Obama expected Tuesday to announce change in US troop withdraw

President Obama is expected to announce in the coming days a modified plan on U.S. troop withdraw in Afghanistan to help that country’s new government fight the Taliban and other emerging insurgent groups.
New Afghan President Ashraf Ghani has asked Obama to consider some flexibility in his plan to reduce the number of non-combat U.S. troops from 10,000 to 5,500 by year’s end, as part of his government’s emerging national security strategy. And he is expected to make his case personally when he visits the United States from Sunday through Tuesday.
The White House acknowledged Friday that Ghani and Obama have talked about the issue three times in the past four months and that U.S. military officials have presented some recommendations to Obama’s team, based on Ghani’s concerns.
Jeff Eggers, the National Security Council’s senior director for Afghanistan and Pakistan, said that he expects Obama will make a statement on the issue Tuesday, after meeting in Washington with Ghani.
“But no decisions have been made yet,” he told reporters.
Obama in December 2014 ended America’s combat mission in Afghanistan, bringing an official close to his country’s 13-year war in the country. With two years remaining in the White House, the president would likely want to end all occupation in the largely unpopular war, in which there have been roughly 2,200 U.S. military deaths.
However, Obama has faced sharped criticism from Capitol Hill Republicans and other military hawks for pulling forces out of Iraq, which has now become a hotbed for the growing and dangerous Islamic State radical group.
Ghani hopes to leave Washington next week with a firm commitment for American military support in his fight against an Islamic State affiliate, which he and U.S. military leaders fear is also finding a foothold in Afghanistan.
Ghani's relationship with Washington stands in stark contrast to that of his acrimonious predecessor, Hamid Karzai, whose antagonism toward the U.S. culminated in a refusal to sign security agreements with Washington and NATO before leaving office.
Ghani signed the pacts within days of becoming president in September, and has since enjoyed a close relationship with U.S. diplomats and military leaders.
His overseas trip comes as the Afghan army is waging its first-ever solo offensive against the Taliban in the Helmand province, their southern heartland, seeking a decisive victory ahead of the spring fighting season as evidence it can carry the battle without U.S. and NATO combat troops.
Ghani, who was personally involved in planning the Helmand operation, launched in February, is expected to personally ask Obama  for enhanced backup in the offensive, including air support, said several officials close to the Afghan president, speaking on condition of anonymity.
There are 13,000 foreign soldiers still in Afghanistan, about 9,800 American troops and 3,000 from NATO  down from a peak of 140,000 in 2009-2010. The remaining troops are involved in training and supporting Afghan security forces, with battlefield backup only when necessary. Also, half of the U.S. troops are engaged in counter-terrorism operations against the Taliban and al Qaeda.
U.S. officials in recent weeks and months have said the Obama administration is indeed set to abandon plans to draw down to 5,500 troops by year's end, bowing to military leaders' requests.
While no final decision on numbers has been made, the U.S is expected to allow many of the American troops to remain well into 2016.
Ghani, however, has already signaled that he wants the U.S. to maintain 10,000 troops in Afghanistan throughout the next decade, according to a European military official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the talks.
Even more important is the presence of U.S. and NATO bases, which are to be dismantled in mid-2016, according to current plans -- an undertaking that would take assets away from the fight.
Ghani is likely to get a U.S. commitment for funding, training and support for the Afghan military beyond 2016, but his request to keep the bases open beyond that timeframe is purportedly still on the table.
He also wants the U.S. bases in Kabul, the southern city of Kandahar, the former capital for the Taliban's 1996-2001 regime, and the eastern city of Jalalabad to remain open as long as possible.
U.S. military officials purportedly agree that the bases should remain open at least in the near future.
In Washington, Ghani is also likely to raise the subject of a new, home-grown threat from the Islamic State affiliate. Though the offshoot's strength and reach in Afghanistan remain unclear so far, those who have swapped the white Taliban flag for the black flag of the Islamic State group, which is fighting in Iraq and Syria, are believed to have links to the group's leadership in the Middle East.
Both Ghani and his chief executive Abdullah Abdullah, who will accompany the president on his U.S. visit along with around 65 Afghan officials, have referred to the Islamic State group in recent speeches. U.S. Gen. John Campbell, commander of American and NATO forces in Afghanistan who speaks regularly with Ghani, told the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this month that the rise of the group in Afghanistan was being taken "very, very seriously."
"The Daesh character is that it is like a maneater," Ghani told reporters in Kabul on Saturday, using an acronym for the Islamic State group.
The U.S. military was behind a February drone strike that killed Abdul Raouf Khadim, a Taliban commander who switched allegiance to the Islamic State group and set up an ISIS recruiting network in southern Afghanistan. And Khadim's nephew and successor, Hafiz Wahidi, was killed with nine of his men in an Afghan military operation in Helmand on March 16, according to the Afghan Ministry of Defense.
Parallel to his military struggle, Ghani is also trying to negotiate an end to the 13-year war with the Taliban and open a preliminary dialogue with those among the group's leadership willing to come to the negotiating table -- as a prelude to formal peace talks, possibly within two years.
Multiple efforts to start a peace process have failed in the past.

