The worst is yet to come

By Brig Asif Haroon Raja

The US in pursuit of its strategic and economic objectives in this part of the world arm twisted Gen Musharraf in September 2001 soon after 9/11 and made him do its bidding. Pakistan forces were pushed into the inferno of war on terror which was not Pakistan's war. To start with, flames were lit on two extreme flanks resting in Baloch inhabited interior Balochistan and Pashtun inhabited FATA. The course of flames was gradually channeled towards settled areas of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP), then to other cities of KP and subsequently to major cities of Punjab as well as Islamabad. Flames of terrorism were stoked by CIA and FBI outposts established in 2002 with the concurrence of the ruling regime. ISI and other intelligence agencies were asked to take up a backseat and intelligence collection, collation and dissemination was taken over entirely by CIA on the plea that it had superior technological means.

The CIA then brought in RAW and RAAM agents to boost its strength and collectively gave birth to Pakistani Taliban, who later got organized and formed Tehrik-e-Taliban-Pakistan (TTP) in December 2007. They were won over by providing them bagfuls of dollars and meeting all their weapons and equipment demands and also promising them that FATA will be made an independent caliphate and submerged with Pashtun belt of Afghanistan. In Balochistan, disgruntled Baloch Sardars of Bugti, Mengal and Marri were cultivated to start insurgency. They were lured by promising them independent Balochistan full of mineral resources and Gwadar Port falling in the path of envisaged energy corridor from Central Asia. About sixty Farari (training) camps were established in interior Balochistan and supply routes both from Afghanistan via Spin Boldak and Shahgarh in India were made operational to meet all their demands. Later on, several terrorist outfits like BLA, BRA and BLF came into being and their leaders were given asylum in Afghanistan and London.

While our intelligence agencies got busy in nabbing terrorists from all over the country and the Army got embroiled in fighting tribesmen in FATA and Balochistan, CIA and FBI helped by MI-6, RAW and RAAM agents got on with their job of destabilizing Pakistan from within. Besides sabotage and subversion by terrorists, drones were also introduced by CIA to further fuel terrorism. Shamsi airbase was used for the purpose. Sold to the idea of enlightened moderation Musharraf accepted the US advice to expand and liberate the media. It was then decisively penetrated by foreign powers to be able to promote their coined themes and to change perceptions of the desired audiences in Pakistan. India promoted its culture through electronic media and also took help of our media to hide its ugly face. All these processes which weakened Pakistan went on unabatedly throughout Musharraf's stint in power till March 2008 and Pakistan's sovereignty kept eroding. By that time all institutions of Pakistan including Army, ISI and judiciary stood discredited.

When the US realized that Musharraf had lost his popularity and would not be helpful in changing the perceptions of people from religious conservatism to secularism, and was not in a position to make compromises on joint Pak-US operations in FATA, or opening up nuclear and missile assets and placing them under a joint control mechanism, or reducing Chinese activities in Gwadar Port and Balochistan mineral projects, or shelving Pak-Iran gas pipeline and in curbing anti-Americanism, it decided to bring in Benazir and make a dream team of liberal parties. When Benazir started to act too independent, she was removed from the scene and handpicked puppets were given reins of power. They pursued Musharraf's policies in letter and spirit and went a step ahead in keeping their patrons appeased. The Army, ISI and the judiciary however made recoveries by recapturing lost spaces and soon were able to re-establish their image and credibility.

The political leaders deeply engrossed in lot and plunder were slapped and humiliated but were also given blandishments and a free hand to milk the country and reduce it to a carcass. Their incompetence to govern and their corrupt practices were acceptable since they obediently served Washington's interests. In order to cripple Pakistan's economy and make it dependent upon US aid, rulers were told to put Pakistan's neck in the stranglehold of IMF and to keep borrowing and keep spending lavishly.

They were told to ignore terrorism and ethnic cleansing of non-locals by Baloch insurgents seeking separation simply because they are seculars and pro-USA and India. Rulers were directed to use full force against militants in northwestern tribal area particularly against those who were anti-American and supporting Jihad in Afghanistan. Haqqani group based in North Waziristan (NW) is their chief foe. Ilyas Kashmiri outfit and Lashkar-e-Taeba are also on US hit list, and to a lesser degree are Hafiz Gul Bahadur and Maulvi Nazir. Dozens of other militant groups including TTP located in NW which are anti-Pakistan but not involved in Afghanistan do not bother USA.

TTP which has its tentacles in all seven tribal agencies as well as in settled areas of KP, Swat, Malakand, South Punjab, Pashtun belt of Balochistan and its long arm can reach any part of Pakistan is of chief concern for Pakistan. Several foreign agencies are providing massive funds, weapons, equipment, explosives, training facilities, guidance and manpower replenishments from Afghan soil to TTP since they desire this force to possibly defeat or as a minimum contain bulk of Army. But for foreign support in huge quantities, it would not have been possible for the TTP to rebound after its backbone had been broken in the two decisive battles of Bajaur and South Waziristan in 2009. Footprints of foreign hands were clearly seen in all the regions that were recaptured from the militants by security forces. In the Bajaur battle which raged from July 2008 till February 2009, large number of Tajik and Uzbek fighters used to supplement Maulana Faqir's force. Even now Afghans are involved in Mohmand Agency and in Dir.

While launching of military operations by the Army in Waziristan led to emergence of Pakistani Taliban, two drone attacks in Bajaur Agency in 2006 instilled hatred against the Army particularly when October strike on a seminary killing 80 students was wrongly owned by the Army. Brutal military action against inmates of Lal Masjid and Jamia Hafza including women and children in July 2007 triggered recruitment of young Taliban in a big way. It also ignited spate of suicide bombings in cities. Thereon, it became easy for the senior members of TTP like Qari Hussein to motivate young boys aged 12-16 years to become suicide bombers. The schemers then shifted terrorism to major cities particularly Peshawar, Rawalpindi, Islamabad, Lahore. This was made possible after the induction of Blackwater in 2008. Several security companies cropped up in capital cities.

Mumbai attacks on 26/11 were masterminded to deflect attention of the world from the atrocities committed by Indian security forces in Indian occupied Kashmir where the situation had become explosive, and to nail down ISI and to pave way for carrying out surgical strikes in Pakistan similar to drone strikes. New tactics involving double suicide bombers and group attacks were introduced in 2009. Drone attacks were intensified and so were target killings in Balochistan and Karachi.

In order to keep the judiciary subservient, the ruling regime was emphatically told not to restore the sacked judges led by chief justice Iftikhar. Shahbaz Sharif's Ministry in Punjab which was relatively stable was brought down and Governor Rule imposed on Washington's direction in early 2009. Restoration of judges and Punjab government was not to the liking of plot makers. After the enactment of Af-Pak policy in March 2009, which heralded the beginning of the final phase against Pakistan's strategic assets and passage of Kerry-Lugar Bill, large number of under cover CIA operatives mostly belonging to US Special Forces made their way into Pakistan in 2010. Their inflow increased in second half of 2010 as a result of removal of all security checks by ISI and Special Police. Raymond Davis who had earlier on been deported due to his shady activities also managed to sneak back. By end 2010 an effective countrywide CIA-Blackwater network duly connected with militant groups and criminal gangs had become operational. Roadmaps leading to various defence installations and nuclear sites had been prepared.

This network provides the local militants intelligence and intimate guidance of marked target areas. Its ramifications came to light after the arrest of Raymond but also led to intensification of CIA-ISI rivalry and nose-diving of Pak-US relations. Till April, the militants targeted mostly soft targets in cities to create harassment and fear among the public and to accentuate problems of security forces and intelligence agencies. Mosques, worship places and markets were targeted to pitch Islamists against Islamists and defame Islam.

Helicopter assault on 02 May duly assisted by CIA base in Abbottabad was executed to achieve multiple objectives. The foremost was to restore declining popularity of Obama and US military in the eyes of Americans in particular and world in general. Second; lower the image of Army, air force and ISI that had risen high and to discredit the three institutions in the eyes of the public. Former CIA Director Panetta who had crossed swords with Lt Gen Pasha on several occasions had sworn to teach him a lesson. Third; embarrass Pakistan and to put it in a tight corner, leaving it with little space to defy US dictates.

Having created the desired effects through media and Congressmen, US high officials visited Islamabad and further harassed the already hassled leadership by conveying that Pakistan would from now on be judged by its acts and deeds. To give heart to the fainting leaders, the visitors gave a clean chit to them saying that they were not directly involved in hiding OBL but there was a support group inside Pakistan which had protected OBL. This certification was music to the ears of our leaders. Feeling relieved, they readily agreed to let CIA inspect the Abbottabad House compound where OBL lived, hand over the tail of the destroyed Blackhawk helicopter, launch an operation in NW and to conduct joint operations to eliminate terrorists. These concessions were doled out in violation of the spirit of 14 May unanimous resolution of the parliament.

Mehran Naval Base attack was executed on 22 May to dishearten the navy, to shatter the confidence of the people in armed forces and to completely demoralize the nation. Among several hypotheses, one of the assumptions was an attack conducted by Ilyas Kashmiri group. If so, he has been reportedly killed on 04 May fearing that he may spill the beans. Apparently 02 May and 22 May incidents were also intended to create divisions within forces by suggesting that there were sympathizers and supporters of al-Qaeda and Taliban in each service and intelligence agency and that there was an urgent need to purge such undesirable elements. Mehran Base attack is a prelude to many more suchlike attacks since it seems that the conspirators have now started the final destructive stage to hit hardened military installations including nuclear sites.

In continuation of ISI bashing, Human Rights Watch and western media has come out with another wacky story that the ISI was behind the unfortunate murder of eminent and bold journalist Syed Salim Shehzad. Had it been so, he would have been taken to KP or FATA and not towards Sarai Alamgir? It seems to be a clear cut case of Blackwater which is ever ready to exploit a situation whenever any person makes several enemies and becomes prominent. ISI's plate is already full to the brim and would be mad if it buys another headache for itself. The situation assumes greater curiosity and mystification after expression of deep concern by high US officials like John Kerry and Hillary Clinton on his death.

