Politics – Political News

WASHINGTON (AFP) –
President Barack Obama held "candid" talks with heavyweight national security advisors on saving the US mission in Afghanistan, edging closer to a decision on whether to deploy more troops.

As Obama huddled with top military and civilian brass in the secure White House Situation Room, his administration also counter-attacked against Republicans who accuse the president of dragging his feet in sending more US soldiers to war.

"In today's meeting, the president engaged his national security team in a candid assessment of the progress that has been made and the challenges we still face in Afghanistan and Pakistan," Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said.

The intense talks, among top officials with varying perspectives on the war, grouped administration heavy-hitters including Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Obama also called on top military leaders and, taking part by video link-up, war commander General Stanley McChrystal, who warned in a leaked report that the conflict could be lost within a year without more troops.

The White House says Obama will only decide on whether to accept McChrystal's request for up to 40,000 more troops — as part of a rigorous counter-insurgency push — after first arriving at a new US strategy. Related article: US military backs Afghan plan

The process could take weeks, officials say, warning that past conflicts like the Vietnam war have shown the folly of throwing thousands of men into a fight that is not properly defined.

Obama will next hunker down with top officials on Afghanistan on October 7.

The White House meanwhile accused its critics of "game playing" over critical troop deployment decisions after a top Republican lawmaker, Eric Cantor, claimed Obama's delays were putting the lives of troops at risk. Related article: Countering IED threat

"I would say this to Congressman Cantor and everybody else: the American people deserve an assessment that's beyond game playing," Gibbs said.

"The men and women in Afghanistan that we've sent to serve and protect our freedom deserve that."

Cantor said in an interview with Wednesday's Washington Times newspaper that Obama's "uncertainty" over future war strategy was "troubling."

"Listen, you've got American lives on the line over there," Cantor said. "As long as they are delaying, that puts in jeopardy, I believe, our men and women."

Other Republicans also pushed for a fast decision to send more troops into the conflict.

"Time is not on our side, we need a decision pretty quickly," Senator John McCain, Obama's defeated 2008 election opponent, told ABC News.

McCain said Obama would put America in "much greater danger" if he decided not to deploy more soldiers.

Obama is considering whether current US tactics and force levels, which will reach 68,000 troops by the end of the year, are the best way to defeat Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Some experts, however, doubt whether even a deployment of 40,000 more men will be sufficient to subdue the insurgency. They advocate a narrower strategy of surgical strikes designed to squeeze Al-Qaeda.

The president is also coming under pressure from top Democrats and liberal supporters who oppose escalating the war.

Obama's task in building political support for any troop increase is being complicated by the fraud-tainted Afghan presidential election and widespread mistrust in Washington over the government of President Hamid Karzai.

The US military has declined to reveal the details of McChrystal's troop request but McCain said in a weekend television interview that the commander had appealed for 30,000 to 40,000 troops.

Gates has said he will only formally convey McChrystal's request to Obama once the policy review is complete, and denied any rifts between the Pentagon and some skeptics of troop increases in the White House.

WASHINGTON – House Republicans say it’s payback time for the recent reprimand of one of their own for heckling President Barack Obama. They want a Democratic lawmaker to apologize or face a reprimand for saying the GOP wants Americans to “die quickly” if they get sick.

Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla. — a first-term congressman known for a provocative style — refused to back down on Wednesday.

As Republicans threatened to introduce a resolution disapproving of his remarks, he returned to the House floor and mocked their outrage by citing research showing that nearly 45,000 people die each year for lack of health insurance.

“I would like to apologize … I apologize to the dead and their families that we haven’t voted sooner to end this holocaust in America,” he said, citing a study being published in the American Journal of Public Health.

Grayson’s initial remarks came Tuesday night as he criticized Republican health care proposals as a “blank piece of paper.”

“If you get sick, America, the Republican health care plan is this: Die quickly,” he said on the House floor. “That’s right. The Republicans want you to die quickly if you get sick.”

The rhetoric wasn’t spontaneous: He reinforced his point with signs saying the same thing.

Republicans immediately called for an apology, likening the comments to Rep. Joe Wilson’s widely criticized shout of “You lie!” during President Barack Obama’s address to Congress earlier this month.

Seeking payback from the Democratic-led scolding of Wilson earlier this month, they say Democrats should at least insist that Grayson apologize just as they insisted Wilson, R-S.C., should.

Rep. Tom Price of Georgia, who heads the conservative Republican Study Committee, drafted a “resolution of disapproval” that mirrors the one Democrats approved against Wilson, saying Grayson’s conduct was “a breach of decorum and degraded the integrity and proceedings of the House.”