Sen. Ted Cruz reportedly will announce plans for presidential bid Monday

BREAKING NEWS –  Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz reportedly plans to announce his intentions to run for president Monday at an event at a Virginia university, which would make him the first candidate for 2016.
The Houston Chronicle reports Cruz start his campaign outright rather than launching an exploratory committee.
Cruz will give a speech at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va. Monday and Cruz aides are aggressively promoting the event, bit will not release any information to Fox News.
“Go to Lynchburg,” Cruz spokeswoman Catherine Frazier said.
With a little more than a year and half to go before the 2016 election, speculation is heating up that several presidential contenders will soon officially throw their hats into the ring. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who enjoys a wide lead among potential Democratic candidates despite the recent uproar over her use of a personal email account while leading the State Department, is expected to announce her candidacy next month.
For Republicans, Sens. Cruz, Marco Rubio of Florida and Rand Paul of Kentucky have all been eyed as potential candidates, along with Wis. Gov. Scott Walker, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and even real estate mogul Donald Trump, who formed an exploratory committee earlier this week.

Obama rips Netanyahu’s election rhetoric, says US will ‘evaluate’ options on Mid East talks

President Obama, in his first extensive post-election comments, leveled tough criticism at Benjamin Netanyahu over comments the Israeli prime minister made in the run up to his election victory, underscoring the deepening tensions between the two men.
In an interview published Saturday in The Huffington Post, Obama said he told Netanyahu in a phone call Thursday, "it is going to be hard to find a path where people are seriously believing that negotiations are possible"-- after the Israeli leader rejected the idea of a Palestinian state during the elections.
Critics say Netanyahu made a last-ditch attempt to spur his supporters to the polls Tuesday, after he also warned that Arab citizens were voting "in droves" and endangering years of rule by his Likud Party. The comments drew accusations of racism from Israeli Arabs and a White House rebuke.
"We indicated that that kind of rhetoric was contrary to what is the best of Israel's traditions. That although Israel was founded based on the historic Jewish homeland and the need to have a Jewish homeland, Israeli democracy has been premised on everybody in the country being treated equally and fairly," Obama told The Huffington Post. "And I think that that is what's best about Israeli democracy. If that is lost, then I think that not only does it give ammunition to folks who don't believe in a Jewish state, but it also I think starts to erode the meaning of democracy in the country."
After the election, Netanyahu appeared to walk back his comments about a Palestinian state, and indicated he could support a two-state solution if conditions improve. Obama, however, told the website that he will treat the situation as though Netanyahu is not interested in the creation of a Palestinian state.
"We take him at his word when he said that it wouldn't happen during his prime ministership, and so that's why we've got to evaluate what other options are available to make sure that we don't see a chaotic situation in the region," Obama said. The president reportedly declined to comment on wether the U.S. would prevent a Palestinian effort for statehood though the United Nations.
Netanyahu appeared on Fox News' "The Kelly File," and defended his comments. He said, "the conditions are that we would vacate territory instead of getting the two state solution, we could end up with a no state solution. That is a solution that would threaten the very survival in the state of Israel. I said we have to change the terms. Because right now we have to get the Palestinians to go back to the negotiating table, break their pact with Hamas and accept the idea of a Jewish state. And I think that's what the international community should be focused on."
Republicans and pro-Israel groups have criticized the White House for its tough stance on Netanyahu after his victory and for focusing only on his pre-election remarks denouncing a Palestinian state—as opposed to his post-election comments walking it back.
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, in a statement earlier this week, voiced concern that the Obama administration is now rebuffing Netanyahu's efforts to mend ties.
"In contrast to their comments, we urge the administration to further strengthen ties with America’s most reliable and only truly democratic ally in the Middle East."

