Obama under fire over space plans

High-profile critics fear President Barack Obama's commercial overhaul of human spaceflight is going nowhere and could mark the end of half a century of US supremacy among the stars and planets.

"We will have no American access to, and return from, low Earth orbit and the International Space Station for an unpredictable length of time in the future," Neil Armstrong, the first man to set foot on the Moon, warned lawmakers at a recent hearing.

The end of the space shuttle era has left America's human spaceflight program in an "embarrassing" state, Armstrong said, arguing that NASA needs a stronger vision for the future and should focus on returning humans to the Moon and to the International Space Station.

With the US space shuttle program now mothballed after its last flight in July, the United States is forced to depend on Russia's Soyuz capsules to ferry astronauts to the orbiting research laboratory until at least 2015.

Obama canceled the Constellation program that aimed to return humans to the Moon by 2020 and called on NASA to instead focus on new, deep-space capabilities to carry people to an asteroid by 2025 and Mars by 2030.

NASA is counting on the private sector to develop a shuttle alternative at the least possible cost within the next five years.

But many experts doubt that the firms, most of which have little space experience, can step up to the challenge.

"I don't think any of the ISS partners looks at what we are doing in the US with commercial cargo and crew and feels very confident," Space Policy Institute director Scott Pace told AFP.

"So there is a great gap between the aspirations of the policy and the actual capabilities that exist now."

A ticket on the Soyuz capsules to the ISS costs global space agencies between $50 million and $60 million each.

Former astronaut Eugene Cernan, who commanded the Apollo 17 flight and was the last man to walk on the Moon in 1972, said Constellation has been replaced by a "mission to nowhere" and urged NASA to return to the Moon.

Under intense congressional pressure from both his fellow Democrats and rival Republicans, the White House has agreed to develop sooner than planned a heavy-lift launch vehicle for deep human space exploration dubbed the Space Launch System. But financing and other details remain vague.

NASA is focusing especially on deploying the SLS to explore asteroids around 2025, remaining vague on plans to visit Mars and mute on a return to the Moon.

Worried about the course taken by NASA, Cernan said that "today, we are on a path of decay. We are seeing the book close on five decades of accomplishment as the leader in human space exploration."

Republican Representative Ralph Hall, the chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, agreed.

"If NASA doesn't move out quickly, more and more of our industrial base, skilled engineers and technicians, and hard-won capabilities are at risk of withering away," Hall said.

The 2012 budget request for human exploration through 2016 is only 38 percent that requested for 2007, or $50 billion less.

"The current administration?s view of our nation?s future in space offers no dream, no vision, no plan, no budget, and no remorse," said former NASA administrator Michael Griffin.

"The resulting turmoil when this is plainly seen by all will, without doubt, further impede progress in human spaceflight, and poses a major risk for this nation."

NASA has consistently rejected such criticism, arguing, like Obama, that the Constellation plan was over budget, behind schedule and lacking in innovation.

Spokesman David Weaver described the vision laid out by the president at the Kennedy Space Center in April 2010 as "bold" and said it would "one day allow the first astronauts to set foot on Mars."

Source http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jEslxGYUGLGYKgQKfZ6fn5LWCnkw?docId=CNG.947744aa7f2a9543ab7c4b0e24b9136c.221

US Republicans hit aid to Israel neighbors, Pakistan

US Republicans moved Wednesday to cut aid to Pakistan, Israel’s neighbors and leftist countries in Latin America, vowing to get tough on militants and US rivals amid a drive to curb spending.

In an often contentious session that ran late into the night, the Republican-led House Foreign Affairs Committee took up a range of priorities as it aimed to cut $6.4 billion from President Barack Obama’s budget requests.

But to come into force, Republican lawmakers will need to reach a compromise with the Senate where Obama’s Democratic Party retains control and is mostly supportive of the administration’s international outreach.

In one key measure, the bill would impose further conditions on assistance to Pakistan at a time of mounting US concern about the country’s military and intelligence in the wake of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.

“The language in this bill puts that government on notice that it is no longer business as usual and that they will be held to account if they continue to refuse to cooperate,” said Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the Republican chairwoman of the committee.

The Obama administration recently suspended about one-third of its $2.7 billion annual defense aid to Pakistan. But it has assured Islamabad it is committed to a five-year, $7.5 billion civilian package approved in 2009 that aims to build schools, infrastructure and democratic institutions.

The Republican bill would put that civilian aid in the firing line, requiring the United States to cut it if the administration does not certify measurable progress by Pakistan in fighting militants.

Representative Howard Berman, the top Democrat on the committee and a main author of the 2009 bill, said he agreed on the need to “get tough with Pakistan” but disagreed on restrictions over civilian aid.

