Khurshid defends stay in Nilgiris resort

CHENNAI/UDHAGAMANDALAM: External affairs minister Salman Khurshid on Wednesday said there was nothing wrong in his staying in a private resort in the Nilgiris which was ordered to be closed by the Madras high court as it fell on the elephant corridor.

Speaking to TOI, Khurshid said the Supreme Court had granted a stay on the high court order, allowing the resort to continue its operations. "If the SC closes down a resort, it will remain closed," he said. "If the SC cannot be taken seriously, then what else can? If somebody has a reasonable view, they should get it upheld by the SC," he said.

Khurshid's overnight stay at the resort in the scenic Bokkapuram forest area near Mudumalai Tiger Reserve in western Tamil Nadu triggered an uproar with environmental activists claiming the minister shouldn't chosen a resort declared "illegal" by the court for his New Year celebration. Khurshid, along with his family, reached the resort on December 31 eve and checked out the next day.

Following a series of petitions by activists, the high court had in April 2011 ordered the closure of many resorts in the area, notified as an elephant corridor. But resort owners moved the SC and obtained a stay on the order. The case is still pending in the SC.

"It is an irony that a Union minister chose to stay in a resort which has been declared illegal by the high court," said Tamil Nadu Green Movement coordinator K Mohanraj.

When asked about the uproar, Khurshid said: "I cannot be expected to comply with the views of any group of people. I can only conduct myself according to the law of the land. If they had any case, they could have explained it to me. I hope the matter is taken up quickly in the SC as the livelihood of many people depends on this."

Drawing a parallel with the protests against the soon-to-be-commissioned Kudankulam nuclear power plant, Kurshid said, "This is a country run by the rule of the land not by the rule of unruly people, no matter how noble they think their cause is. You cannot call the Kudankulam nuclear power plant illegal until the SC says so." The minister said he had been booked in the government guesthouse, "which is located in the core area" in the Mudumalai forest reserve, but he preferred the private resort. Stating that his visit had not been made in a clandestine manner, Khurshid said, "Hundreds of important people, foreign tourists and journalists stay here. None of these people have been questioned by the media."

Read More..

Brain image study: Fructose may spur overeating


This is your brain on sugar — for real. Scientists have used imaging tests to show for the first time that fructose, a sugar that saturates the American diet, can trigger brain changes that may lead to overeating.


After drinking a fructose beverage, the brain doesn't register the feeling of being full as it does when simple glucose is consumed, researchers found.


It's a small study and does not prove that fructose or its relative, high-fructose corn syrup, can cause obesity, but experts say it adds evidence they may play a role. These sugars often are added to processed foods and beverages, and consumption has risen dramatically since the 1970s along with obesity. A third of U.S. children and teens and more than two-thirds of adults are obese or overweight.


All sugars are not equal — even though they contain the same amount of calories — because they are metabolized differently in the body. Table sugar is sucrose, which is half fructose, half glucose. High-fructose corn syrup is 55 percent fructose and 45 percent glucose. Some nutrition experts say this sweetener may pose special risks, but others and the industry reject that claim. And doctors say we eat too much sugar in all forms.


For the study, scientists used magnetic resonance imaging, or MRI, scans to track blood flow in the brain in 20 young, normal-weight people before and after they had drinks containing glucose or fructose in two sessions several weeks apart.


Scans showed that drinking glucose "turns off or suppresses the activity of areas of the brain that are critical for reward and desire for food," said one study leader, Yale University endocrinologist Dr. Robert Sherwin. With fructose, "we don't see those changes," he said. "As a result, the desire to eat continues — it isn't turned off."


What's convincing, said Dr. Jonathan Purnell, an endocrinologist at Oregon Health & Science University, is that the imaging results mirrored how hungry the people said they felt, as well as what earlier studies found in animals.


"It implies that fructose, at least with regards to promoting food intake and weight gain, is a bad actor compared to glucose," said Purnell. He wrote a commentary that appears with the federally funded study in Wednesday's Journal of the American Medical Association.


Researchers now are testing obese people to see if they react the same way to fructose and glucose as the normal-weight people in this study did.


