General: US advisory teams heading to Afghanistan
by ROBERT BURNS,AP National Security Writer
17 mins 16 secs ago | 45 views | 0 0 comments | 0 0 recommendations | email to a friend | print
U.S. soldiers with the NATO led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) stand guard at the scene of a suicide attack in Kandahar south of Kabul, Afghanistan, Thursday, Jan. 19, 2012.  (AP Photo/Allauddin Khan)
U.S. soldiers with the NATO led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) stand guard at the scene of a suicide attack in Kandahar south of Kabul, Afghanistan, Thursday, Jan. 19, 2012. (AP Photo/Allauddin Khan)
slideshow
WASHINGTON (AP) — The No. 2 U.S. commander in Afghanistan said Wednesday that U.S. military advisory teams will start deploying to Afghanistan this year to help Afghan combat forces as they take a more prominent role in fighting the Taliban.

The plan as described by Lt. Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti is for U.S. and other international troops to begin stepping back from their leading role, so that responsibility for the war is fully in Afghan hands by the end of 2014.

Scaparrotti has been in charge of day-to-day military operations in Afghanistan since last July as commander of the International Security Assistance Force Joint Command.

He said he is pushing to get more Afghans into the lead while there are still large numbers of U.S. troops there.

"I'm pressing commanders to put them into the lead as soon as they can," Scaparrotti told reporters at the Pentagon. "The earlier we get them into the lead, the better we have a metric of just how well they're doing and we also know better how to improve them."

Scaparrotti said he is in the early stages of shifting from NATO-led to Afghan-led military operations. He estimated that just 1 percent of Afghan battalions are currently able to operate "independently" with help from NATO advisers.
Comments
(0)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
No Comments Yet
Voter
|
February 08, 2012
Acct101 - I have seen your responses to male conservatives here and you ARE subservient, you do their bidding, you are a tool. My English may be ESL but I know the difference, subordination is a condition imposed on you

by forces other than yourself, subservience originates from within you, like kowtowing.
Washington state lawmakers pass gay marriage bill
by RACHEL LA CORTE, Associated Press
55 mins 17 secs ago | 106 views | 0 0 comments | 1 1 recommendations | email to a friend | print
House lawmakers vote on an amendment to a gay marriage bill Wednesday, Feb. 8, 2012, in Olympia, Wash. Lawmakers are poised to legalize gay marriage in Washington state, which would make it the seventh state in the nation to allow same-sex couples to wed. The expected action comes a day after a federal appeals court declared California s ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, saying it was a violation of the civil rights of gay and lesbian couples. The Washington House is expected to begin debate Wednesday afternoon. The measure is expected to pass comfortably. Democratic Gov. Chris Gregoire is likely to sign the bill next week. (AP Photo/Elaine Thompson)
House lawmakers vote on an amendment to a gay marriage bill Wednesday, Feb. 8, 2012, in Olympia, Wash. Lawmakers are poised to legalize gay marriage in Washington state, which would make it the seventh state in the nation to allow same-sex couples to wed. The expected action comes a day after a federal appeals court declared California's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, saying it was a violation of the civil rights of gay and lesbian couples. The Washington House is expected to begin debate Wednesday afternoon. The measure is expected to pass comfortably. Democratic Gov. Chris Gregoire is likely to sign the bill next week. (AP Photo/Elaine Thompson)
slideshow
OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) — Washington state lawmakers voted to approve gay marriage Wednesday, setting the stage for the state to become the seventh in the nation to allow same-sex couples to wed.

The action comes a day after a federal appeals court declared California's ban on gay marriage unconstitutional, saying it was a violation of the civil rights of gay and lesbian couples.

The Washington House passed the bill on a 55-43 vote. Supporters in the public viewing galleries stood and cheered as many on the Democratic side of the House floor hugged after the vote.

The state Senate approved the measure last week, and the bill now goes to Democratic Gov. Chris Gregoire, who is expected to sign it into law next week.

Gregoire issued a statement after the vote, saying it was "a major step toward completing a long and important journey to end discrimination based on sexual orientation."

Democratic Rep. Jamie Pedersen, a gay lawmaker from Seattle who has sponsored gay rights bills in the House for several years, saying domestic partnership laws as the state has had for years, are "a pale and inadequate substitute for marriage."

