News nympholept

Flu bout lands Burt Reynolds in intensive care

Labels: Lifestyle

By Carolyn Sung and Greg Botelho, CNN

updated 7:32 PM EST, Fri January 25, 2013

Burt Reynolds through the years

Photos: Burt Reynolds through the years

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Burt Reynolds went to a hospital after developing flu symptoms, his representative says

He was dehydrated and moved to intensive care, the representative Erik Kritzer says

"He is doing better at this time," Kritzer says Friday afternoon

(CNN) -- Actor Burt Reynolds is in intensive care in a Florida hospital, where he went for treatment of flu symptoms, one of his representatives said Friday.

Reynolds was dehydrated when he went to the hospital, and was eventually transferred to its intensive care unit, his representative Erik Kritzer told CNN.

Kritzer declined to divulge what hospital the actor was in, saying, "He would like that (kept) private."

"He is doing better at this time," Kritzer said late Friday afternoon of the 76-year-old actor. "We expect, as soon as he gets more fluids, he will be back in a regular room."

Born in southern Georgia, Reynolds and his family moved to Michigan and eventually to southeastern Florida, according to his profile on the website of the Florida Artist Hall of Fame, in which he was inducted in 1993. At Palm Beach High School, he first made a name for himself as a football star and earned an athletic scholarship to Florida State University.

When injuries derailed his promising athletic career, Reynolds turned to acting. He scored small parts in the late 1950s, then broke through a few years later in the role of Quint on the TV series "Gunsmoke."

His career took another leap with the 1972 release of "Deliverance," in which he played an Atlanta businessman exploring the remote north Georgia wilderness with friends. "The Longest Yard" came out two years later, starring Reynolds as an ex-football player who lands in prison.

Get the latest update on the flu

These roles earned Reynolds' fame and box office mojo, all while he gained the reputation as a ladies man connected with some of Hollywood's most eligible actresses.

His charismatic notoriety soared through the late 1970s and into the 1980s, during which he spearheaded the "Smokey and the Bandit" and "Cannonball Run" movie franchises. He earned a People's Choice Award in 1979, 1982 and 1983 as all-around male entertainer of the year, and was picked as favorite motion picture actor on that show in 1979, 1980, 1982, 1983 and 1984.

While his popularity waned relatively, Reynolds continued to score movie and TV roles into the 1990s. That included on "Evening Shade," where he earned an Emmy in 1991 playing Wood Newton -- once again, a former football player.

His lone Oscar nomination came in 1998, in the best supporting actor category, for his portrayal of pornographic film producer Jack Horner in the film "Boogie Nights."

Aside from his acting, Reynolds cultivated a prominent public profile through TV commercials, public appearances and more. He also developed a reputation as a philanthropist, especially in his home state of Florida, where he helped found the Burt Reynolds Institute for Film and Threatre.

Neanderthal cloning? Pure fantasy

Labels: World

A display of a reconstruction of a Neanderthal man and boy at the Museum for Prehistory in Eyzies-de-Tayac, France.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Arthur Caplan: It would be unethical to try and clone a Neanderthal baby

Caplan: Downsides include a good chance of producing a baby that is seriously deformed

He says the future belongs to what we can do to genetically engineer and control microbes

Caplan: Microbes can make clean fuel, suck up carbon dioxide, clean fat out of arteries

Editor's note: Arthur Caplan is the Drs. William F and Virginia Connolly Mitty professor and director of the Division of Bioethics at New York University Langone Medical Center.

(CNN) -- So now we know -- there won't be a Neanderthal moving into your neighborhood.

Despite a lot of frenzied attention to the intentionally provocative suggestion by a renowned Harvard scientist that new genetic technology makes it possible to splice together a complete set of Neanderthal genes, find an adventurous surrogate mother and use cloning to gin up a Neanderthal baby -- it ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

Nor should it. But there are plenty of other things in the works involving genetic engineering that do merit serious ethical discussion at the national and international levels.

Arthur Caplan

Some thought that the Harvard scientist, George Church, was getting ready to put out an ad seeking volunteer surrogate moms to bear a 35,000-year-old, long-extinct Neanderthal baby. Church had to walk his comments back and note that he was just speculating, not incubating.

Still cloning carries so much mystery and Hollywood glamour thanks to movies such as "Jurassic Park," "The Boys From Brazil" and "Never Let Me Go" that a two-day eruption of the pros and cons of making Neanderthals ensued. That was not necessary. It would be unethical to try and clone a Neanderthal baby.