What to do? Cook more at home and limit processed foods containing fructose and high-fructose corn syrup, Purnell suggested. "Try to avoid the sugar-sweetened beverages. It doesn't mean you can't ever have them," but control their size and how often they are consumed, he said.


A second study in the journal suggests that only severe obesity carries a high death risk — and that a few extra pounds might even provide a survival advantage. However, independent experts say the methods are too flawed to make those claims.


The study comes from a federal researcher who drew controversy in 2005 with a report that found thin and normal-weight people had a slightly higher risk of death than those who were overweight. Many experts criticized that work, saying the researcher — Katherine Flegal of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — painted a misleading picture by including smokers and people with health problems ranging from cancer to heart disease. Those people tend to weigh less and therefore make pudgy people look healthy by comparison.


Flegal's new analysis bolsters her original one, by assessing nearly 100 other studies covering almost 2.9 million people around the world. She again concludes that very obese people had the highest risk of death but that overweight people had a 6 percent lower mortality rate than thinner people. She also concludes that mildly obese people had a death risk similar to that of normal-weight people.


Critics again have focused on her methods. This time, she included people too thin to fit what some consider to be normal weight, which could have taken in people emaciated by cancer or other diseases, as well as smokers with elevated risks of heart disease and cancer.


"Some portion of those thin people are actually sick, and sick people tend to die sooner," said Donald Berry, a biostatistician at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.


The problems created by the study's inclusion of smokers and people with pre-existing illness "cannot be ignored," said Susan Gapstur, vice president of epidemiology for the American Cancer Society.


A third critic, Dr. Walter Willett of the Harvard School of Public Health, was blunter: "This is an even greater pile of rubbish" than the 2005 study, he said. Willett and others have done research since the 2005 study that found higher death risks from being overweight or obese.


Flegal defended her work. She noted that she used standard categories for weight classes. She said statistical adjustments were made for smokers, who were included to give a more real-world sample. She also said study participants were not in hospitals or hospices, making it unlikely that large numbers of sick people skewed the results.


"We still have to learn about obesity, including how best to measure it," Flegal's boss, CDC Director Dr. Thomas Frieden, said in a written statement. "However, it's clear that being obese is not healthy - it increases the risk of diabetes, heart disease, cancer, and many other health problems. Small, sustainable increases in physical activity and improvements in nutrition can lead to significant health improvements."


___


Online:


Obesity info: http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html


___


Marilynn Marchione can be followed at http://twitter.com/MMarchioneAP


Mike Stobbe can be followed at http://twitter.com/MikeStobbe


Read More..

Lawmakers Furious at Boehner Over Sandy 'Betrayal'













Republican lawmakers from New York and New Jersey whose storm-ravaged residents are desperate for federal aid are fuming at their party's leaders for refusing to hold a vote on a $60 billion disaster relief package despite promises that help was on the way.


"This was a betrayal," Rep. Michael Grimm, R-N.Y., told ABC News.com. "It's just reprehensible. It's an indefensible error in judgment not have given relief to these people that are so devastated."


New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican, called it a "dereliction of duty" in a joint statement with New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat.


"This failure to come to the aid of Americans following a severe and devastating natural disaster is unprecedented," the governors said.


Lawmakers were told by Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, that the relief bill would get a vote on Tuesday night following an eleventh hour vote on the fiscal cliff bill. But in an unexpected switch, Boehner refused to put the relief bill to a vote, leading to lawmakers from parties yelling on the floor of the House.


Congress historically has responded to natural disasters by promptly funding relief efforts. The Senate already passed its version of the bill that would replenish an emergency fund set to run out of cash next week and which will help repair subways and tunnels in New York City and rebuild parts of the New Jersey shore devastated by superstorm Sandy.


Time is particularly pressing, given that a new Congress will be sworn in Thursday. The Senate will therefore have to vote on the bill again before it comes to the House, which could be as late as February or March.