Pedersen, during his remarks on the House floor, read from Tuesday's ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, citing a section that stated "marriage is the name that society gives to the relationship that matters most between two adults."

Several Republicans argued against the bill, saying that it goes against the tradition of marriage. Rep. Jay Rodne said the measure "severs the cultural, historical and legal underpinnings of the institution of marriage."

Despite the action, gay couples can't begin walking down the aisle just yet.

The proposal would take effect 90 days after the session ends next month but opponents have promised to fight gay marriage with a ballot measure that would allow voters to overturn the legislative approval.

If opponents gather enough signatures to take their fight to the ballot box, the law would be put on hold pending the outcome of a November election. Opponents must turn in more than 120,000 signatures by June 6 if they want to challenge the proposed law. Otherwise gay couples could wed starting in June.

Two Republicans crossed the aisle and voted in favor of the bill. Three Democrats voted against it. Democrats hold a 56-42 majority in the House.

Washington state has had domestic partnership laws since 2007, and more than a dozen other states have provisions, ranging from civil unions to gay marriage, supporting same-sex couples.

Gay marriage is legal in New York, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and Washington D.C.

Lawmakers in New Jersey are expected to vote on gay marriage next week, and Maine could see a gay marriage proposal on the November ballot.

Proposed amendments to ban gay marriage will be on the ballots in North Carolina in May and in Minnesota in November.

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit ruled Tuesday against California's voter-approved same-sex marriage ban, known as Proposition 8.

The panel gave gay marriage opponents time to appeal the 2-1 decision before ordering the state to allow same-sex weddings to resume. The judges also said the decision only applies to California, even though the court has jurisdiction in nine western states.

Lawyers for the coalition of conservative religious groups that sponsored Proposition 8 said they have not decided if they will seek a new 9th Circuit hearing or file an appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Washington state's momentum for same-sex marriage has been building and the debate has changed significantly since 1998, when lawmakers passed Washington's Defense of Marriage Act banning gay marriage. The constitutionality of that law ultimately was upheld by the state Supreme Court in 2006. But earlier that year, a gay civil rights measure passed after nearly 30 years of failure, signaling a change in the Legislature.

The quick progression of domestic partnership laws in the state came soon after, with a domestic partnership law in 2007, and two years of expansion that culminated in 2009 with "everything but marriage" expansion that was upheld by voters.

In October, a University of Washington poll found that an increasing number of people in the state support same-sex marriage. About 43 percent of respondents said they support gay marriage, up from 30 percent in the same poll five years earlier. Another 22 percent said they support giving identical rights to gay couples, without calling the unions "marriage."

If a challenge to gay marriage law was on the ballot, 55 percent said they would vote to uphold the law. And 38 percent said they would vote to reject a gay marriage law.

Same-sex marriage also has the backing of several prominent Pacific Northwest businesses, including Microsoft, Nike and Starbucks.
Comments
(0)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
No Comments Yet
MWMVMWM
|
February 08, 2012
This is a good time to remind James that Jessie Jackson used the N-Word and black rappers very often use the N-Word. In recent years I would say I have by far heard more blacks than whites use the N-Word while referring to other black people. Perhaps James finds this to be ok. Tell us James do you think its ok for blacks to use the N-word an not others?

As for threats, well politcal leaders have always had threats made against them and probably always will.

James wrote: If people in the South continue to display this attitude then the federal government should deny these cities any federal benefits.

This is just ridiculous. As a matter of fact his entire last paragraph is something I would like James to tell us how that would work. This I got to hear.

I want to offer a challenge to James. James, find me one commercial on TV that depicts a criminal that isnt white. When you cant, well then at that point you have seen modern day discrimination in my opinion.

The thing I hate about asking people like James a question is that usually they go into a rant and never answer the question.
mxpxga1218
|
February 08, 2012
I'm not buying his argument. The fact of the matter is there are plenty of successful businesses on Broad Street who have followed the cities mandate. It's irresponsible to the safety of the customers and the neighboring businesses to NOT include a sprinkler system in your building. It's not a freestanding structure it's in the middle of downtown with buildings on each side. If not for this mandate and one of the buildings on Broad were to go up in flames it would present a huge problem for our firefighters. Look at the bigger picture and what the city is trying to protect by enforcing their mandate...human life.
Postings are not edited and are the responsibility of the author. You agree not to post comments that are abusive, threatening or obscene. Postings may be removed at our discretion.