“The key to long-term stability in Pakistan, and the only way we’ll ever get Pakistan to change its behavior, is by strengthening its civilian institutions — not weakening them as this bill will do,” Berman said.

The committee was expected to make a final vote Thursday, when it will also take up controversial issues including a Republican proposal to ban aid to non-governmental groups that provide abortions.

The bill would also end decades of security aid to Egypt, where protests swept out president Hosni Mubarak in February, unless the new leaders fully implement a peace treaty with Israel and exclude the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Republicans would also cut off security assistance to Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority and Yemen if militant movements such as Hezbollah and Hamas hold any position in government.

In a series of largely party line votes, the committee took aim at assistance to Latin American nations. The Republicans approved a measure to bar any aid to left-leaning Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Argentina.

Obama had requested some $96 million geared toward the five countries in the fiscal year starting in October but that includes aid to non-governmental organizations, which would not be affected.

The Republicans also pushed through the elimination of the $44 million in US funding for the Organization of American States, a regional bloc of 35 countries.

“Every time we turn around, the OAS instead of supporting democracies is supporting and coddling, if you will, the likes of Hugo Chavez,” said Republican Representative Connie Mack, referring to Venezuela’s firebrand president.

Democrats sharply criticized Mack. Representative Gary Ackerman said that the United States would effectively be withdrawing in its own continent from a global competition with China for “hearts and minds.”

“At the proper time, I might just offer an amendment to pull out of the world and put all this money into digging a moat around the United States and putting a big dome over the thing,” Ackerman said sarcastically.

In one measure that enjoyed bipartisan support, the bill would prevent China from opening further consulates until the United States is allowed to maintain a mission in Lhasa, from where US diplomats could assess human rights in Tibet.

Source http://www.dawn.com/2011/07/21/us-republicans-hit-aid-to-israel-neighbors-pakistan.html

President Obama Declines To Define Victory In Afghanistan

President Obama said today that “the tide of war is receding” in Afghanistan, but declined to define what victory in the war-torn country would look like.

Instead, the president told reporters at a White House press conference that the U.S. is being successful in its missions, which he described as being “narrowly drawn” and focused on making sure al-Qaeda cannot attack the U.S. and helping Afghans maintain their own security.

Asked about yesterday’s deadly Taliban attack on the Inter-Continental Hotel in Kabul yesterday and whether it concerns him that Afghan forces may not be able to step up their game, Obama stressed that “our work is not done.”

“Kabul is much safer than it was, and Afghan forces in Kabul are much more capable than they were. That doesn't mean that there are not going to be events like this potentially taking place. And that will probably go on for some time,” he said.

The press conference, Obama’s 14th since taking office, comes one week after he announced his strategy to withdraw the 33,000 “surge” troops from Afghanistan by the end of next summer, several months earlier than originally anticipated.

"Keep in mind, the drawdown hasn't begun. So we understood that Afghanistan's a dangerous place, that the Taliban is still active and that there are still going to be events like this on occasion," Obama said.

Source http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/06/president-obama-declines-to-define-victory-in-afghanistan.html

Obama Still Mulling Afghanistan Troop Drawdown

President Barack Obama on Wednesday had another in a series of regular meetings with Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who will be among key advisers making recommendations about the size and scope of a U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan scheduled to begin in July.

Questions about when Mr. Obama will actually receive formal recommendations from Defense Secretary Gates and military commanders have been a daily feature of White House news briefings for weeks.

The White House response has been consistent. Spokesman Jay Carney tells reporters the president continues to hold regular meetings with Secretary Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and other members of his national security team.

Gates has made clear he believes the beginning of a U.S. troop drawdown should be modest in terms of numbers, and ensure that the U.S. maintains a strong combat troop presence.

Media reports in recent weeks, quoting various un-named administration officials, have speculated on the size of the drawdown, mentioning figures ranging from 3,000 or 5,000 troops to much higher.

In testimony to Congress on Wednesday, Gates insisted that Afghanistan is "not a war without end" and underscored the danger of allowing failure of the mission. "I know people are frustrated, the country has been at war for 10 years," he said. "I know people are tired, but people also have to think in terms of stability and in terms of the potential for reconstitution (of Taliban and al-Qaida), what is the cost of failure?"

One recent report in the on line publication The Daily Beast quoted anonymous administration officials as saying the president may unveil a plan involving a slow withdrawal over a period of 12 to 18 months of as many as 30,000 troops.

As that and other reports noted, this would be the number of U.S troops Mr. Obama sent to Afghanistan as part of a surge in late 2009 aimed at pushing back Taliban advances.