Boos as House Adjourns Without Hurricane Sandy Relief Watch Video









'Fiscal Cliff' Deal Passes House Despite GOP Holdouts Watch Video







Rep. Peter King, R- N.Y., took the floor of the House and to the airwaves and aimed his outrage squarely at Boehner, accusing him plunging "a cruel knife in the back" of storm-ravaged residents "who don't have shelter, don't have food," he said during a House session this morning.


"This is not the United States. This should not be Republican Party. This shouldn't not be the Republican leadership," King said on the floor of the House.


He made no attempt to hide his anger, suggesting that residents in New York and New Jersey should stop sending money to Republicans and even questioning aloud whether he could remain a member of the party.


"Anyone who donates one cent to the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee should have their head examined," King, a staunch conservative and Republican congressman for 10 years, told CNN.


"They have written off New York and New Jersey. They've written me off…. Party loyalty, I'm over that. When your people are literally freezing in the winter… Then why should I help the Republican Party?" he added.


He said that Boehner refused to talk to Republican members from New York and New Jersey when they tried to ask him about the vote Tuesday night.


"He just decided to sneak off in the dark of night," King said.


Democrats were also outraged.


"It is truly heartless that the House will not even allow the Sandy bill to come to the floor for a vote, and Speaker Boehner should reconsider his ill advised decision," Sen. Chuck Schumer, D- N.Y., said in a statement.


October's storm was the worst natural disaster ever to hit the region, causing billions in damage and leaving 120 people dead.


More than 130,000 people are expected to make claims to the federal government, but without a funding increase only about 12,000 people can be covered with existing funds.


"It doesn't make sense they wouldn't vote on this. There are truly people in need," said Steve Greenberg, whose home was flooded and damaged by fire in the hard-hit Breezy Point section of Queens. "Not of these people are fit to serve," he said.


Grimm said Boehner's decision fuels a perception that the Republican Party does not care about people.


"It buys into the ideology that Republicans don't care and are callous," he said. Grimm said there were enough votes to get the bill passed and that it makes fiscal sense, because the money would go to help spur small businesses.



Read More..

At least 61 crushed to death in Ivory Coast stampede


ABIDJAN (Reuters) - At least 61 people were crushed to death in a stampede after a New Year's Eve fireworks display at a stadium in Ivory Coast's main city Abidjan early on Tuesday, officials said.


Witnesses said police had tried to control crowds around the Felix Houphouet-Boigny Stadium following the celebrations, triggering a panic in which scores were trampled.


"The estimate we can give right now is 49 people hospitalized ... and 61 people dead," said the chief of staff of Abidjan's fire department Issa Sacko.


Crying women searched for missing family members outside the stadium on Tuesday morning. The area was covered in patches of dried blood and abandoned shoes.


"My two children came here yesterday. I told them not to come but they didn't listen. They came when I was sleeping. What will I do?" said Assetou Toure, a cleaner.


Sanata Zoure, a market vendor injured in the incident, said New Year's revelers going home after watching the fireworks had been stopped by police near the stadium.


"We were walking with our children and we came upon barricades, and people started falling into each other. We were trampled with our children," she said.


Another witness said police arrived to control the crowd after a mob began chasing a pickpocket.


President Alassane Ouattara called the deaths a national tragedy and said an investigation was under way to find out what happened.


"I hope that we can determine what caused this drama so that we can ensure it never happens again," he said after visiting the injured in hospital.


The country, once a stable economic hub for West Africa, is struggling to recover from a 2011 civil war in which more than 3,000 people were killed.


Ivory Coast's security forces once were among the best trained in the region, but a decade of political turmoil and the 2011 war has left them in disarray.


At least 18 people were killed in another stampede during a football match in an Abidjan stadium in 2009.


(Reporting by Loucoumane Coulibaly and Alain Amontchi; Writing by Richard Valdmanis; Editing by Michael Roddy)



Read More..

Motorcycle bomb kills four in Pakistan's Karachi






KARACHI: A motorcycle bomb exploded Tuesday near the venue of a major political rally in Pakistan's largest city Karachi, killing four people and injuring 42 others, officials said.

The bombing appeared to be targeted at buses carrying supporters of the city's dominant political party, the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM), which organised the rally attended by thousands of people.