While the people have not come out of the shock of two attacks in May, the foreign and local media is adding to their apprehensions by floating rumor balloons of despondency and trying to undermine the capabilities of armed forces. An impression is being created that the military is incapable of safeguarding our vital interests. There is a very small segment that still talks good of USA otherwise great majority distrusts USA and suspect that it will again strike Pakistan to denuclearize it. They are not convinced with John Kerry assurances that the US is not interested in Pak nukes particularly after NATO Secretary General's statement that it is the collective responsibility of international community to secure nuclear assets of Pakistan.

Stories of our nukes falling into wrong hands have begun to reappear in western media. Despite multi-layered system of security evolved by Pakistan which is second to none, doubts are still being aired by vested interests that Pakistan's nuclear program is unsafe and needs to be secured. Pakistan Army managed to get out of the deathtrap laid by its adversaries in Swat and SW. They have now prepared another deadly deathtrap in NW and are once again trying to lure in Pak Army with a hope that this time it will get trapped. It is only when major portion of our combat divisions get embroiled in the war in northwest that India will make its Cold Start doctrine operational on the weakened eastern front. Coming months are fraught with extreme dangers but our rulers are naively thinking that after John Kerry and Hillary Clinton's visit worst is over. In my view the worst is yet to come.

While I am quite confident that our security forces would be able to thwart all hostile attempts made on our nuclear arsenal and delivery means and will also be able to safeguard the frontiers against foreign aggression, what I am worried is that we have still not identified our foes and taken preventive measures. Unless we guard against the designs of our foes pretending to be friends, we will not be able to confront the worst threat which is staring into our eyes and has got closer to our vital ground.

PNS Mehran: An Inside Job As Evidence Collected

Eight navy personnel have been taken into custody for abetting terrorists in the PNS Mehran naval base attack and court martial proceedings can be initiated against them after completion of investigation, senior officials probing the naval base attack told the National Assembly Standing Committee on Defence on Wednesday.

A senior member of the committee told Online news agency that three officers, one sailor and another four navy personnel had allegedly assisted the terrorists in the attack, adding that they remained in contact with the attackers.

He said the inquiry committee had also expressed suspicion that a large cache of arms and ammunition were taken to the site several days ahead of the attack. Meanwhile a source told Pakistan Today that nothing could be said in definite terms until the completion of the joint investigation team report.

According to the source, the evidence was of rudimentary nature as the joint investigation team had not yet completed its probe. Meanwhile, according to a press release issued by the National Assembly's Secretariat, the Navy officials told the committee that four terrorists had attacked the base.

Time to exit

ZoneAsia-Pk

Far-called our navies melt away


On dune and headland sinks the fire


Lo, all our pomp of yesterday


Is one with Nineveh and Tyre!

[ Rudyard Kipling Recessional ]

War is waged to achieve political objectives, not to kill enemies. In this sense, the United States has lost the 10-year Afghan conflict, its longest war. Afghanistan remains the "graveyard of empires."

The US has failed to install an obedient regime in Kabul that controls Afghanistan. It has made foes of the Pashtun majority, and, in pursuing this war, gravely undermined Pakistan. Claims that US forces were in Afghanistan to hunt the late Osama bin Laden were widely disbelieved.

Last Wednesday, President Barack Obama bowed to public opinion, approaching elections, military reality and financial woes by announcing he would withdraw a third of the 100,000 US troops from Afghanistan by the end of next summer. Pentagon brass growled open opposition.

US allies France and Germany announced similar troops reductions. All foreign troops are supposed to quit Afghanistan by the end of 2014.

Washington currently spends at least $10 billion monthly on the Afghan war, not counting "black" payments, CIA and NSA operations. The US has poured $18.8 billion in development aid into Afghanistan since 2001 with nothing to show for the effort. Pakistan has been given $20 billion to support the Afghan War. The US deficit is heading over $1.4 trillion. The national debt, when unfunded pensions and benefits are added, is likely $100 trillion, according to the chief of PIMCO, the world's largest bond trader.

Forty-four million Americans now receive food stamps; the national infrastructure of roads, airports, bridges and schools is crumbling from neglect. Unemployment, officially at 9.5 per cent, is probably closer to 20 per cent.

The cry is being heard: "Rebuild America, not Afghanistan."

In spite of intense pro-war propaganda, over half of Americans now oppose the Afghan War. Even US-installed Afghan president Hamid Karzai calls it, "ineffective, apart from causing civilian casualties."

So will the US really pull out of Afghanistan? That remains to be seen. There are contradictory signs.

Mid-level talks between the US and Taleban are under way. The US will probably keep some of its remaining 66,000 soldiers in Afghanistan after 2014, rebranding them training troops. The huge US bases at Kandahar and Bagram will be retained.

Billions more will be spent on the Afghan government army and police. They have so far proved ineffective because most are composed of Tajik and Uzbek mercenaries who are hated and distrusted by the Pashtun.

A similar process is underway in Iraq where "withdrawal" means keeping renamed US combat brigades in Iraq, thousands of mercenaries, and US combat forces in neighbouring Kuwait and the Gulf. New US embassies in Baghdad and Kabul - huge, fortified complexes with their own mercenary combat forces - will be the world's biggest. Kabul will have a staff of 1,000 US personnel. Bin Laden called them "crusader fortresses."

In addition, the US will still arm and finance allied Tajik and Uzbek militias in Afghanistan. Financing Pakistan's US-backed regime and Uzbekistan must also continue at around $3 billion yearly. The US appears to be going and staying at the same time. By contrast, Taleban's position is clear and simple: it will continue fighting until all foreign troops are withdrawn. US Special Forces, drones and hit squads have been unable to assassinate enough Taleban commanders to make the mujahidin stop fighting.

Americans never study history, not even their own. They don't recall founding father, the great Benjamin Franklin, who said, "there is no good war, and no bad peace." Or that the Pashtun Taleban and its allies are fierce, dedicated, undefeated warriors. I've been in combat with them and remain in awe of their courage and love of combat. The Pashtun mujahidin will keep fighting as always, as long as their ammunition lasts.

America, for all its B-1 heavy bombers, strike fighters, missiles, helicopter gunships and drones, armour, super electronics, spies in the sky and all the other high tech weapons of modern war has failed to defeat some 30,000 tribal fighters with nothing more than small arms and legendary valour.

The US has lost the all important military initiative in Afghanistan. It may linger there, but it cannot win.

DANGEROUS DRUGS BANNED GLOBALLY BUT AVAILABLE IN INDIA, CAN BE EXPORTED TO PAKISTAN

Area 14/8

Dear All,

Make a checklist, check whether this medicine is in your home or whether it has been recommended by your doctor... please DO NOT use it...

Please Read Very Carefully - INFORM ALL YOUR FRIENDS & FAMILY MEMBERS

Asia has become a dumping ground for banned drugs; also the business for production of banned drugs is booming. Plz make sure that u buy drugs ! only if prescribed by a doctor(Also, ask which company manufactures it, this would help to ensure that u get what is prescribed at the Drug Store) and that also from a reputed drug store. Not many people know about these banned drugs and consume them causing a lot of damage to themselves. We forward Jokes and other junk all the time. This is far more important.

Please make sure u forward it everyone u know.

DANGEROUS DRUGS HAVE BEEN GLOBALLY DISCARDED BUT ARE AVAILABLE IN INDIA and can be exported / smuggled to Pakistan or to any other country .... The most common ones are action 500 & Nimulid!!!!!!

PHENYLPROPANOLAMINE :


cold and cough. Reason for ban : stroke.


Brand name : Vicks Action-500

ANALGIN:


This is a pain-killer. Reason for ban: Bone marrow depression.


Brand name: ! Novalgin

CISAPRIDE:


Acidity, constipation. Reason for ban : irregular heartbeat


Brand name : Ciza, Syspride

DROPERIDOL:


Anti-depressant. Reason for ban : Irregular heartbeat.


Brand name : Droperol

FURAZOLIDONE:


Antidiarrhoeal. Reason for ban : Cancer.


Brand name : Furoxone, Lomofen

NIMESULIDE:


Painkiller, fever. Reason for ban : Liver failure..


Brand name : Nise, Nimulid

NITROFURAZONE:


Antibacterial cream. Reason for ban : Cancer.


Brand name : Furacin

PHENOLPHTHALEIN:


Laxative... Reason for ban : Cancer.


Brand name : Agarol

OXYPHENBUTAZONE:


Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug. Reason for ban : Bone marrow depression.


Brand name : Sioril

PIPERAZI! NE:


Anti-worms. Reason for ban : Nerve damage.


Brand name : Piperazine

QUINIODOCHLOR:


Anti-diarrhoeal. Reason for ban : Damage to sight.


Brand name: Enteroquinol

Ethnic Leaders Forge Alliance Against Karzai

A group of former warlords who helped the U.S. topple the Taliban regime in 2001 have launched a political alliance against Afghan President Hamid Karzai's rule, in a re-emergence of old civil-war divisions as the country looks ahead to the departure of U.S. forces.

The leaders, each representing a minority ethnic group, say they are concerned that Mr. Karzai will seek to claim more power following President Barack Obama's announcement last week of plans to begin withdrawing U.S. troops.

The announcement of the renewed alliance last week followed a decision by a special court backed by Mr. Karzai that disqualified a quarter of all parliamentarians elected in September polls. The decision weakened the contingent of lawmakers that is trying to turn the legislature into a check on Mr. Karzai's authority.

Mr. Karzai had argued that the election wasn't representative of the public's wishes because it diluted the power of the Pashtuns, the country's largest ethnic group-to which Mr. Karzai and the Taliban belong.

The court turned the seats over to the runners-up in the polls, many of them Karzai supporters, including one of his cousins. Mr. Karzai's spokesman, Waheed Omer, said the new lawmakers were legal and had the full support of the president.

The disqualifications are "not good for the president but shows the democracy in this country," Mr. Omer said. He also welcomed the formation of the new opposition group

The new opposition alliance took shape with a sense of urgency, amid worries that the U.S. withdrawal will take away the most significant check to Mr. Karzai's power: the international community.

The opposition group is the first to include leaders across Afghanistan's Uzbek, Hazara and Tajik communities, which slightly outnumber Pashtuns with roughly 43% of the population.

"We want to inform the international community and Karzai that we don't agree with the direction the country is moving in," said Haji Mohammad Mohaqiq, the leader of Afghanistan's Hazara community, which had gained power in September polls but lost seats in last week's court decision.