Spokesman Carney declined to say whether the withdrawal itself was on the agenda for Wednesday's meeting with Secretary Gates, adding that Afghanistan routinely comes up in such meetings.

The U.S. commander in Afghanistan, General David Petraeus, is in Washington. The primary purpose is to prepare for the U.S. Senate hearing next week to confirm his nomination as the new CIA director.

Carney was evasive on the question of meetings between General Petraeus and the president. "I don't have any announcements about meetings, but I think it is fair to, I'll simply refer you to what I have said in the past, which is that the president will have discussions with General Petraeus, who is the commanding general in Afghanistan, and others to hear their ideas and their recommendations about the beginning of a drawdown, which I hasten to remind people is the implementation of a policy that he articulated in December 2009, including specifically the fact that we will begin the drawdown in July of 2011," he said.

President Obama continues to face pressures from Capitol Hill, where the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Democrat John Kerry, called Afghan war costs of $10 billion a day "unsustainable" and urged a speeding up of troop withdrawals.

Anti-war sentiment could be heard in remarks by Massachusetts Democrat Congressman Jim McGovern who told reporters after a meeting earlier this month with the president that Americans "have had it" with the war in Afghanistan. "I think people have had enough, I think the American people are ahead of Congress and ahead of the administration on the issue of the war in Afghanistan, I think we need to bring our troops home where they belong," he said.

On Wednesday, a group of 27 U.S. senators, Democrats and one Independent, sent a letter to President Obama urging what they called a "sizable and sustained" drawdown and a shift of course in U.S. strategy.

The lawmakers said the primary objectives for U.S. involvement in Afghanistan - removal of the Taliban government that sheltered al-Qaida, the killing of Osama bin Laden and disruption of terrorist networks allied with al-Qaida - have largely been met.

In remarks at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, another influential senator, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, argued that the 30,000 U.S. troop surge is "beginning to pay off" and supported a modest reduction. "A modest reduction this summer is called for, achievable and would not undercut the overall effort. The goal to transition to Afghan security force control by 2014 is very much possible if we continue the training, equipping and the general effort to build capacity," he said.

Senator Graham cautioned against "losing the momentum" in Afghanistan, and warned against Congress accelerating a withdrawal schedule "because it is popular at home" saying this undercuts gains in Afghanistan.

Recent media reports have also speculated about a struggle in the internal administration discussion involving, the reports say, differences between advisers to Mr. Obama, not only about the size of a drawdown but overall strategy going forward.

In responding to numerous questions, the White House continues to stress that while the president will have options before him that will be reviewed and discussed, the process leading to a final decision does not involve any major re-opening of the overall Afghanistan strategy laid out in December of 2009.

Source http://www.voanews.com/english/news/asia/Obama-Still-Mulling-Afghanistan-Troop-Drawdown-123956204.html

House sends Obama message, rejects debt increase

The U.S. House today rejected a GOP bid to increase the debt limit without any spending cuts to go along with it, in an effort designed by Republicans to put President Obama and Democrats on the political hot seat.

The bill was set up to fail by House Speaker John Boehner and his leadership team to show the need for deep spending cuts and budget changes to go along with any increase in the nation's $14.3 trillion borrowing authority.

In the end, the bill was rejected on a 97-318 vote. No Republicans voted for the measure.

The political ploy comes a day before Obama meets with the entire House GOP conference -- the first such White House get-together since Boehner's party won a record 63 seats to gain power in the 2010 elections.

"Raising the debt limit without major spending cuts and meaningful reforms would hurt our economy and destroy more jobs, adding to our debt crisis," Boehner said. The speaker has said that everything except tax increases is on the table to reduce a sea of red ink.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has said repeatedly that the nation will be in danger of default if Congress does not pass an increase in the debt limit by Aug. 2. The United States officially hit the $14.3 trillion limit earlier this month, but Geithner halted investments in two big government pension plans in order to help cash flow.

Under the measure by House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp, the government would have been allowed to borrow another $2.4 trillion.

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., blasted Republicans before the debate began for playing games when defaulting on government loans is at risk.

"If we were adults and acting as adults, we would come together and give certainty to the markets that, 'Of course, America's going to pay its bills," said Hoyer, who planned to vote against the so-called "clean" debt limit increase.

Democrats were split on the vote: 97 lawmakers voted for the bill, while 82 members joined 236 Republicans to reject the measure. Seven Democrats voted "present," to avoid taking a stand.

Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., who has been trying to garner support for a "clean" debt limit increase, denounced the GOP's effort as "guaranteed to fail."

"The clock is ticking away to Aug. 2. If we fail to increase the debt limit and default, America for the first time will not be able to pay its bills," Welch said in a recent interview.

"If this (vote) has the fundamental objective to be 30-second attack ads, then members will see it for what it is," Welch said.