"The latest report we have collected from hospitals said that four people have been killed and 42 are injured," provincial health minister Saghir Ahmad told AFP, updating the earlier toll of two dead and 25 injured.

Another health official at Karachi's Abbasi Shaheed hospital confirmed the new toll.

"The bomb was planted in a motorcycle," said Asif Ijaz, a senior police official.

Imran Shokat, a police spokesman in the southern Sindh province of which Karachi is the capital, said the motorcycle was parked in a congested neighbourhood near the venue of the rally.

"Bomb disposal experts are investigating but preliminary reports said it was a remote-controlled bomb," Shokat told AFP.

Karachi, the commercial capital of Pakistan with an estimated population of 18 million, is in the grip of a long-running wave of political and sectarian violence.

Its Arabian Sea port is used by the United States and NATO to ship supplies to the war in neighbouring, landlocked Afghanistan.

- AFP/jc



Read More..

Cold kills 9 as mercury dips across north India

NEW DELHI: The cold wave intensified across north India and killed nine more people in Uttar Pradesh on Tuesday, pushing the death toll from it this season to around 110.

Officials said three people died in Mirzapur, two each in Muzaffarnagar and Bareilly. One death each was reported from Moradabad and Amroha.

Most cold-related deaths - 92 - have been reported from Uttar Pradesh, where Agra, with a low of just 0.9 degree C, was the coldest place. Lakhimpur Kheri recorded a minimum temperature of three, Kanpur 3.2, Fatehgarh 3.6, Bareilly 3.8 degree C. The western and eastern parts of the state were colder than the rest of the state with the mercury dipping four to 10 degrees below normal.

A Met official said similar weather conditions will prevail till Wednesday

Thick fog continued to blanket large swathes of the region and further dipped the mercury besides disrupting rail, road and air traffic. Most flights remained grounded at Chandigarh, while trains were running hours behind schedule.

Minimum temperatures hovered around six degree C in Punjab, where Amritsar continued to be the coldest place with a high of 10 degree C. Bathinda recorded a low of 5.8 degree above the freezing point.

In neighboring Haryana, Narnaul remained was the coldest with minimum of just 0.7 degree C.

Most places in Rajasthan shivered with a high of under 10 degree C. Churu remained the coldest in the state with a low of just 0.7 degree above the freezing point. The mercury dipped to 4.5 degree C, almost three notches below normal, in Jaipur. Pilani recored a low of 1.4, Sriganganagar 4.3 and Bikaner 4.5 degree C.

Read More..

Brain image study: Fructose may spur overeating


This is your brain on sugar — for real. Scientists have used imaging tests to show for the first time that fructose, a sugar that saturates the American diet, can trigger brain changes that may lead to overeating.


After drinking a fructose beverage, the brain doesn't register the feeling of being full as it does when simple glucose is consumed, researchers found.


It's a small study and does not prove that fructose or its relative, high-fructose corn syrup, can cause obesity, but experts say it adds evidence they may play a role. These sugars often are added to processed foods and beverages, and consumption has risen dramatically since the 1970s along with obesity. A third of U.S. children and teens and more than two-thirds of adults are obese or overweight.


All sugars are not equal — even though they contain the same amount of calories — because they are metabolized differently in the body. Table sugar is sucrose, which is half fructose, half glucose. High-fructose corn syrup is 55 percent fructose and 45 percent glucose. Some nutrition experts say this sweetener may pose special risks, but others and the industry reject that claim. And doctors say we eat too much sugar in all forms.


For the study, scientists used magnetic resonance imaging, or MRI, scans to track blood flow in the brain in 20 young, normal-weight people before and after they had drinks containing glucose or fructose in two sessions several weeks apart.


Scans showed that drinking glucose "turns off or suppresses the activity of areas of the brain that are critical for reward and desire for food," said one study leader, Yale University endocrinologist Dr. Robert Sherwin. With fructose, "we don't see those changes," he said. "As a result, the desire to eat continues — it isn't turned off."


What's convincing, said Dr. Jonathan Purnell, an endocrinologist at Oregon Health & Science University, is that the imaging results mirrored how hungry the people said they felt, as well as what earlier studies found in animals.