"Political leaders from all ethnicities are being left out of government," Mr. Mohaqiq said. "Look at how he is trying to end parliament because it's not allied to him."

The new opposition group is led by former key figures in the Northern Alliance, which banded together mostly Tajik, Uzbek and Hazara militias to fight the Taliban regime during civil war in the 1990s.

Along with Mr. Mohaqiq, the group is led by Gen. Rashid Dostum of the Uzbek community and Ahmad Zia Massoud, a prominent Tajik whose brother, Ahmad Shah Massoud, led the Tajiks against the Taliban before his assassination by al Qaeda two days before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Efforts to form opposition groups to Mr. Karzai have crumbled in the past, and how much parliamentary support the new alliance can muster is unclear. But the three leaders successfully rallied their communities to support Mr. Karzai's presidential race in 2009.

They say they feel the president since his election has betrayed them by moving against their own supporters in parliament and pursuing negotiations with the Taliban.

The group says it fears that talks with the insurgents, which also have the backing of the U.S., would lead to a power-sharing agreement with the Taliban.

"These negotiations with the Taliban are also a main reason we've formed this alliance. What will the government give up in peace talks?" said Mr. Massoud. Mr. Massoud served as Mr. Karzai's vice president during his first term.

Afghanistan's political system provides few checks to presidential powers except for the parliament, though it is considered weak. There are few strong political parties in Afghanistan, where political allegiance often runs along ethnic and tribal lines. The only current major opposition group is headed by Abdullah Abdullah, who ran for president against Mr. Karzai in 2009 and was a Northern Alliance leader.

But Mr. Abdullah's party has been unable to cobble enough leaders together to form a strong opposition to Mr. Karzai's rule.

Some analysts suspect the coalition will succumb to infighting. "Whenever they build coalitions, they are vulnerable because each leader is fighting for its own community," said Haroun Mir, a Kabul-based political analyst.

Among the opposition's objectives is to put enough pressure on Mr. Karzai to reverse the decision to disqualify lawmakers from parliament; ensure the Taliban don't gain power through peace talks; and to field their own candidate for the next presidential election, in 2014-the year that foreign forces plan to hand over full authority to Afghanistan.

Separately on Tuesday, the Afghan government appealed to the U.S. and Interpol to arrest Afghanistan's central-bank governor, saying he was involved in systemic fraud at the country's largest lender. Gov. Abdul Qadir Fitrat fled to the U.S. about 10 days ago, saying he feared for his life after exposing corruption at Kabul Bank.

Mr. Fitrat has denied wrongdoing. Neither he nor a central-bank spokesman could be reached. The U.S. has no bilateral extradition treaty with Afghanistan.

Hefty price tag for weather woes!

It's not hard to imagine the damage weird weather inflicts on our planet. Hurricane Katrina, for example, obliterated coastal communities, wiped out businesses and left hundreds of dead bodies in its wake. Quantifying the cost of such a one-off (we hope) event is pretty easy too: Katrina left us with a bill of $81 billion, according to the National Hurricane Center. But what about the year-in, year-out price tag of our increasingly volatile weather? It's a whole lot harder to calculate the cost of a chronic condition like that - or at least it was. Now a study by the National Center for Atmospheric Research estimates that the bottom-line cost of all the meteorological craziness is a staggering $485 billion per year in the U.S. alone, as much as 3.4% of the country's GDP.

"It's clear that our economy isn't weatherproof," Jeffrey Lazo, the study's lead author, said in a statement. "Even routine changes in the weather can add up to substantial impacts on the U.S. economy."

The fact that it took until now for someone to try to come up with a hard figure is a measure of just how daunting the number crunching can be. After all, when it comes to the weather yo-yo, a debit to one industry can be a credit to another. Take what happens in a snowstorm: air travel is disrupted and heating costs skyrocket, but ski resorts hit the jackpot. Or consider a dry spell: crop supplies dwindle, but construction projects are able to stay on schedule.

Other industries are affected in myriad ways. If you work in mining, you absolutely hate weird weather events, which eat up 14% of the mining economy each year, probably through several avenues: price fluctuations as demand for oil, gas and coal changes in tandem with the weather; threats to the security of mine water supply; and damage to mines and associated transport infrastructure. Agriculture cuts a close second at 12%; no surprise, crops deal with torrential rain and unreliable temperatures even worse than we do. The manufacturing, finance, insurance, retail and utilities sectors are also sensitive: people don't buy as many bikinis and bikes in rainy summers, and weather-induced power outages are a huge blow to electric-utility operations. But be thankful if you are in wholesale trade, retail trade or services. They are barely touched by the weather, partly because manufacturers cannot function without wholesalers no matter what the climate; and America still needs its health care and financial advice even when it's raining.

Lazo also found that states have different vulnerabilities to wild weather. New York was the most sensitive, with weather having a 13.5% impact on its gross state product, and Tennessee fared best, with only a 2.5% impact. While the researchers did not provide a concrete explanation for all the state-to-state differences, they noted that states with a larger gross state product, or larger economic outputs, were more weather-sensitive in absolute terms. (A 10% loss of economic activity in a big-revenue state is simply a lot more money than the same 10% in a smaller state.) Differences may also arise from the fact that coastal regions are hit hardest by tropical storms, while other areas are more susceptible to drought and severe winters. But the study noted that no one part of the country seemed radically more weather sensitive than any other part.

No matter the regional differences, $485 billion is a lot of money, and it remains to be seen how effectively Americans will respond to the threat. If a recent survey by the HNTB Corp., an infrastructure contracting group, is any indication, we have a lot of work to do. More than two-thirds of Americans don't realize that flooding is the biggest natural threat to their home, for example; fewer than 1 in 10 have prepared their homes for flooding, and 63% refuse to pay more taxes for flood-protective measures in their neighborhoods.

Floods are only one part of the weird weather picture, but HNTB flood management practice leader Rob Vining says the survey's findings are a perfect example of how we do a much better job of reacting to disasters than preparing for them. That may be human nature, but it's a part of our nature that we have to learn to fight. If a broken planet isn't enough to mobilize us, a flat-broke country ought to be.

Fazl congratulates Altaf on joining opposition

Geo News

LONDON: MQM Chief Altaf Hussain called JUI-F Chief Mulana Fazlur Rehman and spoke to him for an hour, Geo News reported.

According to MQM sources, Fazlur Rehman congratulated Altaf Hussain on joining the opposition. Both leaders also expressed their desire to work for a stable and prosperous democracy.

Sex and violence... part of free speech!

The Supreme Court on Monday struck down a California ban on selling or renting violent video games to minors. The ruling was an important win for free speech, as the court said that violent video games, not matter how objectionable, are works of art in their own right. But the ruling also raised an intriguing question: Why does the court treat violent images and sexual images so differently?

The court's 7-2 decision in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association was a firm rejection of the idea that there could be an exception to the First Amendment for extremely violent pictures and graphics. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said it does not matter how "disgusting" video games are because they are still protected speech.

The images are, in fact, often wildly violent and gory. In the game Postal II, players (you guessed it) "go postal" by, among other things, attacking schoolgirls with shovels and decapitating them.

What's more, experts predict that the violence could soon become even more extreme. We are probably not far off from mass-marketed violent video games in 3-D and games that allow players to get sensory feedback from their simulated violent actions. Justice Samuel Alito noted in a concurring opinion that the day may come when "virtual reality shoot-'em-ups will allow children to actually feel the splatting blood from the blown-off head of a victim."

Critics of violent video games cite scientific research suggesting that children who play them may become more aggressive in real life. But the majority on the court insisted that even if video games are harmful - and the research is far from conclusive - that fact would not justify the law. "Perhaps they do present a problem," Scalia said, but there are "all sorts of 'problems' ... that cannot be addressed by government restrictions on free expression." The industry self-polices with a ratings system, like the movie industry's, but it is voluntary.

It is no great surprise that the court refused to accept a state ban on violent video games - even one limited to minors. Last year, in the case of United States v. Stevens, the court had a chance to rule that videos showing extreme cruelty to animals - including ones showing puppies being crushed to death by women in stiletto heels - are not protected by the First Amendment. Instead, the court struck down a federal law banning animal-cruelty videos.

This is classic First Amendment doctrine - even the speech we abhor is protected, even speech the government believes could have negative effects on its audience must be allowed.

The question, however, is why the court does not take this same absolutist approach to speech involving sexual images. In regard to sex, the court has carved out an exception to traditional First Amendment protections.

Justice Stephen Breyer, one of the two dissenters in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, pointed out the court's double standard. "What sense does it make," he asked, "to forbid selling to a 13-year-old boy a magazine with an image of a nude woman, while protecting a sale to that 13-year-old of an interactive video game in which he actively, but virtually, binds and gags the woman, then tortures and kills her?"

What sense, indeed. Breyer went further: "What kind of First Amendment would permit the government to protect children by restricting sales of that extremely violent video game only when the woman - bound, gagged, tortured, and killed - is also topless?"

Another fine question. Breyer pointed out the inconsistency in order to defend the California law. He would have ruled that the video-game ban is constitutional - just as some laws against selling obscenity have been upheld.

But Justice Breyer's logic could lead in the opposite direction: instead of saying the court should be more accepting of bans on violent speech, it could mean that to be consistent, the court should be more skeptical about bans on sexual images. (The court's tougher line on sex parallels the movie industry's voluntary ratings system, which is much quicker to give a rare NC-17 rating for sex than for violence - but the industry has not done much to explain its double standard, either.)

Is the court more accepting of limits on sexual images because they are inherently more offensive than violent images? As Breyer asks, do we really believe that a game that allows a child to torture and kill a woman becomes offensive only when she is showing her breasts?

Is it because sexual images are more harmful to young people than violent images? Supporters of the California law submitted research showing that violent video games may well be making young people more aggressive and that they can cause "long-term harmful outcomes." Is the evidence of harm from exposure to sexual imagery stronger? (Child-pornography laws are another matter entirely; the harm they aim at is much clearer.)

Even if the court's ruling in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association does not make it abandon its approach to sexual speech and images, it might cause the court to rethink it.

Also on Monday, the court announced that it would hear arguments in a challenge to the FCC's indecency rules for broadcast television, including its heavy fines for airing "fleeting expletives." The FCC has been fine-happy in the past: it imposed a $550,000 penalty on CBS for the "wardrobe malfunction" during the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show that revealed Janet Jackson's breast. The lower courts have ruled against the FCC, but the Supreme Court reversed them the last time in this case - and may well again.