Price said he was withholding resolution to give Grayson more time to consider an apology, but that the measure could be introduced later this week.

“The American people want open and honest discussion,” said Price, whose efforts had the backing of Republican leadership. “They want respectful discussion.”

Democratic leaders have so far have been quiet. Grayson said he spoke with them about the incident and that none had asked him to apologize.

Behind the scenes, Democratic aides point to comments that Republicans have made in recent weeks alleging that Democratic health care legislation would kill people.

Some Republicans have accused Obama of pushing for “death panels” and held to that view even after the administration’s strenuous objections and after the claims were widely discredited. Republican Sen. Charles Grassley told a group of constituents in his home state of Iowa in August they have good reason to fear the Democrats’ health care proposals.

“We should not have a government program that determines you’re going to pull the plug on grandma,” Grassley said.

Speaking to reporters, Grayson said his floor speech was “tongue-in-cheek,” but he also said it was an accurate description of Republican health care proposals, which he said do nothing to help the uninsured.

Asserting that he violated no House rules, he predicted his bold statement would be received favorably in his district.

“People like elected officials with guts who say what they mean,” he said.

Grayson, who represents a Republican-leaning district around Orlando, was already among the GOP’s top targets for the 2010 elections.

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele called Grayson’s comment a “smear” against the GOP.

“If the Democrats are serious about the importance of civil debate on the floor of the House, then both (House Speaker) Nancy Pelosi and President Obama should condemn Alan Grayson’s outrageous and completely inappropriate comments,” he said.

___

Associated Press writer Jim Abrams contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON – A White House-backed overhaul of the nation’s health care system weathered repeated challenges from Republican critics over taxes, abortion and more on Wednesday, and the bill’s architect claimed enough votes to push it through the Senate Finance Committee as early as week’s end.

“We’re coming to closure,” said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the committee chairman, as President Barack Obama lobbied at least one wavering Democrat by phone to swing behind the measure.

Baucus said, “It’s clear to me we’re going to get it passed,” although he sidestepped a question about possible Republican support. Olympia Snowe of Maine is the only GOP senator whose vote is in doubt, and she has yet to tip her hand. While she has voted with Democrats on some key tests — to allow the government to dictate the types of coverage that must be included in insurance policies, for example — she has also sided with fellow Republicans on other contentious issues.

In a reflection of the intensity on both sides of the Capitol, Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida was unrepentant after claiming the Republican plan for health care was for Americans to “die quickly.” Refusing to apologize, he said, “People like elected officials with guts who say what they mean. … I stand by what I said.”

That controversy aside, House Democratic leaders struggled to reduce their legislation to the $900 billion, 10-year cost that Obama has specified. Officials said numerous alternatives were under review to reduce subsidies that are designed to defray the cost of insurance for millions.

Passage in the Finance Committee would clear the way for debate on the Senate floor in mid-October on the bill, designed to accomplish Obama’s aims of expanding access to insurance as well as slowing the rate of growth in health care spending overall. The bill includes numerous consumer protections, such as limits on copays and deductibles, and relies on federal subsidies to help lower-income families purchase coverage. Its cost is estimated at $900 billion over a decade.

While the legislation would not allow the government to sell insurance in competition with private companies, as Obama and numerous Democrats would like, the White House was working to make sure that some version cleared committee. Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, a Democrat who has been outspoken in his criticism of features of the bill, said Obama called him to seek support. “I was noncommittal,” the senator said.

The committee met as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada announced the full Senate would begin debate on health care legislation the week of Oct. 12. Initial action is expected to be slow, consumed largely with parliamentary maneuvers in which Democrats try to set the stage for passage and Republicans erect a 60-vote hurdle as a test vote.

The precise details of the bill brought to the Senate floor will be determined by Reid, in consultation from the White House and Democratic leaders of the Finance Committee and the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

Democrats on the Finance Committee worked behind the scenes on possible last-minute changes to make insurance more affordable and accessible for lower-income families and individuals who now lack it.

Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., worked on a proposal modeled after a system in her home state that supporters say has realized significant savings. Federal subsidies ticketed for lower-income uninsured would flow to the states, which would negotiate with private insurers to provide coverage for the target population.

Aides said the proposal would be designed to provide coverage for individuals and families between 133 percent of poverty, roughly $12,000 for individuals and $21,660 for a family of four, and 200 percent of poverty, or about $30,000 for individuals and $44,100 for a family of four. They said about three-quarters of the nation’s uninsured have incomes in that range.