Iran Deal Cartoon

‘Like an idiot I believed that’: Judge blasts DOJ over immigration claims, threatens sanctions

A federal judge sharply scolded a Justice Department attorney at a hearing on President Obama's immigration executive actions, suggesting that the administration misled him on a key part of the program -- and that he fell for it, "like an idiot." 
The testy court hearing was held Thursday in Texas by U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen. The judge suggested he could order sanctions against the administration if he finds they indeed misrepresented the facts.
At issue is whether the DOJ misled the judge into believing that a plank of the Obama program -- giving deportation reprieves to thousands of young illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as children -- would not go forward before he made a ruling on a request to halt it. In fact, federal officials had given more than 108,000 people three-year reprieves before that date and granted them work permits under the program.
Obama's executive actions would spare from deportation as many as 5 million people who are in the U.S. illegally. Many Republicans oppose the actions, saying only Congress has the right to take such sweeping action. Twenty-six states led by Texas joined together to challenge them as unconstitutional. Hanen on Feb. 16 sided with the states, issuing a preliminary injunction blocking Obama's actions.
Hanen chided Justice Department attorney Kathleen Hartnett for telling him at a January hearing before the injunction was issued that nothing would be happening with regard to one key part of Obama's actions, an expansion of the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA, until Feb. 18.

More on this...

• Judge threatens sanctions over DOJ immigration claims

• New action in court and Capitol Hill on immigration front

"Like an idiot I believed that," Hanen said.
A flustered Hartnett repeatedly apologized to Hanen for any confusion related to how the reprieves and work permits were granted.
"We strive to be as candid as possible. It truly became clear to us there was confusion on this point," she said.
Hartnett continued to insist that the 108,081 reprieves had been granted under 2012 guidelines, which were not stopped by the injunction, and that government attorneys hadn't properly explained this because they had been focused on other parts of the proposed action.
But Hanen pointed out that the 2012 guidelines only granted two-year reprieves and that three-year reprieves are being proposed under the program now on hold.
"Can I trust what the president says? That's a yes or no question," Hanen asked.
"Yes your honor," Hartnett replied.
The states asked that Hanen consider issuing sanctions because Justice Department attorneys had made "representations (that) proved not to be true or at a minimum less than forthcoming," said Angela Colmenero, a lawyer with the Texas Attorney General's Office, the lead attorney for the states.
Colmenero said the three-year reprieves that were granted might have caused the states economic harm as the states may have already issued various benefits, including driver's licenses, to immigrants who received a reprieve.
"There is absolutely no basis for sanctions here," Hartnett said. "The government is absolutely trying to do the right thing."
Hanen said he would issue a ruling "promptly" on what action, if any, he will take against the Justice Department.
The federal government has asked the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans to lift Hanen's injunction while the case is appealed.
The other states seeking to block Obama's orders are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

