Analysis: Clashing visions weigh on U.S. drive for Taliban talks

By Matthew Green

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - As the United States makes a fresh attempt to start talks with the Taliban, competing visions in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan over what an eventual peace process might look like have emerged as one of the biggest hurdles.

Washington's hopes of negotiating with the insurgents to stabilize Afghanistan before most foreign troops leave by the end of 2014 had appeared to achieve a breakthrough last week when the Taliban opened an office in the Qatari capital Doha.

But the process was plunged into uncertainty when Afghan President Hamid Karzai refused to send negotiators to the Gulf state after the Taliban raised a flag at its new premises, infuriating the Afghan government and prompting frantic attempts by U.S. officials to resuscitate the planned dialogue.

While global attention has focused on the debacle in Doha, tensions between Afghanistan and Pakistan - whose cooperation will be vital to any deal - have made the prospects of meaningful progress towards a settlement even less sure.

Since the Doha office was opened, Pakistani officials have made a series of comments suggesting that Karzai, who is due to step down at elections in April, 2014, is already irrelevant to what should be wide-ranging talks on Afghanistan's future.

"His expiry date has come," said a Pakistani government official, who is close to Pakistan's discussions with the U.S. and other allies on Afghanistan. "The principle is a fundamental overhaul."

Pakistan is in a position to influence the talks because its security forces backed the Taliban's rise to power in Afghanistan in the mid-1990s and continue to serve as gatekeepers to insurgent commanders living on its territory.

While the government official's view does not reflect the public position of Pakistan, which has pledged to support the Afghan government's reconciliation drive on the basis of the existing Afghan constitution, it does provide a window into a strand of thinking within Islamabad's ruling establishment.

However, it is unusual for senior officials in the government to discuss Afghan policy in detail.

The view that Karzai is a hindrance to talks was reflected in comments made to Reuters by three senior Pakistani officials occupying key positions in the foreign ministry and the army, which holds sway over relations with Afghanistan, in recent months. Karzai was installed as president after U.S.-backed troops overthrew the Taliban government in 2001.

"Right now, Karzai is the biggest impediment to the peace process," a top Pakistani Foreign Ministry official told Reuters in March. "In trying to look like a savior, he is taking Afghanistan straight to hell."

The thrust of Pakistan's criticism is that Karzai is too erratic to handle negotiations. Pakistani officials also argue that the most important protagonists for any peace process are the United States, the Taliban, and the Northern Alliance, a group of Afghan ex-warlords who fought the Taliban in the 1990s and now wield significant influence in Kabul.

This view was laid out in detail in a front-page story published in Pakistan's privately owned Express Tribune newspaper after the Taliban office opened, quoting Pakistani military and diplomatic sources as saying Karzai had no place in any deal.

The sources described the Afghan president as "unstable" and a "poisonous roadblock."

"HOSTILE AND EVIL"

Afghan officials and commentators suspect that Pakistan's frustration with Karzai stems from its desire to ensure that any future government in Kabul overturns the Afghan president's policy of cultivating warmer ties with India, Pakistan's nuclear rival. They also maintain that Pakistan has backed the Taliban through the 12 years of war against U.S.-backed troops.

"We pleaded with Pakistan for peace, but Pakistan's policy and intentions towards Afghanistan have always been hostile and evil," said Bashir Bezhan, a Kabul-based political analyst.

Washington praised Pakistan last week for helping to nudge insurgents towards the negotiating table in Doha, a contrast with acrimonious exchanges in previous years over allegations that Pakistan continued to covertly support the Taliban.

Against this backdrop of suspicions of Pakistan, an attack by the Taliban on the presidential palace in Kabul on Tuesday cast fresh doubt on whether Karzai would be prepared to participate in peace talks.

U.S. President Barack Obama later called Karzai and the two agreed on the need for an Afghan-led peace process and to support the presence of the Taliban office in Doha, the White House said. But no date has been set for any negotiations.

Pakistan foreign ministry spokesman Aizaz Chaudhry said Islamabad remained committed to supporting reconciliation in Afghanistan. "The official position of the government is to support an all inclusive, inter-Afghan dialogue," he said.

BONN 2

The Pakistani government official who is close to Islamabad's thinking on Afghanistan, said one possible way forward at Doha would be far-reaching talks akin to the conference held in the German city of Bonn in December, 2001, which laid the foundations of Karzai's administration.

The key players would be the United States, the Taliban and members of the Northern Alliance, who Pakistan has been carefully courting for more than a year - but not Karzai.

"It would be in a real sense a Bonn 2," the government official said. "Pakistan will have a ringside view...In the ring you'll have Americans and Afghans."

Such a view cuts a complete contrast with the position of Karzai's government, which believes the insurgents must lay down their arms, accept the constitution and find a role within the new Afghanistan that grew from the ashes of the Taliban theocracy toppled by U.S.-led forces in 2001.