It may be that the First Amendment prevents California from stopping children from buying video games in which they can decapitate schoolgirls and torture women. It may also be that it allows the FCC to impose heavy fines on television stations that air four-letter words and other "indecent" speech.

But if the court is going to continue to act as if the nation were the Wild West when it comes to violence and Puritan New England when it comes to sex, it should do more - as Justice Breyer rightly suggested - to explain why.

Greece looks grim as anger mounts

As the antiausterity demonstration in Athens on Tuesday, June 28, devolved into familiar violent, tear-gas-soaked clashes between fringe anarchists and police outside Parliament, Giorgos Rallis shut off his television and stewed quietly about the immense dilemma facing his country.

On Wednesday, Greek lawmakers are due to vote on an unpopular austerity bill that includes more tax hikes and a controversial plan to privatize state-owned enterprises, including the Public Power Corporation (PPC), where Rallis has worked as a technician for 19 years. European leaders and the International Monetary Fund have already lent Greece €110 billion ($150 billion) and say that unless the government passes the austerity bill, they won't hand over the latest installment of bailout loans, totaling €12 billion ($17 billion). That would leave the country, which runs out of cash in July, to default on its massive sovereign debt. But many Greeks say the year of austerity they have already suffered in exchange for the previous bailout loans has impoverished Greeks and done nothing to help the country pay back its debt.

"The world has cornered us, and our own politicians have cornered us," says Rallis, 46, who escaped to the island of Evia, some 40 miles (65 km) away from Athens, to avoid the two-day general strike that shut down much of the country's public transportation, public services and businesses. "The populists in Europe ridicule us as a bunch of lazy people and tell us to sell the Acropolis. I am tired of this country being the easy target. Let Greece go bankrupt. Let all of Europe go bankrupt. I want them to stop bleeding me for money I just don't have."

Rallis is just one member of the quiet but angry majority that has Greek lawmakers nervous, even as world headlines are dominated by the dramatic images of young self-styled anarchists and far-left militants, many donning gas masks and crash helmets, fighting with police and one another. During Tuesday's protests, police fired several rounds of tear gas to disperse rioters and the rest of the crowd. More drama was unfolding inside Parliament, as Prime Minister George Papandreou and his new Finance Minister, Evangelos Venizelos, tried to keep Socialist lawmakers from defecting before the crucial vote. At least four deputies from the Socialist PASOK Party have said publicly that they may vote against the new austerity bill. If one more lawmaker votes against it, the bill fails.

Though opposition parties have been largely united against the new austerity measures, Elsa Papadimitrou, a deputy from the main opposition, the center-right New Democracy Party, said she was mulling a vote for the austerity package "to put the good of the nation above party interests," according to the Greek daily Kathimerini.

Meanwhile, the political maelstrom continues to worry leaders in Brussels. Some have discussed alternative options for Greece in case the austerity bill fails in Parliament. But the E.U.'s economic chief, Olli Rehn, shut down that talk. "There is no Plan B to avoid default," he said Tuesday. "The European Union continues to be ready to support Greece. But Europe can only help Greece if Greece helps itself."

Rehn added that Greek political leaders should be "fully aware of the responsibility that lies on their shoulders." But those same politicians also are facing historic levels of distrust from the Greek public, who view the country's political system as hopelessly corrupt and broken.

Papandreou's government - which has borne the brunt of the antiausterity backlash - is fragile, even after a Cabinet reshuffle last week that was meant to rally Socialist deputies who had lost faith in his Ministers. The reshuffle brought on board new Finance Minister Venizelos, a steely constitutional-law scholar who has a strong following in PASOK, but analysts say the move may only buy the party a little more time.

Pollsters and analysts predict that if the vote fails on Wednesday, the government will collapse quickly. But even if the new austerity bill passes, snap elections look increasingly likely. And even if there are new elections, it's unclear just who would lead the country, since polls show that Greeks also have little faith in the New Democracy Party and its leader, Antonis Samaras.

According to Christoforos Vernardakis, the president of leading polling agency VPRC and a political-science professor at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, the economic crisis is bringing to light a long-simmering political crisis in Greece. Since the mid-1990s, when political scandals became commonplace, "more and more people have suspected their politicians are involved in a network of unlawful and corrupt practices," Vernardakis says. "Now people are demanding from their representatives ethics, more efficiency in dealing with problems and a vision for the future. I doubt that these politicians of today can fulfill these demands."

But the prospect of bankruptcy, laden with political chaos, unnerves many Greeks, including Kostas Ifantis, a political-science professor at the University of Athens. He and others fear that the political polarization in Greece today could foment social unrest that in turn could upend the country and even the euro zone. "I hope cooler heads prevail and people sit down and work out what's best for all of us," Ifantis says. "This is not the time for posturing. When you stare at the abyss, you find your consciousness. That's my only hope."

But Giorgos Rallis says he lost hope a long time ago. His wages have been cut; his tax bill has gone up. He worries that he won't be able to pay his rent and support his wife and two young sons if he has to pay for more austerity measures. And he also worries that he will lose his job if the power company PPC is partially privatized.

"I am personalizing this, but why shouldn't I?" he says. "I feel austerity every single day. I see people losing their jobs and homes, eating at soup kitchens, losing their pride. Let the country go broke. I've already gone broke."

Afghanistan, a high profile hotel comes under attack

NATO helicopters fired rockets at gunmen on the rooftop of a besieged Kabul hotel early Wednesday, ending a more than four-hour standoff between militants and police that left at least seven dead and eight others wounded, Afghan officials said.

Interior Ministry spokesman Sediq Sediqqi said six suicide bombers attacked the Inter-Continental hotel frequented by Afghan officials and foreign visitors. He said two were killed by hotel guards at the beginning of the attack and four others either blew themselves up or were killed in the airstrike or by Afghan security forces.

The Taliban claimed responsibility for the rare, nighttime attack in the capital - an apparent attempt to show that they remain potent despite heavy pressure from coalition and Afghan security forces.

The attackers were heavily armed with machine guns, anti-aircraft weapons, rocket-propelled grenades, hand grenades and grenade launchers, the Afghan officials said. Afghan police rushed to the scene and firefights broke out. They battled for hours with gunmen who took up positions on the roof.

Some Afghan provincial officials were among the 60 to 70 guests staying at the hotel.

Abdul Zahir Faizada, who is head of the local council in Herat province in western Afghanistan, was staying at the hotel. He planned to attend a conference in Kabul on Wednesday to discuss plans for Afghan security forces to take the lead for securing an increasing number of areas of the country between now and 2014 when international forces are expected to move out of combat roles. Afghans across the country were in the city to attend.

"We were locked in a room. Everybody was shooting and firing," said Faizada who was staying at the hotel with the mayor of Herat city and other officials from the province. "I heard a lot of shooting."

Deputy police chief in Kabul, Daoud Amin, said seven people died in the attack and eight other people - two policemen and six civilians - were wounded. The attackers are not counted in that death toll.

Nazar Ali Wahedi, chief of intelligence for Helmand province in the south, called the assailants "the enemy of stability and peace" in Afghanistan.

Wahedi, too, was in town to attend Wednesday's transition conference, which was being held at a government building in the capital.

"Our room was hit by several bullets," Wahedi said. "We spent the whole night in our room."

The attack began around 10:30 p.m. local time Tuesday and ended around 3 a.m. Wednesday.

U.S. Army Maj. Jason Waggoner, a spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition fighting in Afghanistan, said the helicopters fired on the roof where militants had taken up positions. He said they killed three gunmen and that Afghan security forces clearing the hotel worked their way up to the roof and engaged the remaining insurgents.

As the helicopters attacked and Afghan security forces moved in, four massive explosions rocked the hotel. Officials at the scene said the blasts occurred when security forces either fired on suicide bombers or they blew themselves up.

After the gunmen were killed, the hotel lights that had been blacked out during the attack came back on. Afghan security vehicles and ambulances were removing the dead and wounded from the area.

Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid quickly claimed responsibility for the attack in a telephone call to the AP, then later issued a statement claiming that Taliban attackers killed guards at a gate and entered the hotel.

"One of our fighters called on a mobile phone and said: 'We have gotten onto all the hotel floors and the attack is going according to the plan. We have killed and wounded 50 foreign and local enemies. We are in the corridors of the hotel now taking guests out of their rooms - mostly foreigners. We broke down the doors and took them out one by one.'"

The Taliban often exaggerate casualties from their attacks. The statement did not disclose the number of attackers, but only said one suicide bomber had died.

A few hours into the clashes, an Afghan National Army commando unit arrived at the scene.

Initially, the U.S.-led military coalition said the Afghan Ministry of Interior had not requested any assistance from foreign forces. But later, the NATO helicopters arrived on the scene at the hotel on a hill overlooking the capital.

Guests inside the hotel said they heard gunfire echoing throughout the heavily guarded building.

Jawid, a guest at the hotel, said he jumped out a one-story window to flee the shooting.

"I was running with my family," he said. "There was shooting. The restaurant was full with guests."

The attack occurred nearly a week after President Barack Obama announced he was withdrawing 33,000 U.S. troops from Afghanistan and would end the American combat role by the end of 2014.

Before the attack began on Tuesday, officials from the U.S., Pakistan and Afghanistan met in the capital to discuss prospects for making peace with Taliban insurgents to end the nearly decade-long war.

"The fact that we are discussing reconciliation in great detail is success and progress, but challenges remain and we are reminded of that on an almost daily basis by violence," Jawed Ludin, Afghanistan's deputy foreign minister, said at a news conference. "The important thing is that we act and that we act urgently and try to do what we can to put an end to violence."

The Inter-Continental - known widely as the "Inter-Con" - opened in the late 1960s, and was the nation's first international luxury hotel. It has at least 200 rooms and was once part of an international chain. But when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979, the hotel was left to fend for itself.

It was used by Western journalists during the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.

On Nov. 23, 2003, a rocket exploded nearby, shattering windows but causing no casualties.

Twenty-two rockets hit the Inter-Con between 1992 and 1996, when factional fighting convulsed Kabul under the government of Burhanuddin Rabbani. All the windows were broken, water mains were damaged and the outside structure pockmarked. Some, but not all, of the damage was repaired during Taliban rule.