Graham threatens to cut funds to UN if Obama bypasses Congress on Iran sanctions

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham is throwing down the gauntlet, warning the White House he’ll move to cut funding to the United Nations if the administration turns to the international body to lift sanctions on Iran as part of a nuclear deal.
Graham made the comments Thursday during an appearance on Fox News’ “On the Record With Greta Van Susteren.”
Graham, a Republican, is chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee’s Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs. In that role, he says he can block U.S. funding for the United Nations -- $654 million is earmarked for 2015 alone.
“Twenty-two percent of the funding for the United Nations comes from the American taxpayers, and I’m in charge of that account,” a defiant Graham told Fox News. He acknowledged he'd also need other lawmakers to sign onto any effort to suspend that funding.
Graham is worried that the administration, should it strike a nuclear deal with Iran, might get the U.N. to lift sanctions without going through Congress to lift U.S. sanctions.
Graham, who says the worst possible outcome would be for Iran to get a nuclear weapon, vowed:  “I’m not going to allow the United Nations to be used as a way to get around the United States Congress for a deal that affects the very existence of Israel and our own national security.”
When pushed on the issue, Graham said, “If they go to the U.N. Security Council, and the U.N. Security Council lifts all sanctions before we ever get a chance to look at this deal, absolutely I would suspend funding the United Nations, because I don't think your money should go to an organization that irresponsible.”
Graham strongly admonished the Obama administration.
“They are about to make a mistake for the ages,” Graham said. Earlier this month, Graham made a similar threat during a speech he gave at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. At that event, he said he’d slash U.N. funds if the U.N. marginalized Israel.
International nuclear talks with Iran are expected to resume next week, following some disagreements -- reportedly over the sanctions issue -- on Friday.
Asked about the talks on Friday, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said he did not want to speculate on what an actual deal might look like. But he said President Obama does not believe it makes sense to remove "a large number of sanctions at the front end of this agreement" -- as the Iranians reportedly want.
Earnest stressed the importance of existing congressional sanctions. But he indicated the administration, should there be a deal, might be able to waive them down the road. "One of the most powerful tools that we have in these negotiations are the congressional sanctions that Congress has passed, that those are some of the toughest sanctions that have ever been put in place against any country by the United States," he said. "And the president believes that we should leave those sanctions in place for -- not just for a few weeks to verify Iranian compliance."
He added: "He believes that we should leave those sanctions in place over the longer term, and that the president can use the waiver authority that Congress has already given him, to relax some of those sanctions."

North Korean ambassador claims country has nuclear missiles

North Korea has nuclear missiles and is prepared to use them at any time, an envoy for the country said in a recent interview.
North Korean Ambassador to Britain Hyun Hak Bong told Sky News that his government would use the missiles in response to a nuclear attack by the U.S.
Asked whether North Korea has the ability now to launch a nuclear missile, Hyun replied: "Any time. Any time. Yes."
"If the United States strike us, we should strike back," he said.
The ambassador reaffirmed that the country does not “want war, but we are not afraid of war.”
North Korea is thought to have a handful of crude nuclear bombs and has conducted tests since 2006. However, experts are divided on how advanced the country’s technology is and is unsure if they could miniaturize warheads so they can be placed on missiles.
The spokesman for South Korea's Defense Ministry, Kim Min-seok, said Saturday that while North Korea might have advanced its technologies for miniaturizing nuclear warheads so they can be installed on missiles, Seoul does not believe they have succeeded yet.
Kim pointed out that the North has conducted only three nuclear tests so far and it's unclear how successful they were.
The Institute for Science and International Security estimated that North Korea has between 10 and 16 nuclear weapons, some based on plutonium and others on uranium. The agency concluded that the country has weapons small enough to mound on medium-range intercontinental-range missiles.
The United Nations has imposed sanctions on North Korea over its nuclear and missile programs.
Hyun's comments come as rival South Korea and the United States conduct annual springtime military drills that North Korea says are aimed at preparing to topple its government. Seoul and Washington say the exercises are purely defensive.
The U.S. stations about 28,500 soldiers in South Korea to deter possible aggression from North Korea.