The "Bonn 2" proposal may, however, just be wishful thinking within Pakistan's military, which might see such a conference as a chance to promote its preferred factions.

There would also seem to be little appetite among Karzai's Western allies to go back to the drawing board in Afghanistan at a time when NATO countries are seeking to scale back their engagement.

The Afghan government declined to comment on any "Bonn 2" kind of meeting. Washington has repeatedly said the Taliban must accept the Afghan constitution and U.S. officials said they were unaware of any proposal for a new Bonn-style conference.

For now, the United States is sticking to its plan to coax Karzai's government and the Taliban together in Qatar, even as the tensions between Afghanistan and Pakistan remain unresolved.

"In the Pakistani military's eyes, Karzai is a lame duck, irrelevant," said Cyril Almeida, a columnist with Pakistan' Dawn newspaper. "The problem is that his is the only Afghan government there is."

(Additional reporting by Hamid Shalizi in KABUL, Warren Strobel in WASHINGTON; Editing by Raju Gopalakrishnan)

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/analysis-clashing-visions-weigh-u-drive-taliban-talks-210731480.html

seabiscuit dingo nba all star weekend malin akerman jeff carter

Julianne Moore circling 'Hunger Games: Mockingjay'

By Brent Lang and Jeff Sneider

LOS ANGELES (TheWrap.com) - Julianne Moore is in early talks to join the cast of "The Hunger Games: Mockingjay," an individual familiar with the project has told TheWrap.

The Oscar nominee would play President Alma Coin - the leader of the autocratic society behind the gladiatorial games - in the two-part finale. Moore joins a cast that will include heavyweights Philip Seymour Hoffman and Jennifer Lawrence and heartthrobs Liam Hemsworth and Josh Hutcherson.

She previously co-starred with Hutcherson in the Oscar-nominated 2010 film "The Kids Are All Right."

Moore recently scored Emmy gold for her portrayal of a different politician, vice presidential aspirant and "you betcha" spouter Sarah Palin in last year's HBO film "Game Change." She next stars in a remake of "Carrie" and the medieval action adventure "The Seventh Son."

"Mockingjay" will be released in two parts, with the first installment hitting theaters on November 21, 2014, and the second chapter debuting on November 20, 2015.

Moore is represented by CAA and Management 360.

Deadline first reported her attachment.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/julianne-moore-circling-hunger-games-mockingjay-185113269.html

the masters live mega millions winner holy thursday chris stewart evo 4g lte marlins new stadium arnold palmer

Emma Watson to Teen Vogue: I Was Famous?!?

Source: http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2013/06/emma-watson-to-teen-vogue-i-was-famous/

2013 NFL draft NFL.com Rebecca Martinson EJ Manuel Dion Jordan Omar Borkan Al Gala kylie bisutti

Defense wins round on WikiLeaks helicopter video

FORT MEADE, Md. (AP) ? Lawyers for Army Pfc. Bradley Manning can offer evidence contradicting the government's assertion that he revealed classified information in a leaked battlefield video from Iraq, a military judge said Thursday.

The judge, Army Col. Denise Lind, took judicial notice of the document during Manning's court-martial at Fort Meade in Maryland. Judicial notice is a preliminary step toward admitting evidence.

The document is an assessment by a former U.S. Central Command official of video showing a 2007 U.S. helicopter attack in Baghdad that killed at least eight people, including a Reuters news photographer and his driver. His assessment was that the video should be unclassified.

That contradicted evidence offered by prosecutors. They have presented an assessment from a Pentagon official that the video revealed military tactics, techniques and procedures.

Manning has acknowledged he gave the video to the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks but denied revealing national defense information.

Manning is being tried at Forte Meade Army base outside Baltimore on charges including aiding the enemy, which carries a potential life sentence.

The developments came as prosecutors were focusing Thursday on U.S. diplomatic cables that Manning has admitted sending to WikiLeaks. The proceedings were continuing during the afternoon.

On Wednesday, a former State Department official testified on cross-examination that the agency's computer network would have given a soldier with Manning's top-secret security clearance unrestricted access to the cables. The government alleges he stole them.

The cables included candid and sometimes embarrassing assessments of foreign leaders and governments. State Department officials say the disclosures endangered lives and threatened national security.

Manning has said the cables exposed U.S. hypocrisy. His supporters said a leaked cable revealing America's half-hearted support for Tunisia's government helped trigger the Arab Spring uprisings.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/defense-wins-round-wikileaks-helicopter-video-183042474.html

jason wu jason wu Mavericks Surf Stonewall Inaugural Ball julio jones j crew

Broad immigration bill cruising to Senate passage

WASHINGTON (AP) ? Far-reaching immigration legislation cruised toward passage in the Senate as House Republicans pushed ahead Wednesday on a different approach that cracks down on millions living in the United States illegally rather than offering them a chance at citizenship.