Separately, Vice President Biden has been working with a small group of lawmakers on a bipartisan debt deal. White House press secretary Jay Carney said before the House vote that Obama "looks forward to an agreement on deficit reduction and to the Congress doing what it must do, which is vote to raise the debt ceiling."

USA TODAY's Richard Wolf takes a look at the White House meeting between Obama and the House GOP in The Oval, scheduled for Wednesday.

Source http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/05/house-debt-limit-vote/1

Obama's aides split over top-secret Osama bin Laden raid

U.S. President Barack Obama held a crucial meeting last week in which his advisers debated three options for dealing with top-secret information about a luxury compound in Pakistan where they thought Osama bin Laden might be hiding.

At a two-hour meeting in the ultra-secure White House Situation Room, the team discussed the pros and cons of a raid on the compound by a small group of elite U.S. forces, according to a senior administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The two other alternatives were to conduct a strike or to wait for information that might lend greater clarity on whether the Al-Qa'ida leader was indeed holed up at the fortress-like compound outside of Islamabad, the official said.

Obama's advisers were split at the Thursday meeting and the president took a night to think about the decision, the official said.

On Friday morning, just before leaving to visit tornado-hit Alabama, Obama revealed to a small group of aides that he had decided in favor of an immediate raid, the official said.

"It's a go," Obama told his advisers, as he ordered the operation that led to killing of the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S.

Information about the Abbotabad compound had surfaced last August, but it was not until March that U.S. officials felt convinced enough of bin Laden's potential presence there that they began to develop a list of options.

U.S. intelligence analysts had been monitoring the complex, observing that there was a million-dollar home there owned by someone with no apparent source of income. There also appeared to be a family living there, including a man who never left the compound, according to the official.

The family seemed to fit a profile of bin Laden's family. Still, right up until the end, no one in the Obama administration, including the U.S. president, knew for sure.

The discussions over what to do took place over a period of weeks in meetings that were so closely held, no photographers were present and the sessions were not given titles, the official said.

Because the person who was believed to be bin Laden seemed always to remain at the compound, that removed some of the pressure to act immediately on the suspicions.

Still, Obama and his aides feared delaying action too long would increase the risk that word of the surveillance might leak out and their target might flee, the official said.

The timing of Obama's Friday order of the raid was driven in part by that concern. Also playing a role in the timing was the fact that the U.S. Navy SEAL team had carried out a number of rehearsals of the operation and was deemed ready to move ahead by its commander.

On Sunday afternoon, Obama convened a meeting at the White House where the mood was "tense" and "anxiety-ridden" as the group monitored the unfolding operation on a screen, the official said.

Those present included U.S. Secretary of State of Hillary Clinton, Defence Secretary Robert Gates, White House National Security Adviser Tom Donilon and White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan.

"We got him, guys," Obama said in reaction to the news of bin Laden's death.

Source http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Obama+aides+split+over+secret+Osama+Laden+raid/4714452/story.html

Obama goes local to sell deficit reduction plan

The White House billed President Obama's interviews with local reporters Monday as an opportunity to "discuss his vision for reducing our debt and bringing down our deficit, based on the values of shared responsibility and shared prosperity."

But instead Mr. Obama opted to highlight issues like job growth- "we've seen numbers each month" - and blasting the Republican's proposed budget as one that "turns Medicare into a voucher program." When he discussed raising revenue-aka taxes- he stressed it would be "mostly coming from people like me, high income individuals."

Away from the White House press corps, Mr. Obama ultimately yalked less about his new deficit reduction plan and more about his administration's achievements- or about the visiting reporters' children.

In an interview with CBS News Denver affiliate KCNC, the president focused on clean energy and education and rarely used terms like debt or deficit, though he did cite his $2 trillion plan to cut spending as outlined in a speech last week.

"We don't have any magic bullet," Mr. Obama said. "When you've had a recession this bad then it's going to take some time to fix it."

In a run-up to the midterm elections, the president did a series of interviews with local radio and television stations to help fire up the Democratic base. The White House says he isn't yet campaigning, but Monday's interviews were scheduled with stations in states important to the re-election campaign- swing states Colorado and North Carolina, as well as Texas and Indiana.

Obama also has town halls about his deficit reduction plan scheduled in Virginia and Nevada this week, as well as a Facebook town hall in California.

CBS News Radio White House correspondent Mark Knoller pressed Jay Carney in his daily briefing Monday, asking the press secretary if the president thinks "he gets better access to the American people than doing a news conference here?"

"We reach out in numerous ways," Carney said. "It just remains the case that a lot of Americans still get a large amount of their news from local television."

Source http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20055111-503544.html