"It implies that fructose, at least with regards to promoting food intake and weight gain, is a bad actor compared to glucose," said Purnell. He wrote a commentary that appears with the federally funded study in Wednesday's Journal of the American Medical Association.


Researchers now are testing obese people to see if they react the same way to fructose and glucose as the normal-weight people in this study did.


What to do? Cook more at home and limit processed foods containing fructose and high-fructose corn syrup, Purnell suggested. "Try to avoid the sugar-sweetened beverages. It doesn't mean you can't ever have them," but control their size and how often they are consumed, he said.


A second study in the journal suggests that only severe obesity carries a high death risk — and that a few extra pounds might even provide a survival advantage. However, independent experts say the methods are too flawed to make those claims.


The study comes from a federal researcher who drew controversy in 2005 with a report that found thin and normal-weight people had a slightly higher risk of death than those who were overweight. Many experts criticized that work, saying the researcher — Katherine Flegal of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — painted a misleading picture by including smokers and people with health problems ranging from cancer to heart disease. Those people tend to weigh less and therefore make pudgy people look healthy by comparison.


Flegal's new analysis bolsters her original one, by assessing nearly 100 other studies covering almost 2.9 million people around the world. She again concludes that very obese people had the highest risk of death but that overweight people had a 6 percent lower mortality rate than thinner people. She also concludes that mildly obese people had a death risk similar to that of normal-weight people.


Critics again have focused on her methods. This time, she included people too thin to fit what some consider to be normal weight, which could have taken in people emaciated by cancer or other diseases, as well as smokers with elevated risks of heart disease and cancer.


"Some portion of those thin people are actually sick, and sick people tend to die sooner," said Donald Berry, a biostatistician at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.


The problems created by the study's inclusion of smokers and people with pre-existing illness "cannot be ignored," said Susan Gapstur, vice president of epidemiology for the American Cancer Society.


A third critic, Dr. Walter Willett of the Harvard School of Public Health, was blunter: "This is an even greater pile of rubbish" than the 2005 study, he said. Willett and others have done research since the 2005 study that found higher death risks from being overweight or obese.


Flegal defended her work. She noted that she used standard categories for weight classes. She said statistical adjustments were made for smokers, who were included to give a more real-world sample. She also said study participants were not in hospitals or hospices, making it unlikely that large numbers of sick people skewed the results.


"We still have to learn about obesity, including how best to measure it," Flegal's boss, CDC Director Dr. Thomas Frieden, said in a written statement. "However, it's clear that being obese is not healthy - it increases the risk of diabetes, heart disease, cancer, and many other health problems. Small, sustainable increases in physical activity and improvements in nutrition can lead to significant health improvements."


___


Online:


Obesity info: http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html


___


Marilynn Marchione can be followed at http://twitter.com/MMarchioneAP


Mike Stobbe can be followed at http://twitter.com/MikeStobbe


Read More..

White House Revels in Fiscal Cliff 'Victory'


Jan 1, 2013 12:13pm







It’s hard to find anyone in Washington happy about the outcome of the “fiscal cliff” brinksmanship.


But inside the Obama White House, senior officials are elated by what they call a significant presidential achievement:  breaking longstanding Republican intransigence on taxes.


The deal passed by the Senate early this morning, with the endorsement of all but seven of the 47 Republicans, would raise $620 billion in new revenue, hiking tax rates on households earning more than $450,000 a year.


The income tax hike would be the first in two decades.


“Keep in mind that just last month Republicans in Congress said they would never agree to raise tax rates on the wealthiest Americans,” President Obama said Monday. “Obviously, the agreement that’s currently being discussed would raise those rates and raise them permanently.”


The spin from the White House – casting the new revenue as a major victory – is at least partly aimed at grumbling liberals who have accused Obama of capitulating on a key campaign pledge: hiking tax rates on households making $250,000 or more.


“Anyone looking at these negotiations, especially given Obama’s previous behavior, can’t help but reach one main conclusion: Whenever the president says that there’s an issue on which he absolutely, positively won’t give ground, you can count on him, you know, giving way – and soon, too,” liberal economist Paul Krugman wrote today in the New York Times.