Inside the committee, Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., won approval of a change to shield seniors from the impact of a tax increase in the bill for individuals and families seeking to exclude certain medical expenses from their income. Under current law, taxpayers who itemize their deductions are permitted to escape taxes on health costs that exceed 7.5 percent of their adjusted gross income.

Baucus’ legislation would raise the threshold to 10 percent, but on a vote of 14-9, Nelson succeeded in returning it to 7.5 percent for taxpayers age 65 and over.

Moments later, Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona sought to give younger taxpayers the same break, but his proposal failed, also on a vote of 14-9.

It was one in a string of futile Republican attempts to reshape the legislation by inserting stronger anti-abortion provisions and require photo identification to prove eligibility for benefits under federal health programs for the poor. Attempts to kill fees on health industry providers also failed, along party lines, after Baucus said the result would be to wipe out a key source of funds for the expansion of insurance.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, argued that provisions already in the bill to restrict federal funding for abortions needed to be tightened to guarantee they would be ironclad. He said his goal was to incorporate the restrictions into law, “so we don’t have to go through it every year.”

In recent years, Congress has prohibited federal funding for most abortions through annual spending bills, and Hatch’s proposal would have eliminated the need for those yearly votes.

But abortion rights supporters said the proposal would have expanded the current restrictions, and could deny coverage for abortions to working women signing up for coverage through private plans.

Its approval would be a “poison pill … if it is hung on this legislation,” said Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash.

The committee also rejected a proposal from Hatch to strengthen existing legal protections for health care professionals who refuse to perform abortions or other procedures on grounds of moral or religious objections.

Both failed on nearly party line votes of 13-10, with Snowe siding with most Democrats in opposition, and Kent Conrad, D-N.D., voting with Hatch.

Republicans also failed in attempts to require applicants for federal health programs to furnish photo identification as proof of eligibility, an issue that dealt with illegal immigrants. Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said the goal was to prevent fraud, but Bob Menendez, D-N.J., objected that the proposals went beyond a required birth certificate required as proof of citizenship.

___

Associated Press writer Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON – A White House-backed overhaul of the nation’s health care system weathered repeated challenges from Republican critics over taxes, abortion and more on Wednesday, and the bill’s architect claimed enough votes to push it through the Senate Finance Committee as early as week’s end.

“We’re coming to closure,” said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the committee chairman, as President Barack Obama lobbied at least one wavering Democrat by phone to swing behind the measure.

Baucus said, “It’s clear to me we’re going to get it passed,” although he sidestepped a question about possible Republican support. Olympia Snowe of Maine is the only GOP senator whose vote is in doubt, and she has yet to tip her hand. While she has voted with Democrats on some key tests — to allow the government to dictate the types of coverage that must be included in insurance policies, for example — she has also sided with fellow Republicans on other contentious issues.

In a reflection of the intensity on both sides of the Capitol, Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida was unrepentant after claiming the Republican plan for health care was for Americans to “die quickly.” Refusing to apologize, he said, “People like elected officials with guts who say what they mean. … I stand by what I said.”

That controversy aside, House Democratic leaders struggled to reduce their legislation to the $900 billion, 10-year cost that Obama has specified. Officials said numerous alternatives were under review to reduce subsidies that are designed to defray the cost of insurance for millions.

Passage in the Finance Committee would clear the way for debate on the Senate floor in mid-October on the bill, designed to accomplish Obama’s aims of expanding access to insurance as well as slowing the rate of growth in health care spending overall. The bill includes numerous consumer protections, such as limits on copays and deductibles, and relies on federal subsidies to help lower-income families purchase coverage. Its cost is estimated at $900 billion over a decade.

While the legislation would not allow the government to sell insurance in competition with private companies, as Obama and numerous Democrats would like, the White House was working to make sure that some version cleared committee. Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, a Democrat who has been outspoken in his criticism of features of the bill, said Obama called him to seek support. “I was noncommittal,” the senator said.

The committee met as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada announced the full Senate would begin debate on health care legislation the week of Oct. 12. Initial action is expected to be slow, consumed largely with parliamentary maneuvers in which Democrats try to set the stage for passage and Republicans erect a 60-vote hurdle as a test vote.

The precise details of the bill brought to the Senate floor will be determined by Reid, in consultation from the White House and Democratic leaders of the Finance Committee and the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

Democrats on the Finance Committee worked behind the scenes on possible last-minute changes to make insurance more affordable and accessible for lower-income families and individuals who now lack it.

Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., worked on a proposal modeled after a system in her home state that supporters say has realized significant savings. Federal subsidies ticketed for lower-income uninsured would flow to the states, which would negotiate with private insurers to provide coverage for the target population.

Aides said the proposal would be designed to provide coverage for individuals and families between 133 percent of poverty, roughly $12,000 for individuals and $21,660 for a family of four, and 200 percent of poverty, or about $30,000 for individuals and $44,100 for a family of four. They said about three-quarters of the nation’s uninsured have incomes in that range.

Inside the committee, Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., won approval of a change to shield seniors from the impact of a tax increase in the bill for individuals and families seeking to exclude certain medical expenses from their income. Under current law, taxpayers who itemize their deductions are permitted to escape taxes on health costs that exceed 7.5 percent of their adjusted gross income.

Baucus’ legislation would raise the threshold to 10 percent, but on a vote of 14-9, Nelson succeeded in returning it to 7.5 percent for taxpayers age 65 and over.

Moments later, Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona sought to give younger taxpayers the same break, but his proposal failed, also on a vote of 14-9.

It was one in a string of futile Republican attempts to reshape the legislation by inserting stronger anti-abortion provisions and require photo identification to prove eligibility for benefits under federal health programs for the poor. Attempts to kill fees on health industry providers also failed, along party lines, after Baucus said the result would be to wipe out a key source of funds for the expansion of insurance.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, argued that provisions already in the bill to restrict federal funding for abortions needed to be tightened to guarantee they would be ironclad. He said his goal was to incorporate the restrictions into law, “so we don’t have to go through it every year.”

In recent years, Congress has prohibited federal funding for most abortions through annual spending bills, and Hatch’s proposal would have eliminated the need for those yearly votes.

But abortion rights supporters said the proposal would have expanded the current restrictions, and could deny coverage for abortions to working women signing up for coverage through private plans.

Its approval would be a “poison pill … if it is hung on this legislation,” said Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash.

The committee also rejected a proposal from Hatch to strengthen existing legal protections for health care professionals who refuse to perform abortions or other procedures on grounds of moral or religious objections.

Both failed on nearly party line votes of 13-10, with Snowe siding with most Democrats in opposition, and Kent Conrad, D-N.D., voting with Hatch.

Republicans also failed in attempts to require applicants for federal health programs to furnish photo identification as proof of eligibility, an issue that dealt with illegal immigrants. Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said the goal was to prevent fraud, but Bob Menendez, D-N.J., objected that the proposals went beyond a required birth certificate required as proof of citizenship.

___

Associated Press writer Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama summoned his war council to the White House Situation Room on Wednesday for an intense, three-hour discussion that exposed emerging fault lines over Afghanistan — with military commanders pressing for more troops and other advisers expressing skepticism.

There was no discussion of specific troop levels during the meeting in the West Wing basement, according to a senior administration official. But the talks underscored the divisions throughout Obama’s inner circle that must be navigated in the coming weeks, the official said.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and special Afghan and Pakistan envoy Richard Holbrooke appeared to be leaning toward supporting a troop increase, said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the discussions were private. The official, who attended the meeting, based the assessment on the tone and substance of their participation.

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Gen. James Jones, Obama’s national security adviser, appeared to be skeptical of troop increases, the official said. Vice President Joe Biden, who attended the meeting, has been reluctant to support a troop increase, favoring a strategy that directly targets al-Qaida fighters who are believed to be hiding in Pakistan.

No firm or final recommendations were offered to Obama, the official said, suggesting that views were still evolving.

The differences are not new and they were aired civilly in the meeting, the official said. But for most of Obama’s advisers, this was the first time they exchanged views in person — rather than via official channels and media leaks — and in a large group that included the president.

The meeting, the second of at least five Obama has planned as he reviews his Afghanistan strategy, comes after Obama received a critical assessment of the war effort from Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the man he put in charge of the Afghan war earlier this year. McChrystal declared that the U.S. would fail to meet its objectives of causing irreparable damage to Taliban militants and their al-Qaida allies if the administration did not significantly increase American forces.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, both support McChrystal’s strategy, Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said. Defense Secretary Robert Gates is on the fence, the spokesman said.

Obama has taken a go-slow approach on the McChrystal report. White House officials say it may take weeks before the president decides whether to overhaul the U.S. strategy or send more troops.

Jones told senators in a classified briefing after the White House meeting that the administration’s evolving Afghanistan strategy depends in large part on the outcome of the disputed Afghan election. Those decisions are expected in a matter of weeks.