Attacks in the Afghan capital have been relatively rare, although violence has increased since the May 2 killing of Osama bin Laden in a U.S. raid in Pakistan and the start of the Taliban's annual spring offensive.

On June 18, insurgents wearing Afghan army uniforms stormed a police station near the presidential palace and opened fire on officers, killing nine.

Late last month, a suicide bomber wearing an Afghan police uniform infiltrated the main Afghan military hospital, killing six medical students. A month before that, a suicide attacker in an army uniform sneaked past security at the Afghan Defense Ministry, killing three people.

Other hotels in the capital have also been targeted.

In January 2008, militants stormed Kabul's most popular luxury hotel, the Serena, hunting down Westerners who cowered in a gym during a coordinated assault that killed eight people. An American, a Norwegian journalist and a Philippine woman were among the dead.

A suicide car bomber in December 2009, struck near the home of a former Afghan vice president and a hotel frequented by Westerners, killing eight people and wounding nearly 40 in a neighborhood considered one of Kabul's safest.

And in February 2010, insurgents struck two residential hotels in the heart of Kabul, killing 20 people including seven Indians, a French filmmaker and an Italian diplomat.

More Citibank Thefts... This Time An Inside Job!

A former Citigroup Inc. employee was arrested and charged with allegedly embezzling more than $19 million from the bank in "the ultimate inside job," federal prosecutors said on Monday.

Gary Foster, who worked in Citigroup's internal finance department, allegedly wired about $19.2 million in a series of transactions from the bank's corporate accounts to his personal account at a unit of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. between May 2009 and December 2010, according to a criminal complaint unsealed on Monday.

Mr. Foster, a former vice president who monitored financial contracts based on other assets known as derivatives,

Read Complete Story

Failing Economy drives Greeks loony

This post is in partnership with Worldcrunch, a new global-news site that translates stories of note in foreign languages into English. The article below was originally published in Le Monde.

While the rest of Europe may be tormented by the thought of having to cough up ever more money to bail out Athens, the once carefree Greeks are getting more depressed by the day. Psychiatrists say that the economic crisis has triggered a 25% to 30% increase in the number of patients seeking their help.

"There is an increase in the number of patients suffering from minor psychiatric conditions: anxiety, panic attacks and depression," says Dimitris Ploumidis, head of a mental-health center in eastern Athens. "In September 2010, people had to wait two weeks for a consultation, now it's more like two and a half months."

Before the crisis started, Greece was proud to be at the bottom of the list in Europe for the number of suicides, with a rate of 2.8 per 100,000 inhabitants. But that might be changing. Experts believe that in 2009 the rate of Greek suicides increased by 18% increase compared with 2007, with that figure expected to have climbed even higher in 2010.

Most people who commit suicide come from Athens or the island of Crete, where several business people killed themselves in the midst of grave financial problems. "The desire to commit suicide always has more than one cause, but a lot of those who come to us for help are people who used to make a good living and who are now having financial difficulties," says Aris Violatzis, a psychiatrist from the Klimaka NGO, which runs a suicide hotline.

If experts believe these national blues to stem mainly from economic troubles, they also suspect worries about the future of Greece to be at work too. "The Greek identity has suffered a tremendous blow," says Violatzis. "[People] are ashamed. The entire world today thinks that the Greeks are cheaters and the black sheep of Europe. This is very hard to accept."

Illinois Ex-Gov Blagojevich Fails to Escape Crime Charges... Why?

Two weeks ago, as the prosecution made its final points in his corruption trial, a pale Rod Blagojevich listened nervously as his wife, Patti looked on, sullen and indignant, from the bench, the arms of her brother around her. It was as if they could feel what was coming.

On Monday, June 27, the jury returned from 10 days of deliberation and everyone gathered to hear its decision. Blagojevich blew an air kiss to his weeping wife and then clasped his hands as courtroom deputy Donald Walker began reading the verdict. The first finding of guilt led Blagojevich to purse his lips. Patti pushed back into her brother's arms. With each new pronouncement of guilt, the ex-governor grew more stonefaced even as his wife wept beneath closed eyes. When Walker was done reading, Blagojevich had been found guilty on 17 of the 20 counts against him, including 12 of the most explosive ones, among them wire fraud and conspiracy and attempted extortion stemming from when he tried to sell the Senate seat of then President-elect Barack Obama (As governor, it was Blagojevich's prerogative to name a candidate to complete Obama's uncompleted term). Later, as he held his wife's hand, Blagojevich told the press, "Obviously I was really disappointed with the outcome, I was frankly stunned and there isn't much else to say." On most counts, he faces a maximum of 20-years each and $250,000 in fines. Judges are unlikely to impose maximum sentences, however. It is also not known if the prison terms will be served concurrently. The parties return to court on Aug. 1 to determine sentencing.

The members of the jury, 11 women and one man, spoke to the media afterward but did not provide their names. They indicated that Blagojevich's infamous quote - taped by the FBI - about the Senate seat being "F-in' golden" made it easier for them to decide, after some initial debate, on his guilt. "The Senate Seat was most clear, we felt he made a trade for the senate seat," said Juror 140, a Hispanic woman who teaches third and fourth grade.The forewoman, a retired Director of Music and Liturgy at a Naperville church, said they were sending a message that the American people should be proud of a process that works even when you throw 12 people in the room who had no knowledge of the legal system. But she said the experience did not make her feel any better about Illinois politics. "I told my husband if he was running for politics he'd have to find a new wife."

This was the second trial Blagojevich faced on most of the same charges. His defense had dramatic success the first time around with the successful deployment of the element of surprise. In a stunning move last summer, Blagojevich's attorneys rested their case instead of presenting a single shred of evidence, despite their original promise that the defendant himself would take the stand. That left the jury drowning in the government's complex evidence of intent that nevertheless had no fully completed act of bribe-taking. Irredeemably hung, the jurors were unable to convict Blagojevich or his brother Robert except on one count (lying) out of the original 24 charges.

But you can't surprise all the people all the time. For the second trial, the trio of U.S. assistant attorneys who made up the prosecution took to straightforward, focused outrage more than anything else. First they decided to drop charges against Robert Blagojevich. And then they streamlined the charges down to 20 and made it clearer that just asking for a bribe was just as bad as getting the bribe itself. In the government's final statement, U.S. assistant Carrie Hamilton, a thin petite woman with blond hair tucked back in a pony tail, asked the jury to remember how Blagojevich swore under oath in 2003 and again in 2006 to uphold the state constitution, pledging to use his powers for the people of Illinois. "You have learned that the defendant violated that oath," she said staring down her audience. "He used his power to get things for himself and tried to trade the signing of a bill, state funding for grant, roads, appointment of senate seat to try and get things for himself. This was not only a profound violation of his oath, but a violation of the law."

For the second trial, the defense had a trio as well, made up of Blagojevich's long time friend Sheldon Sorosky, a short balding man, who wore loud, dangling ties, and a pair of 30-something attorneys, Aaron Goldstein and Lauren Kaeseberg. Over the objections of the prosecutors and even Judge James Zagel, the defense tried to give the appearance that missing facts, not allowed into trial, would help tell all, hinting that all Blagojevich was doing was business as usual in the state of Illinois. This time around, though, they also had Blagojevich testify on his own behalf. The results were riotous.

At one point, during a particularly voluble exchange with the prosecution, Blagojevich in the witness stand ignored calls from his own lawyers to keep quiet and blasted out retorts to the government's questions. Goldstein later joked that he may be one of the few attorneys in history to have a client talk over him. Still, the Blagojevich team may have thought that the exchange might have helped to prove not only that the ex-governor liked to be heard but that he was mostly talk and little action. The defense was all about crafting an image that would nullify the prosecution's arguments of a guileful, corrupt public official. They wanted to have the jury believe that the defendant was a buffoon who couldn't really do anything criminal because he wasn't competent enough to see it through.

That kind of lawyerly sleight of hand didn't work this time. The jurors later said that Blagojevich's droning seven-day testimony helped them decide that he was not guilty of the charge that he attempted to extort a road builder. However, they said the same long-winded performce made it clear that Blagojevich was being manipulative.

That played into the prosecution's simpler strategy. In her final argument, like a college professor, Hamilton took the jury through conviction school, talking them through a three-hour PowerPoint presentation of the 20 counts, summarizing the most important evidence, explaining what constitutes soliciting a bribe, extortion and wire fraud. "He repeatedly broke the law," Hamilton told the jury. "It's about the destruction of the faith and trust he destroyed." The case, Hamilton says, comes down to one question: "Did the defendant try to get a benefit for himself in exchange for an official act?"

Over three hours, split between two days, Hamilton walked through five major acts, that consistent soliciting a bribe, extortion and wire fraud. "The defendant intended to defraud, it was not a mistake or accident He does not need to know he was breaking the law," Hamilton reminded the jury. And then she played the FBI tape where Blagojevich talks about how he isn't giving Obama's Senate seat up for "F-in' nothing." "Listen to his voice," she told the jury. "You can hear him smiling. He's giddy."

"Among the many lessons I've learned through this whole experience is to speak a little less," Blagojevich said after the verdict was read. Perhaps knowing their client and knowing the odds, his original defense team of Sam Adam Jr. and Sam Adam Sr. opted out of the rematch with the government. You can only use the element of surprise once.

Illinois Ex-Gov gets Multiple Guilty Verdict!!!

A jury convicted former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich on Monday, June 27, of nearly all the corruption charges against him, including that he tried to sell or trade President Barack Obama's old Senate seat.

Blagojevich had faced 20 charges, including the Senate-seat allegation and that he schemed to shake down executives for campaign donations. He was convicted on all charges regarding the Senate seat.

Jurors delivered their verdicts Monday after deliberating nine days.

Blagojevich had testified for seven days, denying wrongdoing. Prosecutors said he lied and the proof was on FBI wiretaps. Those included a widely parodied clip in which Blagojevich calls the Senate opportunity "f---ing golden."

Jurors in his first trial deadlocked on all but one charge, convicting Blagojevich of lying to the FBI. Blagojevich already faces up to five years for the lying conviction.

Blagojevich, 54, had arrived at the courthouse accompanied by his wife, Patti, and walked past the crowds that lined the street outside the building.

Prosecutors, defense attorneys and dozens of reporters filed into the courtroom Monday after the court announced it had received word of a note from jurors.