“The idea that you should only make promises and threats you intend to make good on doesn’t seem to be one that this particular president can grasp.”


Still, the White House believes the concessions Obama extracted from Republicans on taxes puts him in a stronger position for negotiating on the debt ceiling and “sequester” in the coming weeks.


The president now says any deal to offset the automatic “sequester” spending cuts will have to be balanced – including additional new tax revenue, not cuts alone.


But Republican leaders see the outcome, and the fiscal fights ahead, much differently.


GOPers are touting permanent extension of many of the Bush-era tax cuts as a victory in its own right. They also believe the resolution of the tax revenue debate will allow for greater focus on spending cuts and entitlement overhaul, essentially resetting the national dialogue.


“Frankly, we’ve denied [Obama], I think, his most important piece of leverage in any negotiation going forward,” Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., who sits on the House Budget Committee, said on MSNBC. “So I particularly like that part.


“The sequester is in front of us. The continuing resolution runs out the end of March and, obviously, the debt ceiling. All of those things honestly are Republican leverage, not Democratic,” he said.


“So I think there will be opportunities to deal with the spending issue next year.”



SHOWS: World News







Read More..

State Department made "grievous mistake" over Benghazi: Senate report


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The State Department made a "grievous mistake" in keeping the U.S. mission in Benghazi open despite inadequate security and increasingly alarming threat assessments in the weeks before a deadly attack by militants, a Senate committee said on Monday.


A report from the Senate Homeland Security Committee on the September 11 attacks on the U.S. mission and a nearby CIA annex, in which the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans died, faulted intelligence agencies for not focusing tightly enough on Libyan extremists.


It also faulted the State Department for waiting for specific warnings instead of improving security.


The committee's assessment, "Flashing Red: A Special Report On The Terrorist Attack At Benghazi," follows a scathing report by an independent State Department accountability review board that resulted in a top security official resigning and three others at the department being relieved of their duties.


Joseph Lieberman, an independent senator who chairs the committee, said that in thousands of documents it reviewed, there was no indication that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had personally denied a request for extra funding or security for the Benghazi mission. He said key decisions were made by "midlevel managers" who have since been held accountable.


Republican Senator Susan Collins said it was likely that others needed to be held accountable, but that decision was best made by the Secretary of State, who has the best understanding "of how far up the chain of command the request for additional security went."


The attacks and the death of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens put diplomatic security practices at posts in risky areas under scrutiny and raised questions about whether intelligence on militant activity in the region was adequate.


The Senate report said the lack of specific intelligence of an imminent threat in Benghazi "may reflect a failure" by intelligence agencies to focus closely enough on militant groups with weak or no operational ties to al Qaeda and its affiliates.


"With Osama bin Laden dead and core al Qaeda weakened, a new collection of violent Islamist extremist organizations and cells have emerged in the last two to three years," the report said. That trend has been seen in the "Arab Spring" countries undergoing political transition or military conflict, it said.


NEED FOR BETTER INTELLIGENCE


The report recommended that U.S. intelligence agencies "broaden and deepen their focus in Libya and beyond, on nascent violent Islamist extremist groups in the region that lack strong operational ties to core al Qaeda or its main affiliate groups."


Neither the Senate report nor the unclassified accountability review board report pinned blame for the Benghazi attack on a specific militant group. The FBI is investigating who was behind the assaults.


President Barack Obama, in an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday, said the United States had "very good leads" about who carried out the attacks. He did not provide details.


The Senate committee said the State Department should not have waited for specific warnings before acting on improving security in Benghazi.


It also said it was widely known that the post-revolution Libyan government was "incapable of performing its duty to protect U.S. diplomatic facilities and personnel," but the State Department failed to fill the security gap.


"Despite the inability of the Libyan government to fulfill its duties to secure the facility, the increasingly dangerous threat assessments, and a particularly vulnerable facility, the Department of State officials did not conclude the facility in Benghazi should be closed or temporarily shut down," the report said. "That was a grievous mistake."