Presidential politics took a more prominent role in a long-running national debate as Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., tried to reassure conservatives that many of the criticisms of the bill, which he helped write, are "just not true."

The potential 2016 White House contender said in remarks on the Senate floor it has been difficult for him "to hear the worry and the anxiety and the growing anger in the voices of so many people who helped me get elected to the Senate and who I agree with on virtually every other issue."

The political impact of the issue aside, there was no doubt that the Senate bill was on track for passage by Thursday or Friday.

Supporters posted 67 votes or more on each of three procedural tests Wednesday, far more than the 60 needed to prevail. More than a dozen Republicans sided with Democrats on each, assuring bipartisan support that the bill's backers hope will change minds in the House.

At its core, the legislation includes numerous steps to prevent future illegal immigration, while at the same time it offers a chance at citizenship for millions living in the country illegally.

It provides for 20,000 new Border Patrol agents, requires the completion of 700 miles of fencing and requires an array of high-tech devices be deployed to secure the border with Mexico.

Businesses would be required to check on the legal status of prospective employees. The government would be ordered to install a high-tech system to check on the comings and goings of foreigners at selected international airport in the United States.

Other provisions would expand the number of visas for highly skilled workers relied upon by the technology industry. A separate program would be established for lower-skilled workers, and farm workers would be admitted under a temporary program.

Some farm workers who are in the country illegally can qualify for a green card, which bestows permanent residency status, in five years.

Many of the bill's supporters also cheered a ruling from the Supreme Court that said married gay couples are entitled to the same federal benefits as heterosexual couples. The decision would allow gay married citizens or permanent residents to sponsor their foreign-born spouses for U.S. residency, and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano pledged to implement it.

The basic legislation was drafted by four Democrats and four Republicans who met privately for months to produce a rare bipartisan compromise in a polarized Senate. They fended off unwanted changes in the Senate Judiciary Committee, and then were involved in negotiations with Republican Sens. John Hoeven of North Dakota and Bob Corker of Tennessee on a package of tougher border security provisions that swelled support among Republicans.

The deal-making that smoothed the way for the bill frustrated GOP dissenters, who complained angrily on the Senate floor late Wednesday that they weren't being allowed to offer amendments. Supporters of the legislation vehemently disagreed, until Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., snapped: "I've just about had it on this."

Across the Capitol, an attempt at a bipartisan deal faltered, and majority Republicans began moving ahead on legislation tailored to the wishes of conservatives and vehemently opposed by Democrats.

The House Judiciary Committee already has approved two measures and agreed to a third during the day Wednesday as it followed a piecemeal path rather than the all-in-one approach of the Senate.

The House bill approved Wednesday, on a vote of 22-9, would require businesses to check on the legal status of employees within two years, as compared with four in the Senate measure.

One of the bills approved earlier makes it a new crime to remain in the country without legal status. It also allows state and local governments to enforce federal immigration laws, an attempt to apprehend more immigrants living in the United States illegally. It encourages those living in the United States unlawfully to depart voluntarily.

The second bill that cleared last week deals with farm workers who come to the United States temporarily with government permission. Unlike the Senate legislation, it offers no pathway to citizenship.

With attention beginning to shift to the House, Rep. John Fleming, R-La., said House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, had assured the rank and file they will vote on bills being written on their side of the Capitol. "We are not going to take up the Senate bill," Fleming said, quoting the speaker.

Internal divisions among Republicans, combined with overwhelming opposition among Democrats, recently sent a farm bill down to defeat in the House, and it is unclear if the GOP will be able to command a majority for its own approach to immigration legislation.

At the same time, rules generally guarantee Democrats a chance to have the full House vote on its own alternatives, and it is unclear whether they might seek the vote on the Senate bill that Republicans hope to avoid.

For now, supporters of the Senate bill contented themselves with urging the House to change their minds.

"A permanent, common-sense solution to our dysfunctional system is really in sight," said Reid. "It is my hope that our colleagues in the House will follow the Senate's lead and work to pass bipartisan reform and do it now."

Outnumbered critics said the measure fell far short of the claims made by its backers.

"It continues to promote false promises that the border would be truly secure," said Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa.

A short while later, Rubio, without mentioning anyone by name, stood at his desk to slam opponents of the Senate bill for what he said are false accusations.

He said it is not true, for example, that the administration can ignore the requirements for border protection or that future Congress' can cancel funding or that it creates a taxpayer subsidy for people to buy a car or a scooter.

Nor are critics correct to claim a new 1,100-page bill was recently introduced that no one has read, he said.

"This is the exact same bill that's been publicly available for 10 weeks," he said, with the exception of about 120 pages that require tougher border security.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/broad-immigration-bill-cruising-senate-passage-200518755.html

Talk Like a Pirate Day raiders iOS 6 Features iOS 6 bank of america Yunel Escobar Eye Black Cruel Summer