"The jury has come to a decision on 18 of the 20 counts," Zagel said, clutching the note and reading it aloud. Jurors added they were deadlocked on two counts and "were confident" they couldn't agree on those charges "even with further deliberations."

Blagojevich was arrested in December 2008, after the FBI had wiretapped hundreds of his telephone calls at work and home. The Illinois Legislature impeached him a month later.

Both trials hinged on whether the former governor's bold ramblings to aides and others on the telephone was just talk, as he insisted, or part of "a political crime spree," in the words of U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald.

Before a national audience, the Blagojevich saga exacerbated Illinois' reputation for graft. The convictions mean Blagojevich is the second Illinois governor in a row facing a prison sentence for corruption. His predecessor, George Ryan, is serving a 6½ year sentence.

The case also became a media spectacle, as the indicted governor and his wife appeared on TV reality shows, and as the loquacious Blagojevich made theatrical appearances daily outside the courthouse during the first trial to profess his innocence and hug his remaining fans.

In a case full of high-level name dropping, defense attorneys in the retrial pulled into court Chicago's new mayor, Rahm Emanuel, and U.S. Representative Jesse Jackson Jr. Emanuel's appearance on the witness stand, the most anticipated by a Chicago mayor in a federal courtroom in decades, was over in just five minutes. Jackson was done in about half an hour.

See TIME's photo-essay "The Remarkable World of Rod Blagojevich."

Overall, though, the retrial had far less of the circuslike atmosphere that accompanied the initial trial. Blagojevich himself also was more subdued this time.

Other major differences were in the prosecution's dramatically streamlined case, and the fact that the defense put on a case after not doing so the first time around.

Prosecutors dropped racketeering counts against the ex-governor and dismissed all charges against his then co-defendant, his brother Robert Blagojevich. They presented just three weeks of evidence - half the time taken at the first trial. They called fewer witnesses, asked fewer questions and played shorter excerpts of FBI wiretaps that underpin most of the charges.

There was also a new variable at the retrial: the testimony from Blagojevich himself. At the first trial, the defense rested without calling any witnesses, and Blagojevich didn't testify despite vowing that he would.

Retrial jurors saw a deferential Blagojevich look them in the eyes and deny every allegation, telling them his talk on the recordings was mere brainstorming.

China Officials Steal $ 120 Billion

This post is in partnership with Worldcrunch, a new global-news site that translates stories of note in foreign languages into English. The article below was originally published in the Economic Observer.

Just how many corrupt Chinese government officials have fled overseas? How much money have they stashed away? And how did they manage to transfer abroad such colossal sums?

Last week, the People's Bank of China published a report that looked at corruption monitoring and how corrupt officials transfer assets overseas. The report quotes statistics based on research by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences: 18,000 Communist Party and government officials, public-security members, judicial cadres, agents of state institutions and senior-management individuals of state-owned enterprises have fled China since 1990. Also missing is about $120 billion.

The People's Bank of China report stresses that until now, nobody has been able to provide an authoritative figure of the exact sum pilfered, and the figure of $120 billion is still only an estimate. It is nonetheless an astronomical sum. It is equivalent to China's total financial allocation for education from 1978 to '98. Each escaped official stole, on average, $7 million. But the real numbers might be even higher. Some media have reported that the wife of the deputy chief engineer of the Ministry of Railways, Zhang Shuguang, who was recently caught for corruption, owns three luxury mansions in Los Angeles and has bank savings of as much as $2.8 billion in the U.S. and Switzerland. This example gives a glimpse into the broader picture.

The number of corrupt officials fleeing China reflects the government's serious attitude about the crackdown on corruption. But if corruption, dereliction of duty and abuse of power are the norm, then the system itself is corrupt. The number also highlights multiple failings in China's embarrassingly ineffective anticorruption campaign.

It takes considerable time for an official to gain a large sum of money by corrupt means and then organize to smuggle it out of the country. Not being able to catch someone during this long time period is the government's first failing.

Next, when a corrupt official prepares his flight, he usually first sends his wife and children overseas while staying behind in China as a so-called naked official. To have such "naked" yet unexposed officials makes for a second failing.

In a country where capital outflow is strictly controlled, how on earth do these people manage to transfer their money overseas successfully? This is the third failing.

And the fourth failing: how they manage to change their identity. These crooks usually hold multiple passports and use many identities. For instance, the former governor of Yunnan province, Li Jiating, had five passports, all real.

The way they escape punishment is the fifth failing. Extradition involves the political and judicial systems of two countries, each with its own concept of law enforcement. The judicial procedure is often complicated and tedious. Extradition is very often obstructed by the fact that a person condemned to death in absentia cannot be extradited for human-rights reasons. In addition, China has not signed extradition treaties with the U.S. or Canada, the two most used destinations, so once the official has run away, the chance of catching him and putting him on trial is close to zero.

Even if they do get caught, the stolen funds are rarely recovered. This is the sixth failing. The U.N. Convention Against Corruption sets out the principle of returning illegal assets, but the procedure is difficult in practice. Not only does China have to show that it owns the assets, but it also has to share some of the money with the countries participating in the joint action. After deductions here and there, there isn't much left.

And, finally, the seventh failing: the government officials who have managed to escape set an example for those still hiding at home. Some of them once held high positions with access to important state secrets and were likely bribed by hostile parties. This poses is a threat to China's political, military and economic stability.

It is for these reasons that it is more important to stop corruption at the source than to catch the culprits after it has happened.

Policies combating money laundering or obliging top government employees to report their personal wealth will not solve this problem. Nor will the close monitoring of naked officials. The effective solution would be to establish a clean system where nobody dares to be corrupt. Certain media have suggested the implementation of a property declaration system. This would be like using antiaircraft guns to fight mosquitoes. But at least it would be a weapon that knows its target.

Conan O'Brien's video editors spoof Apple's Final Cut Pro X

Four days after Apple (AAPL) released Final Cut Pro X, the latest version of its top-of-the-line video editing software, the repercussions are still rippling through Hollywood and the tech press.

David Pogue, who gave it a positive review in Thursday's New York Times, was forced to revisit his assessment that afternoon. "In 10 years of writing Times columns, I've never encountered anything quite like this," he wrote. "After one day of using it, many professional video editors are running through the streets with pitchforks."

Meanwhile, the negative comments on Apple's Mac App Store continue to pile up. As of mid-day Saturday, 471 of 1,028 reviewers had given it one-star -- the most-negative rating Apple allows.

But nobody had more fun with the new version that the post-production crew at the Conan O'Brien show, who put it through its paces in a video entitled "Conan's Editors Absolutely Love Apple's New Final Cut Pro X."

Has the Revolution Left Egypt's Workers Behind?

No one in Zagazig wants to talk about what happened last week. The hundreds of railway workers who maintain the old, trash-ridden tracks and trains in this Nile Delta town whisper hurriedly about a strike that briefly disrupted rail traffic across the country of 80 million. But the workers won't give their names or discuss it at length for fear of retribution from the soldiers and security forces that so swiftly put an end to it. And the man they point to as their labor leader says nervously that he knows nothing about a strike.

But maybe it's better that way, say some Egyptians - particularly political leaders and the railway's managers. "We're against stopping business like this, because we're trying to get stability back," says Mansour al-Shitry, an accountant for the state-run railways. "Of course the government can't meet the demands of all the people at once, and we don't want to give the military council more of a burden than they already have."

That's the rationale echoed by many of Tahrir Square's liberal, intellectual youth, politicians and, indeed, the military leadership. It's an opinion that predominates among the educated classes in the debate over where the line should be drawn between revolution and transition. Protests for political reform are crucial, many argue, because the system of governance will define Egypt's future on all levels. Labor strikes, on the other hand, can and should be postponed: it's not the right time, they say; Egypt's floundering post-revolution economy needs all the work it can get.

But the laboring classes - many members of whom have not received their salaries in months - feel otherwise. Dozens of strikes and sit-ins have stalled business across the public and private sectors in recent months. And to union leaders and labor activists, the core revolutionary demands of the working classes have yet to be acknowledged. Minimum wage has been raised and promises have been made, but most have yet to see concrete change on the ground. And indeed, amid the cracks, crevices, and gaping political and ideological fault lines that have shattered the early unity of the February revolution that toppled President Hosni Mubarak, is a divide that increasingly seems to define other debates as well. It's about class.

"There is total class warfare going on in Egypt right now that I don't even think [the liberal movements] can see," says Joshua Stacher, a political scientist and Egypt expert at Kent State University. "If middle upper class, urban people in Cairo and Alexandria get some of their demands met, they could care less about minimum wage, or the fact that the healthcare system is complete crap," he says of the competing array of post-revolutionary demands. "The dominant discourse that's coming out on TV is that it's not the right time to protest for these things. Like 'You shouldn't have a living wage right now, you're being greedy.'"

Instead, political elites have prioritized political reforms. And one of the most prominent debates to grip Cairo's political scene in recent weeks centers around the question of what needs to come first on the roadmap to a prosperous and democratic Egypt: a new constitution or a new, elected parliament. The debate has largely been split along Islamist versus liberal lines. The latter, fearing an Islamist majority in parliament, wants to ensure that certain rights and laws are guaranteed first. The Islamists argue that only an elected parliament can determine the next constitution, and a national referendum passed overwhelmingly in March specified as much. "Some people are trying to take a detour around the popular decision in the referendum," says Mohamed Ezzat, a local Muslim Brotherhood official in Zagazig. "But the people have chosen a road map for what happens next in this country, and they want that to be respected."

For others, however, it's not about religious ideology or road maps at all. "Mostly their demands are political like 'Freedom' and the debate over what comes first - constitution or elections," says labor activist Adel Zakaria of the urban elite, who he describes as middle class. "Workers don't care about that. They have their own problems - mainly they need to eat."

The April 6th Youth Movement, one of the most prominent liberal groups, say it recognizes the deep economic concerns felt by most Egyptians. And last month, in an effort to mobilize Egyptians for a "Second Revolution" protest in Tahrir, the group handed out a flier that promoted economic demands first. "The people just move with us if we talk about economics only," said the group's leader Ahmed Maher at the time. "We know the constitution is more important than the economic demands because we know that the things in the street are organized after that. But the people in the street don't know that."