The Senate panel reviewed changing comments made by the Obama administration after the attack, which led to a political firestorm in the run-up to the November presidential election and resulted in U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice withdrawing her name from consideration to replace Clinton, who is stepping down early next year.


Rice had said her initial comments that the attack grew out of a spontaneous protest over an anti-Islam film were based on talking points provided by intelligence agencies.


Lieberman said it was not the job of intelligence agencies to formulate unclassified talking points and they should decline such requests in the future.


The report said the original talking points included a line saying "we know" that individuals associated with al Qaeda or its affiliates participated in the attacks. But the final version had been changed to say: "There are indications that extremists participated," and the reference to al Qaeda and its affiliates was deleted.


The report said that while James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, had offered to provide the committee with a detailed chronology of how the talking points were written and evolved, this had still not been delivered to Capitol Hill because the administration had spent weeks "debating internally" whether or not it should turn over information considered "deliberative" to Congress.


(Editing by Warren Strobel and David Brunnstrom)



Read More..

Clinton has blood clot close to her brain, say doctors






NEW YORK: Top US diplomat Hillary Clinton is suffering from a blood clot in a vein in her head but should make a full recovery, doctors said on Monday as she spent New Year's Eve in hospital.

A routine scan on Sunday had revealed "that a right transverse sinus venous thrombosis had formed," doctors Lisa Bardack, of Mount Kisco Medical Group, and Gigi El-Bayoumi, of George Washington University, said in a statement.

They described it as "a clot in the vein that is situated in the space between the brain and the skull behind the right ear. It did not result in a stroke, or neurological damage."

Clinton was admitted to the New York Presbyterian Hospital on Sunday following the discovery and is being treated with blood thinners to dissolve the clot. She will be released "once the medication dose has been established."

"In all other aspects of her recovery, the secretary is making excellent progress and we are confident she will make a full recovery. She is in good spirits, engaging with her doctors, her family, and her staff," they added.

Her top aide, Philippe Reines, said on Sunday the popular US secretary of state would stay in the hospital for some 48 hours after being admitted so she could be monitored while on the anti-coagulant drugs.

The globe-trotting diplomat has not been seen in public after succumbing to a stomach virus on returning from a trip to Europe on December 7.

It's a rare absence for the most popular member of President Barack Obama's cabinet, who has been a highly-visible and loyal supporter of his foreign policy agenda, travelling almost a million miles during four years in office.

But Clinton, 65, has made it clear she intends to step down in the coming weeks, once Senator John Kerry, tapped by President Barack Obama to replace her, is confirmed by the Senate.

Clinton fell ill with the bad stomach bug virus on her return from her trip to Prague, Brussels, Dublin and Belfast, which caused her to become dehydrated. She fainted and suffered a concussion.

According to one media report on the website Buzzfeed, she was being treated amid tight security on the hospital's 9th floor, known as the VIP wing, where her husband, former president Bill Clinton, had bypass surgery in 2004.

The couple's daughter, Chelsea, was seen leaving the hospital visibly upset on Monday, The New York Daily News said.

It is not the first health scare for Clinton. In 1998, the then first lady had a blood clot in her leg which she told the New York Daily News was "scary because you have to treat it immediately - you don't want to take the risk that it will break loose and travel to your brain, or your heart or your lungs."

Though once seen as a deeply divisive figure, she now has approval ratings above 60 percent. And many believe she will run again for the White House in 2016, despite being narrowly defeated by Obama for the Democratic nomination in 2008.

A Gallup poll released Monday showed Clinton again topping an annual list of the woman most admired by Americans, winning support from 21 percent of those surveyed. It is the 17th time she has topped the list, a landmark for Gallup.

Clinton's lengthy absence from public life had sparked claims from some of her fiercest critics that she was faking illness to avoid testifying before lawmakers investigating a deadly attack on a US mission in Libya.

The September 11 assault on the US mission in eastern Benghazi, in which the US ambassador and three other American officials were killed, sparked a political firestorm in the United States. A subsequent State Department inquiry found that security at the mission was "grossly inadequate."

- AFP/de



Read More..