishments over the last 12 years, saying schools were functioning, rights were being given to women, energy projects were coming online and the Afghan currency had been stabilized.  Karzai said that when he first took power his country was isolated and nothing was functioning.
"I know the future president will protect these gains and priorities and will do the best for peace in the country and I, as an Afghan citizen, will support peace and will cooperate."
Afghanistan's current parliament plans to tackle a number of key issues, including a controversial law on the elimination of violence against women.
Meanwhile the Taliban released two Afghan army personnel, captured during last month's deadly raids on two military check points, the Ministry of Defense said in a statement Saturday. The men were freed after elders in the region interceded on their behalf and the military agreed to hand over to the Taliban the bodies of their colleagues left behind on the battlefield.
The attacks on Feb. 23 left 21 Afghan army personnel dead. Several insurgents were also killed.

US plans to give up oversight of web domain manager

Like a lot of things Obama has done since he has been president, this act shows how stupid him and his buddies in the U.S. Government are.(Bailey)
The U.S. government plans to give up control over the body that manages Internet names and addresses, a move that could bring more international cooperation over management of the Web, but will make some U.S. businesses nervous.
The Commerce Department said Friday it plans to relinquish its oversight of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or Icann, which manages a number of technical functions that serve as signposts to help computers locate the correct servers and websites.
The action is viewed as a response to increasing international concern about U.S. control over the Internet's structure, particularly in light of the recent disclosures about surveillance by the NSA and other U.S. intelligence agencies.

"If you hand over domain-name registration to someone who doesn't want certain classes of domains registered, then you're setting up a censorship structure"

Other governments have complained that the department's contract with Icann gives the U.S. unique influence over the Web, which it could use for a wide variety of purposes. In response to those concerns, the Obama administration is convening a process to create a new oversight structure for Icann when the current contract runs out in September 2015.
Alan Marcus, senior director of the World Economic Forum, said "the NSA tarnished the U.S. stewardship" of the Web. Mr. Marcus said the U.S. needs to relinquish control over the Web before new leadership can emerge. "There are real issues that get clouded" by U.S. leadership, he said.
The action had been debated among technologists and policy makers, but the prospect of the U.S. relinquishing control concerns some businesses because of the potential for censorship.
"If you hand over domain-name registration to someone who doesn't want certain classes of domains registered, then you're setting up a censorship structure," said Bill Reinsch, president of the National Foreign Trade Council, which represents businesses.

Tom Steyer

HealthCare.gov shoppers may get enrollment extension

The Obama administration is planning a workaround to the health care law that would extend the March 31 enrollment deadline for health care coverage for some users if technical glitches prevent them from signing up on HealthCare.gov, The Wall Street Journal reported.
Under the plan, people who can demonstrate that they were unable to sign up for coverage before the deadline because of website problems would be able to sign up after March 31, officials familiar with the matter told the newspaper.
Details of the workaround are still being hammered out, including how long the special sign-up period would last and what documentation people might need to offer as proof they were blocked by glitches, the officials told The Journal.
On Wednesday, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius alluded to a possible workaround plan, telling a congressional panel that if potential enrollees were blocked from signing up that "they will have a special enrollment."
An HHS official on Friday declined to comment directly on planning for the workaround but said the agency would monitor HealthCare.gov's operations closely and "respond appropriately," according to The Journal.
Enrollment for the current year expires on March 31, and administration officials are hoping for a late rush of applications beyond the 4.2 million they claim have already signed up. That is particularly true for younger people, whose health is often good and whose participation therefore helps bring down the cost of coverage for sicker people.
Kurt DelBene, a former Microsoft executive who took over the management of HealthCare.gov in December, told The Journal that three site failures stemming from server problems between March 6 and 14 were brief outages that were quickly resolved. 
"We are confident that…we have enough capacity in the system to enroll everyone who wants to get coverage on March 31," he told the newspaper.
President Obama on Friday played pitchman in a 30-minute interview with WebMD, reeling off the toll-free telephone number for the program and repeatedly urging his listeners to check out its website, now repaired after its woeful debut last fall.
"We look forward to seeing more and more people take advantage as some of the politics of the thing get drained away, as people start feeling more confident about the website," the president told WebMD in his latest bid to spread the gospel about the law.
The president's remarks came as the GOP-led House held the 51st vote in 38 months to repeal or undermine the law. The measure calls for a delay in imposing penalties on individuals who fail to purchase health care under the law.
The vote was 238-181, with all Republicans in favor and all but a dozen Democrats opposed. The bill faces certain death in the Democratic-controlled Senate.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Justice Department reportedly blocked FBI probe over Reid, Lee accusations