“It’s not just the election, but the reaction to the election, that we’ll be watching for,” said Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I.

One alternative to McChrystal’s call for additional troops for a counterinsurgency is to use special forces and unmanned drone aircraft for tactical strikes on the Taliban and al-Qaida leadership, a move that would require much more U.S. action in Pakistan but fewer troops.

While the Pentagon has so far locked away specifics of McChrystal’s troop request, he is widely believed to want to add between 30,000 and 40,000 to the current force of 68,000.

The senior administration official said Obama has refused to prejudge what his conclusion would he and hasn’t been forthcoming with his opinions.

Much of Wednesday’s discussion was focused on how Afghanistan has changed since Obama sent 21,000 additional troops to the country in March and what remains to be done. The president heard from 17 high-level officials and pressed them on their views and how they reached their conclusions.

In the end, though, Obama asked the group to meet with him twice more next week.

Obama is moving with extreme deliberation even though he said during the presidential campaign that defeating the Taliban militants and al-Qaida was essential to U.S. security. He moved swiftly on that pledge in the early days of his 8-month-old term, ordering an additional 21,000 forces into the country.

In combination with NATO forces, the allies have about 100,000 personnel in Afghanistan’s rugged terrain.

But key Democrats in Congress have begun voicing concern about the U.S.-led effort, questioning whether a further commitment of blood and treasure is wise or necessary. The most vocal support for continuing or even expanding the conflict comes from Republicans.

Support for the war has fallen off sharply among Americans, with just more than half now saying the conflict is not worth the fight.

Republican Sen. John McCain, Obama’s opponent in last year’s election, said in a television interview Wednesday that the president cannot give up on Afghanistan. The Arizona senator argued that the entire region would be destabilized if the U.S. and NATO pulled back.

Urging Obama to quickly accept McChrystal’s recommendations, McCain said: “Time is not on our side. So we need a decision pretty quickly. I think history is pretty clear that when the Taliban took over, it became a base for attacks on the United States and our allies.”

Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., the No. 2 House Republican, said that Obama was endangering U.S. troops in Afghanistan by spending time weighing his next move in Afghanistan. “As long as they are delaying, that puts in jeopardy, I believe, our men and women,” he said.

The U.S. went to war in Afghanistan in late 2001 with a mission to remove the Taliban from power and to capture or kill al-Qaida boss Osama bin Laden, the sponsor of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

The Taliban fell quickly, but bin Laden escaped across the border into the towering mountains in Pakistan and has eluded American forces ever since.

In the meantime, the Taliban have staged a resurgence and now have taken control of more than half the country. The insurgents have regained so much strength that August became the deadliest month of the war so far for U.S. troops. Fifty-one died.

Wednesday’s White House session was believed to have been the most high-powered gathering so far.

___

Associated Press writers Lara Jakes, Pam Hess and Lolita C. Baldor contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama summoned his war council to the White House Situation Room on Wednesday for an intense, three-hour discussion that exposed emerging fault lines over Afghanistan — with military commanders pressing for more troops and other advisers expressing skepticism.

There was no discussion of specific troop levels during the meeting in the West Wing basement, according to a senior administration official. But the talks underscored the divisions throughout Obama’s inner circle that must be navigated in the coming weeks, the official said.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and special Afghan and Pakistan envoy Richard Holbrooke appeared to be leaning toward supporting a troop increase, said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the discussions were private. The official, who attended the meeting, based the assessment on the tone and substance of their participation.

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Gen. James Jones, Obama’s national security adviser, appeared to be skeptical of troop increases, the official said. Vice President Joe Biden, who attended the meeting, has been reluctant to support a troop increase, favoring a strategy that directly targets al-Qaida fighters who are believed to be hiding in Pakistan.

No firm or final recommendations were offered to Obama, the official said, suggesting that views were still evolving.

The differences are not new and they were aired civilly in the meeting, the official said. But for most of Obama’s advisers, this was the first time they exchanged views in person — rather than via official channels and media leaks — and in a large group that included the president.

The meeting, the second of at least five Obama has planned as he reviews his Afghanistan strategy, comes after Obama received a critical assessment of the war effort from Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the man he put in charge of the Afghan war earlier this year. McChrystal declared that the U.S. would fail to meet its objectives of causing irreparable damage to Taliban militants and their al-Qaida allies if the administration did not significantly increase American forces.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, both support McChrystal’s strategy, Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said. Defense Secretary Robert Gates is on the fence, the spokesman said.