The disconnect has emerged in the results of popular polls as well. Liberal political leader Mohamed ElBaradei topped a Facebook poll by Egypt's ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces this week to gauge popular preferences for 18 prospective presidential candidates. To some, it suggests that the majority favors liberal, "Constitution First" politics, of which ElBaradei is an advocate. But in the streets and fields, and on the railway tracks, Egyptians suggest the poll may have more to do with who uses Facebook than with popular opinion.

A less publicized poll released the same week by the International Peace Institute offered a total reversal of rankings, listing former Arab League chief and popular icon Amr Moussa first among the contenders, followed by the country's top military general.

Still, while they lack political clout, the lower class masses - at least in the form of striking workers - have been loud. A new $83 billion budget for fiscal year 2011-2012 released by the Egyptian finance ministry on June 22 says as much about reform priorities as it does about who's making noise. The budget pours money into social welfare spending and subsidies, apparently attempts to address working class unhappiness. And on Friday, workers groups that established the country's first independent labor union federation in March are calling for a million man protest to demand that the government crack down on cronyism in job hiring and uphold its promises to establish better worker rights.

In Zagazig, the railway workers say they want overtime compensation and better pay. Some say they make little more than 500 Egyptian Pounds ($84) a month - hardly enough to raise a family on, and still 200 Egyptian Pounds below the new national minimum wage. "We normal people are calling for our rights," explains one train air conditioner technician plainly.

After security forces cleared the tracks last week, railway workers received a promise from the national Railway Committee, the governor, and the local security chief, that their demands would be met. "They've spoken, but we'll see if they'll pay," says one accountant at the Zagazig train station. "To be honest, how will they pay if there is no income? The economy is in a bad state."

Young Bugti Dead... was it a case of Low I.Q.???

Six people, including the grandson of former chief of Jamhoori Watan Party Nawab Akbar Bugti, were killed in a firing incident in the Defence area of Karachi late Sunday night.

The incident took place outside house no 121, on 7th street, Khayaban-e-Rahat in Defence Phase VI, at around 2am.

At the time of the incident, a dance party was taking place at the residence of Nasir. Two groups clashed at the entrance of the house, and a scuffle broke out over who would enter the premises first. The groups opened fire at each other, killing six people and injuring nine others.

According to District Superintendent Police (DSP) Gizri Zameer Abbasi, the dead have been identified as Taleh Bugti, Iqbal, Kamran, Moon and Joseph. One girl was also killed in the incident. Her name could not be verified, but she was referred to as Bunty in the police report.

The injured include Zeeshan Ziauddin, Zaid Fazl, Faraz Ameer, Irfan Adnan, Qamar, Shahbaz, Bilal and Essa.

The police reached the area 30 minutes after the firing occurred, and confiscated equipment from the premises. This included lights, liquor, the the DJ's equipment.

Police also confiscated arms and ammunition from the premises. According to evidence found at the site, police said that 9MM pistols, Kalashnikovs and SMGs were used by the groups during the firing incident.

Three cars have also been impounded by the police.

The police has taken the owner of the house for questioning, and are searching for Arif Roger, the main accused in the incident.

Malik proposes to bring back NCHD-like bodies under fed govt

Interior Minister, Rehman Malik said Thursday that the authority of issuing weapon licenses would be transferred to provinces by June 30, according to the devolution plan under 18th amendment.

Speaking on a point of order in the upper house of the parliament, he said that the federal government would be responsible for providing such licenses only in the capital city and its administered areas.

Malik said that personally he was in favour to de-weapon all the country, particularly big cities including Karachi and Lahore, remarking that the countries living peacefully do not provided weapon licenses to its citizens. He said that he has checked record of past several years during which licenses were provided unlawfully, adding he would be canceling such licenses to check their misuse.

He said the several weapons were even being used under one license which shows the extent of the misuse. He said that licenses are now being prepared with the help of National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) to prevent their misuse.

On the issue of National Commission for Human Development, the interior minister said that it would be the violation of the constitution if the provinces do not accept accommodating such institutions.

He proposed that if the provinces are not interested in accommodating such institutions according to devolution plan they should be brought back under the control of federal government.

He, however, suggested the Senate to form a committee and address the problems of devolution. He said that the devolution affects are not limited to NCHD employees only as it could expand to a greater extent.

He demanded that all NCHD teachers should be accommodated and if the provinces are not implementing the 18th amendment in letter and spirit they should be asked for.

He said that police has applied light lathi charge on the demonstrating NCHD teachers which should have not been done adding that he had ordered release of 47 arrested teacher when the matter was brought into his notice. Regarding ban on mobile phone service in Bannu, the interior minister said that it was due to security arrangements and government was evolving how to provide service, though limited, in the area.

The interior minister said that motorways police was helping interior ministry in its efforts to eliminate terrorism in the country adding that FC in Balochistan has also been asked to conduct road patrolling for ensuring security.

On the KESC issue, the interior minister said that Prime Minister has convened a committee to resolve the issue.

The interior minister urged the Senate Standing Committee on interior to complete amendments in the Anti-Terrorist Act soon to help effective prosecution of anti-social elements.

He said that National Counter Terrorism Authority (NACTA) act would be presented before the parliament for approval to help overcome the menace of terrorism on sustainable basis.

To another query, he said that there has been anti-terrorist squad in all the forces.

Mullen Saw Risk in Afghan Plan

President Barack Obama's top military adviser and the allied military commander in Afghanistan said Thursday the White House decision to withdraw more than 30,000 troops from Afghanistan by the end of next summer was "more aggressive" and riskier than the two men initially were willing to accept.

Both Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander in Afghanistan, said in congressional testimony that they ultimately came to support the president's decision. But the comments suggest there was pointed internal debate and that the military didn't get all it sought.

"What I can tell you is, the president's decisions are more aggressive and incur more risk than I was originally prepared to accept," Adm. Mullen said.

The military officials worried that removing the troops before the end of the fighting season in Afghanistan, which tends to run from spring until autumn, would increase the risk that the Taliban could regroup.

In a speech to the nation Wednesday night, Mr. Obama said he had ordered the military to withdraw 10,000 troops by the end of 2011 and the remaining 23,000 forces that were part of last year's troop "surge" by the end of summer 2012.

The departure of the surge troops would leave the U.S. with about 70,000 troops in Afghanistan, and Mr. Obama indicated at least some of them would stay through 2014 as part of a North Atlantic Treaty Organization mission.

A day after the president's announcement, some divisions over it appeared within the Pentagon. Several military officials acknowledged the decision was not ideal, but insisted that it wouldn't prevent the military from continuing to pressure the Taliban and didn't threaten the success of the mission.

"Everyone had to give a little here, but it is manageable and we will make it work," said a military official.

One administration official played down the internal debate. Unlike the strategy review in September 2009 in which options involving surges of substantially different sizes were discussed, the policy differences discussed this month were relatively modest, the official said.

Still, one proposal seriously considered by the White House would have pulled troops out in March, according to an official. Defense officials expressed relief that Mr. Obama didn't choose that option.

On Thursday, Mr. Obama told members of the 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum, a military base in upstate New York, that the withdrawal he decided on was a careful decision.

"We're not doing it precipitously," Mr. Obama said. "We're going to do it in a steady way to make sure the gains that all of you helped bring about are sustained."

Reactions to the plan in Washington didn't break down neatly on party lines, a sign that both parties have splintered in their willingness to support a continuation of the Afghan mission.

Many Republicans, such as Saxby Chambliss (R., Ga.), vice chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, said they feared Mr. Obama's drawdown plan could endanger military gains in southern Afghanistan and prevent the military from ramping up operations in the eastern part of the country.

But Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, the Foreign Relations Committee's top Republican, joined war-weary Democrats in complaining that the planned withdrawal was insufficient. Mr. Lugar told Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was appearing before the panel Thursday, that the Obama administration should abandon nation-building efforts in Afghanistan and focus instead on using counterterrorism strikes to keep al Qaeda and the Taliban in check and to ensure the safety of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

Similarly, committee Democrats voiced skepticism about the president's decision, arguing that far more than 10,000 troops should be pulled out this year. Unlike many fellow Democrats, though, committee Chairman Sen. John Kerry (D., Mass.) voiced support for the pace of the withdrawal announced by Mr. Obama. "Though the job is not finished, we have come to the point when this mission can transition," he said.

Adm. Mullen also acknowledged there were also risks in the more aggressive plan originally advocated. "The truth is, we would have run other kinds of risks by keeping more forces in Afghanistan longer," he said.

Kashmir solution imperative, says Zardari

President Asif Ali Zardari on Wednesday underlined that Kashmir solution is imperative and it must be highlighted internationally as it is a bone of contention between Pakistan and India.

According to a Press release, he was talking to Nottingham City Councillor Chaudhry Liaquat Ali at the Presidency in which host of issues of bilateral interests came under discussion.

Zardari stated that Federal government will ensure free, fair and transparent polls in Azad Kashmir ,adding, we want all political parties to promote democracy in the country. He said that overseas Pakistanis could play an important role for resolving the Kashmir dispute. He said there was a large number of Kashmiris who lived in the UK and supported the Kashmir movement. Pakistan wants strong and stable relations with all neighbours, he stressed.

Later, Nottingham City Councillor Chaudhry Liaquat Ali informed President about some of the problems of Overseas Pakistanis and Kashmiris.

Capitol Hill reaction to Obama’s Afghanistan address swift, varied

President Obama on Wednesday night delivered his highly-anticipated address on the drawdown of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, and the reaction from members of Congress was swift and varied. Below is a cross-section of statements from Capitol Hill to Obama's announcement that 33,000 surge troops will be out of Afghanistan by the end of next year.

House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio):

"Succeeding in Afghanistan - and preventing al Qaeda and the Taliban from using the country as a safe haven from which to launch attacks on the U.S. and our allies - is critically important to the safety and security of our country. While the conditions remain difficult, the counterinsurgency strategy implemented by General Petraeus has made significant improvements in security on the ground and allowed the Afghan government to start making progress in meeting the needs of the Afghan people. We all want to bring our troops home as quickly as possible, but we must ensure that the gains we've made are not jeopardized."