The Justice Department reportedly has blocked the FBI from launching a federal probe into accusations involving Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, leaving agents to work with local prosecutors to examine the evidence on the side. 
The Washington Times reported Friday that two local Utah prosecutors, one Democrat and one Republican, are now working on a wide-ranging corruption investigation. As part of that, they apparently uncovered accusations of wrongdoing by the two U.S. senators. 
But the Justice Department reportedly blocked FBI agents from using a federal grand jury and subpoenas to test whether they or other officials committed any violations. 
Both local prosecutors are speaking out, saying the claims should at least be looked into. Their offices are doing so, with some assistance from FBI agents. 
"Based upon what we know today, we were surprised that the DOJ ran away," Davis County prosecutor Troy Rawlings reportedly said. 
Rawlings, a Republican, stressed it would be "unfair" to describe this as an investigation of Reid and Lee at this point. But he said "we are not going to ignore the scraps of evidence coming in about them." 
Sim Gill, Salt Lake County chief prosecutor and a Democrat, also reportedly said the "very serious allegations" should be examined. 
The accusations stem in part from indicted businessman Jeremy Johnson, who reportedly claims he was asked to route hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions and payments to one of Reid's associates, in the hopes Reid would intervene on both a federal fraud lawsuit against him and on legislation allowing Internet poker. Reid never intervened on the lawsuit, but did back off his opposition to Internet poker. 
Reid spokesman Adam Jentleson, though, denied the allegations and said Reid always conducts fundraising in compliance with the law. 
"Mr. Johnson is a desperate individual who's been indicted on over 80 counts. His allegations are false and the flailings of a desperate man," he told the newspaper. 
Jentleson told FoxNews.com that the local prosecutors' complaints at this stage seem "like a total publicity stunt." 
Both The Washington Times and ABC News reported on the accusations. 
As for Lee, the questions reportedly involve Lee's sale of his million-dollar Utah home, apparently to a campaign contributor, for just $720,000. The home was sold in a short sale, leaving the mortgage bank to absorb much of the losses, and investigators reportedly want to know whether Lee provided accurate information about his personal finances. 
A spokesman for Lee said the transaction was "aboveboard." 
Representatives with Lee and the Justice Department have not returned requests for comment from FoxNews.com.

‘Very upset’: CIA sat on Benghazi investigation, US personnel fuming

Obama thinks that if nothing is said or done about this that the American people will forget all about it. Some of us will but some of us want, I for one will not. (Bailey)

American personnel on the ground in Benghazi the night of the 2012 terror attack are outraged after learning that the CIA's inspector general never conducted an investigation into what happened -- despite two CIA workers being killed in the attack and despite at least two complaints being filed by CIA employees.
Former Ambassador Chris Stevens, another State official and two ex-Navy SEALs working for the CIA were killed in that attack.
Many in the agency were told, or were under the impression, that an investigation was in the works, but that is not the case.
One person close to the issue told Fox News: "They should be doing an investigation to see what the chief of base in Benghazi and station chief in Tripoli did that night. If they did, they'd find out there were some major mistakes."
This source claimed an investigation would likely uncover a lot of details the public does not know.
Asked why such a probe has not been launched, a CIA spokesman said: "CIA's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) always reviews carefully every matter that is brought to its attention, and takes appropriate action based on a variety of factors."
Still, at least two complaints were filed by CIA employees concerned about the attack, which began at the U.S. compound and eventually spread to the CIA annex one mile away. There is no question that CIA personnel saved a lot of lives; those on the ground that night continue to herald the heroism of the individuals who responded to try and help Stevens and others under attack.
Yet questions remain about the overall decision-making, possible destruction of evidence and warnings of an impending attack.
"There needs to be a CIA investigation ... there was a lot of things done wrong," one special operator said.
But a CIA spokesman said the OIG has already "explained fully" to the agency's congressional oversight committees "why it did not open an investigation into Benghazi-related issues."
"That decision was based on a determination that the concerns raised fell under the purview of the State Department's Accountability Review Board, and that a separate OIG action could unnecessarily disrupt the FBI's criminal investigation into the Benghazi attacks," the spokesman said.
The Accountability Review Board probe was ordered by the State Department, and the board reported its findings in December 2012.
But separate investigations haven't stopped the OIG from investigating issues before. Why they held back in this instance is a question starting to filter through the agents at the CIA. Fox News has been told some of the investigators initially assigned to review the Benghazi complaints are "very upset and very frustrated" that they were told to stop the process.
Some members of the Senate Intelligence Committee expressed some of these same concerns in their review of the Benghazi attacks. On page 15 of the Republican response on Jan. 15, it states: "... the committee has learned that the CIA Inspector General did not investigate complaints relating to the Benghazi attacks from CIA whistle blowers. Whether these complaints are ultimately substantiated or dismissed is irrelevant. On a matter of this magnitude involving the deaths of four Americans, the Inspector General has a singular obligation to take seriously and fully investigate any allegation of wrongdoing. His failure to do so raises significant questions that we believe the Committee must explore more fully." 
Fox News has also learned that the Senate Committee was told by the CIA that the investigation did not take place because it would interfere with the State Department Accountability Review Board, which was conducted to "examine the facts and circumstances of the attacks." While that review contained major criticism aimed at State Department officials in Washington, it didn't directly mention the CIA.
"Since when does the CIA defer to State? The ARB is in a total different agency anyway," one special operator said.
Former U.S. United Nations spokesman Richard Grenell also is critical of the CIA actions. "It's puzzling that the Obama administration is so reluctant to do a real investigation of the facts surrounding the Benghazi attack," he said. "The ARB conveniently never interviewed Hillary Clinton or her political team about what they knew in the lead up or how they reacted during the crisis. And now we learn that the CIA wasn't interested in conducting a real investigation either." 
The frustration within the agency is building over the fact that many see the CIA inspector general as their last line of defense internally. While the internal complaints are classified, Fox News has learned that besides questioning the actions of the station chief and chief of base, the complaints also question dealings with the Libyan security forces -- and include questions about the reliance on a group of local volunteer militiamen called the February 17 Martyrs Brigade for security and their likely participation in the attack.