Obama has taken a go-slow approach on the McChrystal report. White House officials say it may take weeks before the president decides whether to overhaul the U.S. strategy or send more troops.

Jones told senators in a classified briefing after the White House meeting that the administration’s evolving Afghanistan strategy depends in large part on the outcome of the disputed Afghan election. Those decisions are expected in a matter of weeks.

“It’s not just the election, but the reaction to the election, that we’ll be watching for,” said Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I.

One alternative to McChrystal’s call for additional troops for a counterinsurgency is to use special forces and unmanned drone aircraft for tactical strikes on the Taliban and al-Qaida leadership, a move that would require much more U.S. action in Pakistan but fewer troops.

While the Pentagon has so far locked away specifics of McChrystal’s troop request, he is widely believed to want to add between 30,000 and 40,000 to the current force of 68,000.

The senior administration official said Obama has refused to prejudge what his conclusion would he and hasn’t been forthcoming with his opinions.

Much of Wednesday’s discussion was focused on how Afghanistan has changed since Obama sent 21,000 additional troops to the country in March and what remains to be done. The president heard from 17 high-level officials and pressed them on their views and how they reached their conclusions.

In the end, though, Obama asked the group to meet with him twice more next week.

Obama is moving with extreme deliberation even though he said during the presidential campaign that defeating the Taliban militants and al-Qaida was essential to U.S. security. He moved swiftly on that pledge in the early days of his 8-month-old term, ordering an additional 21,000 forces into the country.

In combination with NATO forces, the allies have about 100,000 personnel in Afghanistan’s rugged terrain.

But key Democrats in Congress have begun voicing concern about the U.S.-led effort, questioning whether a further commitment of blood and treasure is wise or necessary. The most vocal support for continuing or even expanding the conflict comes from Republicans.

Support for the war has fallen off sharply among Americans, with just more than half now saying the conflict is not worth the fight.

Republican Sen. John McCain, Obama’s opponent in last year’s election, said in a television interview Wednesday that the president cannot give up on Afghanistan. The Arizona senator argued that the entire region would be destabilized if the U.S. and NATO pulled back.

Urging Obama to quickly accept McChrystal’s recommendations, McCain said: “Time is not on our side. So we need a decision pretty quickly. I think history is pretty clear that when the Taliban took over, it became a base for attacks on the United States and our allies.”

Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., the No. 2 House Republican, said that Obama was endangering U.S. troops in Afghanistan by spending time weighing his next move in Afghanistan. “As long as they are delaying, that puts in jeopardy, I believe, our men and women,” he said.

The U.S. went to war in Afghanistan in late 2001 with a mission to remove the Taliban from power and to capture or kill al-Qaida boss Osama bin Laden, the sponsor of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

The Taliban fell quickly, but bin Laden escaped across the border into the towering mountains in Pakistan and has eluded American forces ever since.

In the meantime, the Taliban have staged a resurgence and now have taken control of more than half the country. The insurgents have regained so much strength that August became the deadliest month of the war so far for U.S. troops. Fifty-one died.

Wednesday’s White House session was believed to have been the most high-powered gathering so far.

___

Associated Press writers Lara Jakes, Pam Hess and Lolita C. Baldor contributed to this report.

TRENTON, N.J. – The New Jersey Supreme Court has reinstated a ban on exit polls, surveys taken of people as they leave their voting places.

It also has kept in place a ban on distributing leaflets or other materials within 100 feet of polling places. It said Wednesday prohibiting such activities will ensure voters feel no obstructions to casting their ballots.

The ban on approaching voters was created in 1972. It was changed in 2007 by the state attorney general to allow for exit polling by journalists.

The state branch of the American Civil Liberties Union argued it also should be allowed to approach voters so it could give them cards explaining their rights and telling them how to report problems.

But the state said if the ACLU were allowed past the 100-foot border, other groups would be permitted also.

TRENTON, N.J. – The New Jersey Supreme Court has reinstated a ban on exit polls, surveys taken of people as they leave their voting places.

It also has kept in place a ban on distributing leaflets or other materials within 100 feet of polling places. It said Wednesday prohibiting such activities will ensure voters feel no obstructions to casting their ballots.

The ban on approaching voters was created in 1972. It was changed in 2007 by the state attorney general to allow for exit polling by journalists.

The state branch of the American Civil Liberties Union argued it also should be allowed to approach voters so it could give them cards explaining their rights and telling them how to report problems.

But the state said if the ACLU were allowed past the 100-foot border, other groups would be permitted also.