Critics blast new Obama regs for fracking on federal lands

A new regulation announced Friday by the Obama administration -- requiring fracking companies who drill on federal lands to disclose what chemicals they use in the controversial process -- was blasted as "yet another attack on American jobs" by GOP lawmakers, who said the mandate could slow the U.S. energy boom.
The Bureau of Land Management rule, which would take effect in June, also updates requirements for well construction and disposal of water and other fluids used in hydraulic fracturing, a drilling method that has spurred jobs and economic growth in natural gas and oil production. It would not apply to privately owned lands, but roughly 10 percent of the U.S. energy sector's work takes place on land leased from the federal government. Much more federally-owned acreage could potentially be fracked for oil and gas, if made available for lease, claim energy company advocates.
“Today’s proposed federal regulations on hydraulic fracturing represent yet another attack on American jobs by President Obama, and continue his attack on American-made energy,” said Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La. "Considering that states already successfully regulate fracking, the last thing the American people need is the heavy hand of the federal government killing good jobs and stifling American energy production with more of their radical regulations.”

“Today’s proposed federal regulations on hydraulic fracturing represent yet another attack on American jobs by President Obama, and continue his attack on American-made energy.”- Rep. Steve Scalise, (R-La.)

The rule has been under consideration for more than three years, drawing criticism from the oil and gas industry and environmental groups. The industry fears the regulation could hinder the drilling boom, while some environmental groups worry that it could allow unsafe drilling techniques to pollute groundwater.
The final rule closely tracks a draft first proposed by the Obama administration in 2013. The rule relies on an online database used by at least 16 states to track the chemicals used in fracking operations. The website, FracFocus.org, was formed by industry and intergovernmental groups in 2011 and allows users to gather well-specific data on tens of thousands of drilling sites across the country.
Companies will have to disclose the chemicals they use within 30 days of the fracking operation.
Interior Secretary Sally Jewell said the rule will allow for continued responsible development of federal oil and gas resources on millions of acres of public lands while assuring the public that "transparent and effective safety and environmental protections are in place."
Jewell, who worked on fracking operations in Oklahoma long before joining the government in 2013, said decades-old federal regulations have failed to keep pace with modern technological advances.
"I've personally fracked wells, so I understand the risk as well as the reward," Jewell said. "We owe it to our kids to get this right."
Fracking involves pumping huge volumes of water, sand and chemicals underground to split open rocks to allow oil and gas to flow. Improved technology has allowed energy companies to gain access to huge stores of natural gas underneath states from Wyoming to New York but has also raised widespread concerns about alleged groundwater contamination and even earthquakes.
Brian Deese, a senior adviser to President Obama, said the rules for public lands could serve as a template that the oil and gas industry could adopt to help address the public's concern about the health and safety of fracking.
"Ultimately, this is an issue that is going to be decided in state capitals and localities as well as with the industry," he said.
The Interior Department estimated the cost of complying with the rule would be less than one-fourth of 1 percent of the cost to drill a well.
But critics say anything the complicates, or adds to the cost of extracting gas and oil hurts America's economic competitiveness. U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said the federal government should follow laws regulating private land, not the other way around.
“The energy renaissance is largely a story about state and private land, but vast resources remain inaccessible and untapped in federal areas, particularly in the West,” Murkowski said. “This administration has already taken unprecedented steps to block development in Alaska. Given its anti-development approach, we should expect this rule to make it even harder to produce oil and gas on federal lands. The fact remains: if Interior was half as interested in new production as it is in new regulation, our nation would be in a far better place.”
Advocates say hydraulic fracturing and directional drilling have triggered an unprecedented upswing in domestic oil and natural gas production over the past six years, with oil production more than doubling to 9 million barrels a day. They also say fracking is a safe and proven method.
"The Obama administration's hydraulic fracturing rule is a solution in search of a problem," said Thomas Pyle, president of the pro-industry Institute for Energy Research.
The rule will make the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management the largest customer of FracFocus, a website that has taken on increasing prominence in recent years as it collects data on drilling sites. Nearly 95,000 wells nationwide are registered with FracFocus, which is managed by the Ground Water Protection Council and Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission. Both groups are based in Oklahoma. The groundwater council is a nonprofit organization while the oil and gas commission is a collection of state officials from energy-producing states.
Jewell said that BLM will have representation on FracFocus' board, adding that the group has taken steps to improve its platform, including adopting a new format that allows data to be automatically read by computers.