"I am pleased the President recognizes that success in Afghanistan is paramount. Continuing to degrade al Qaeda's capabilities in Afghanistan and the surrounding region must take priority over any calendar dates. It's important that we retain the flexibility necessary to reconsider troop levels and respond to changes in the security environment should circumstances on the ground warrant. It is my hope that the President will continue to listen to our commanders on the ground as we move forward. Congress will hold the Administration accountable for ensuring that the pace and scope of the drawdown does not undermine the progress we've made thus far."

"There is no doubt this conflict has tested the resolve of our nation, and I want to express gratitude to the American people for their faithful commitment to our troops and their mission. As this operation enters its next phase, it is imperative that our Commander-in-Chief continues to explain why seeing it through to a successful conclusion is vital to our national interests. Lastly, I want to reiterate how much we appreciate the sacrifices that our men and women in uniform, our diplomats, and their families are making every day. We can never forget their service to our country."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.):

"The President's plan to begin withdrawing troops from Afghanistan is a critical step in the right direction. I commend the many brave members of our Armed Forces who have served there and thank them for their sacrifice. I look forward to the day when all of our courageous fighting men and women are safely home. Under the President's leadership we have made substantial progress toward achieving many of our major strategic goals in the region, including bringing Osama bin Laden to justice and significantly weakening al Qaeda's terrorist capabilities."

"We have also helped put the Afghan government in a position to begin to take responsibility for its own security in a growing number of key areas. As we withdraw our troops, the Afghans must continue to step up and take responsibility for their own country. In the meantime, we must capitalize on the progress we've made in Afghanistan to finish the job and ensure al Qaeda's long-term, strategic defeat. The President's plan will allow us to do that, while beginning the important transfer of security and governance responsibilities to the Afghan people."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.):

"Tonight, President Obama made it clear: we are now beginning the process of bringing our troops home and ending the war in Afghanistan. It has been the hope of many in Congress and across the country that the full drawdown of U.S. forces would happen sooner than the President laid out - and we will continue to press for a better outcome. Concluding this war will enable us to reduce the deficit and focus fuller attention on the priorities of the American people: creating jobs and investing in our nation's future by building a strong, thriving economy for our children."

"Congress will continue to perform the oversight responsibilities critical to ensuring a successful withdrawal as soon as possible. We will maintain our commitment and gratitude to our men and women in uniform and their families, who have done everything asked of them with courage and patriotism."

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.):

"I am concerned that the withdrawal plan that President Obama announced tonight poses an unnecessary risk to the hard-won gains that our troops have made thus far in Afghanistan and to the decisive progress that must still be made. This is not the 'modest' withdrawal that I and others had hoped for and advocated."

"Though we have been fighting in Afghanistan for a decade, it has only been in the past 18 months that we have had the right leadership, the right strategy, and the right level of resources. As a result, our brave men and women in uniform are taking strategically important territory away from the enemy. They are decimating Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And they are training Afghan security forces that are increasingly capable of leading this fight on their own. President Obama deserves a lot of credit for our recent progress in Afghanistan, but as our military commanders have repeatedly said, this progress remains fragile."

"Though I disagree with the President's withdrawal plan, I nonetheless believe that America's interests in Afghanistan are far too important for us to give up the fight and walk away, as many in Congress and elsewhere now advocate. I know that Americans are war-weary and fed up with our unsustainable national debt. But what our country can least afford is the cost of failure in Afghanistan. It remains a vital national interest for the United States to succeed."

Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.):

"The President's announcement that we will withdraw 30,000 of our 100,000 troops from Afghanistan by next summer is a step towards the end of this long war. We invaded Afghanistan to end al Qaeda and with the killing of Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants, we have accomplished our goal. Over the coming months, I'll continue to press for a swift and substantial withdrawal of our combat forces from Afghanistan. Ten years, hundreds of billions of dollars and the loss of over 1,600 American service members later, it's time for our fighting men and women to come home."

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.):

"The president's decision represents a positive development, although in my view the conditions on the ground justify an even larger drawdown of U.S. troops this year than the president announced tonight. I will continue to advocate for an accelerated drawdown in the months ahead, and for enhanced training and partnering with Afghan forces, because only they can provide durable security for their nation. The conditions justifying a larger drawdown include the progress U.S. and Afghan troops and our allies have made to improve security in Afghanistan; the faster than expected growth of the Afghan security forces; the death of Osama bin Laden and the decreasing number of al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan; and the need to transition as quickly as possible to Afghan responsibility for Afghanistan's security to increase the chances for long-term success of the mission there."

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.):

"America has been an exceptional force for good in this world and we should never apologize for it. At the same time, we are running a $1.5 trillion deficit, and we must re-think our spending in all areas. We have to re-evaluate, but we have to do it in a sensible manner. What gains have been made in Afghanistan - as tenuous as they may be - have been paid with a very high price, in terms of the sacrifice of the finest among us. We have to make sure those gains are consolidated, and not lost. The Afghan people are like folks everywhere. They want peace. They want freedom. At some point, they have to fight for it, and I am very encouraged that so many are willing do so."

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.):

"For almost a decade, American troops have served bravely in Afghanistan. Their efforts have helped lead to the death of Osama bin Laden and the destruction, to a great degree, of al-Qaeda's capability to plan and launch attacks against Americans from Afghanistan. These were our original objectives in Afghanistan, and they have been largely achieved. Our struggle against terrorists who would do Americans harm is certainly not over. But now is a time to consider how the threats against Americans have changed, and how we can most effectively defeat the terrorists behind those threats. That's why this matter needs to be under continuing review as we work toward the Afghan people and government taking responsibility for their nation's security and stability. It is crucial that we fight global terrorism both smarter and harder, and I will continue to advocate for an Afghanistan policy that helps us do so."

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.):

"Many of us had high expectations for the President's speech tonight. I had hoped he would clearly explain to the American people his long-term strategy for success in Afghanistan, and remind all of us why this mission is deserving of the sacrifice in American blood and treasure. Instead, he seems preoccupied with troop levels and when to start his withdrawal based on political considerations and not what will best serve U.S. national security. I am increasingly concerned by the lagging public support for the mission, and it was disappointing that the President failed to bring more clarity to the situation."

Reps. Mike Honda (D-Calif.), Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) and Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.):

"On March 16, 2011, the four Co-Chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus Task Force on Peace and Security and 76 other Members of Congress sent a letter to the President asking him to move swiftly to end America's longest war, the war in Afghanistan."

"Since then, the Co-Chairs have continued to call on the Administration to move towards a significant, swift and sizeable reduction in our troops in Afghanistan, meeting or exceeding the number of troops on the ground before the escalation. Similarly, the Democratic National Committee called for a 'sizeable and significant' drawdown beginning in July. This week, the U.S. Conference of Mayors called for an end to the Afghanistan war. In poll after poll, the majority of Americans are consistently calling for an end to this war. ... The Co-Chairs of the CPC Task Force on Peace and Security believe that a significant, swift and sizeable troop reduction in Afghanistan is necessary. Anything less hurts our nation's future and is unacceptable."

Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.):

"It's time to bring the surge troops home, and I wish the president had laid out a more aggressive plan today. After discussing this issue at length with senior military leaders, diplomats, and many experts with years of service in Afghanistan, I think we could safely withdraw 15,000 troops this year without jeopardizing the gains that our men and women in uniform have achieved."

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.):

"Afghanistan is not just about Afghanistan. It is about the bigger fight against Al Qaeda and radical Islamic terrorism. After a decade of fighting, the American people are weary of war. Facing massive unemployment and a growing national debt, they are weary of the effort's cost. So am I. But the answer to a bad situation is not to make it worse. And I have always believed that a troop withdrawal plan based not on progress towards our ultimate goal, but rather on a desire to hit certain numbers, would be a tragic mistake. Yes, American troops need to leave Afghanistan, but they should do so pursuant to a plan that accomplishes our vital goal. I hope that in the days to come, the President will more clearly articulate how his troop withdrawal plan does that."

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.):

"I want to thank President Obama for speaking directly to the American people tonight about the ongoing war in Afghanistan. However, I believe that we must step back and review our Afghanistan policy in the context of our overall national security. Shifting brigades alone is not the answer."

"Ending the surge in 2012 with a disappointing 10,000 combat troops coming home this year is not good enough. As I have advocated for months, it is time to shift course in Afghanistan to a counter-terrorism mission, with an aggressive drawdown of combat troops. In the decade since the start of this war, al Qaeda has metastasized, expanding and strengthening its influence across the globe. We have seen that counter-terrorism works best in countering al Qaeda."

Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), ranking member on the House Armed Services Committee:

"President Obama made it clear early on in his campaign for the Presidency that he understood the severity of the threat emanating from Afghanistan. Upon taking office, he acted on his campaign pledge and made Afghanistan a priority. That focus has since paid dividends and we have seen significant progress over the last year and a half. The gains we have seen are real and substantial and the men and women of our Armed Forces should be commended for these achievements. However, the cost of our efforts in Afghanistan - in terms of money and lives - is a significant strain on our nation and we must begin to responsibly reduce our commitments."

"Leading up to the President's speech tonight I believe there is one certainty: our men and women in uniform have bravely implemented a strategy that has yielded significant progress and we can now begin to bring them home. I look forward to hearing more from the President this evening."

House Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson (Conn.):

"I want to commend President Obama. Over the last 18 months we've had some great successes in the war on terror - capped with the truly historic mission that succeeded in bringing Osama bin Laden to justice - that now allow us to begin drawing our operations in Afghanistan to a close. While I recognize that it is in our own best interest to ensure that the region remains stable, after nearly a decade, with thousands of American lives and billions of dollars invested, it's time to ask the Afghan government to stand on its own. We have too many important issues to address here at home to do anything less."

House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.):

"The counterinsurgency strategy implemented by General David Petraeus and other military leadership continues to show results in Afghanistan. Marines and service members have performed remarkably to advance the mission under difficult circumstances. I applaud their efforts and look forward to their safe return home."

"Like many Americans, I want to see the prompt return of our troops and the successful completion of their mission. Unfortunately, their progress is being undermined by corruption in Kabul. We have yet to see the necessary leadership from President Karzai and from President Obama to address this pervasive problem within the Afghan government. Establishing the confidence of the Afghan people in their government is an essential component in achieving our objective of handing over a stable and secure Afghanistan. President Obama could do far more to advance our ultimate success and timely return of our forces by engaging President Karzai to root out corruption in the Kabul government. I hope that the speech tonight is not more lip service and that President Obama commits himself to the task."