Administration adds major new exemption for ObamaCare individual mandate

In what might be the death knell for ObamaCare's most controversial component -- the individual mandate to buy insurance -- the administration has added a mega-exemption that critics say would allow virtually anybody to skirt the rule. 

"This is a huge public policy decision that could affect millions of Americans," House Speaker John Boehner said, adding that the latest change, made ahead of the March 31 enrollment deadline, applies to "essentially everyone." 
"The door's wide open," economist Doug Holtz-Eakin, who leads the conservative-leaning American Action Forum, told Fox News. "[The] mandate which they said was absolutely crucial to ObamaCare is falling apart day by day." 
The most recent exemption appears to have been included last week, in an ObamaCare application document. There already had been 13 distinct exemptions, but this document added one more. 
The document said that individuals can now qualify for a "hardship exemption" -- meaning they would not have to pay a penalty for not buying insurance -- if they "experienced another hardship in obtaining health insurance." 
The document does not define what "another hardship" means, and suggests the administration might not be a stickler when it comes to proof either. It says anyone seeking this exemption should "submit documentation if possible." 
Of all the exemptions created so far, this category appears to be the broadest. Prior exemptions were created for people who are homeless, who filed for bankruptcy, who experienced a fire and who dealt with other financial emergencies. Already, the 13 exemptions previously on the books could apply to millions. One created in December would give a pass this year to many of those whose policies were canceled due to ObamaCare and who struggled to find an affordable option -- last week, the administration quietly extended that waiver through 2016. 
All along, the administration has rejected congressional attempts to officially delay the individual mandate in its entirety. The White House even threatened to veto one such bill. 
But the 14 exemptions now on the books raise the question of whether the mandate has been pushed off in all but name. 
"There's a real question as to whether the White House just abandoned the individual mandate," Boehner said Thursday. "It just seems they are hoping no one will notice." 
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius defended the "hardship exemptions" during testimony Thursday before a House subcommittee. 
"It's been really aimed at people who could not afford coverage one way or the other," she said. She noted that the list includes people who live in states that did not expand eligibility for Medicaid. 
But Holtz-Eakin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office under the George W. Bush administration, said that for someone to qualify for the latest waiver, they could simply say they couldn't get through on HealthCare.gov or plans were too expensive or a special condition they have didn't appear to be covered. 
As a consequence, he said, there could be "chaos" in the insurance market. Insurance companies, in exchange for taking on older and sicker patients as part of the Affordable Care Act, were counting on millions of young and healthy Americans signing on. The individual mandate -- and the penalty that comes with it -- was supposed to compel people who might not otherwise buy insurance to enter the system. 
Now that the mandate is being softened, it's unclear whether insurance companies will have enough of those new customers to keep premiums down for everyone else.