Why? Because there is no obvious reason to do so. There is no pressing need or remarkable benefit to undertaking such a project. At best it might shed some light on the biology and behavior of a distant ancestor. At worst it would be nothing more than the ultimate reality television show exploitation: An "Octomom"-like surrogate raises a caveman child -- tune in next week to see what her new boyfriend thinks when she tells him that there is a tiny addition in her life and he carries a small club and a tiny piece of flint to sleep with him.

The downsides of trying to clone a Neanderthal include a good chance of killing it, producing a baby that is seriously deformed, producing a baby that lacks immunity to infectious diseases and foods that we have gotten used to, an inability to know what environment to create to permit the child to flourish and a complete lack of understanding of what sort of behavior is "normal" or "appropriate" for such a long-extinct cousin hominid of ours.

When weighed against the risks and the harm that most likely would be done, it would take a mighty big guarantee of benefit to justify this cloning experiment. I am willing to venture that the possible benefit will never, ever reach the point where this list of horrible likely downsides could be overcome.

Even justifying trying to resurrect a woolly mammoth, or a mastodon, or the dodo bird or any other extinct animal gets ethically thorny. How many failures would be acceptable to get one viable mastodon? Where would the animal live? What would we feed it? Who would protect it from poachers, gawkers and treasure hunters? It is not so simple to take a long dead species, make enough of them so they don't die of isolation and lack of social stimulation and then find an environment that is close enough and safe enough compared with that which they once roamed.

In any event the most interesting aspects of genetic engineering do not involve making humans or Neanderthals or mammoths. They involve ginning up microbes to do things that we really need doing such as making clean fuel, sucking up carbon dioxide, cleaning fat out of our arteries, giving us a lot more immunity to nasty bacteria and viruses and helping us make plastics and chemicals more efficiently and cheaply.

In trying to make these kinds of microbes, you can kill all you want without fear of ethical condemnation. And if the new bug does not like the environment in which it has to exist to live well, that will be just too darn bad.

The ethical challenge of this kind of synthetic biology is that it can be used by bad guys for bad purposes. Biological weapons can be ginned up and microbes created that only infect people with certain genes that commonly associate with racial or ethnic groups.

Rather than worry about what will happen to real estate values should a new crop of "Flintstones" move in down the street, our public officials, religious groups and ethicists need to get serious about how much regulation the genetic engineering of microbes needs, how can we detect what terrorists might try to use, what sort of controls do we need to prevent accidents and who is going to pay if a bug turns out to cause more harm than good.

We love to think that the key to tomorrow lies in what humanity can be designed or empowered to do. Thus, the fascination with human cloning. In reality, at least for a long time to come, the future belongs to what we can do to design and control microbes. That is admittedly duller, but it is far better to follow a story that is true than one such as Neanderthal cloning that is pure, speculative fantasy.

Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter.

Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Arthur Caplan.

Australians warned to leave Benghazi immediately

Labels: Technology

SYDNEY: Australia on Friday joined three European nations in urging its citizens to leave the Libyan city of Benghazi due to a "specific, imminent threat to Westerners" linked to French action in Mali.

The advice followed similar warnings from governments in Britain, Germany and the Netherlands, which sparked an angry response from Libya's government. Tripoli said there was "no new intelligence" to justify such concerns.

But Australia's department of foreign affairs said: "We are aware of a specific, imminent threat to Westerners in Benghazi. All Australians in Benghazi should leave immediately.

"There is a risk of retaliatory attacks against Western targets in Libya following the French intervention in the conflict in Mali in January 2013," it said in an updated travel advice.

"A number of militant groups are known to operate in Libya and some may seek to target Western interests."

Only two Australians are registered as being in Benghazi and just 22 in Libya, said the department.

The alert came after US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified to Congress this week about the September attack on the US diplomatic mission in Benghazi that killed four Americans, including the ambassador to Libya.

It also comes as French troops battle Al-Qaeda-linked militants in Mali, amid rising concern about Islamist extremism across north Africa after last week's bloody attack on the In Amenas gas plant in Algeria.

- AFP/fa

Battery expert: "I would not fly in a Dreamliner"

Labels: Health

(CBS News) WASHINGTON - Investigators say they still don't know what caused batteries to burn in two Boeing 787 Dreamliners, and until they figure that out and how to fix the problem, none of the planes will be allowed to fly.

More than any other plane, the Dreamliner relies on lithium ion batteries to help power its advanced electrical system. They're lighter and more powerful than older battery types, but they contain a highly flammable liquid electrolyte.

U.S. officials defend handling of 787 mishaps

Boeing 787 probe turns to battery companies

Boeing plans to carry on with Dreamliner production

Federal investigators are examining the disassembled battery from the 787 that caught fire in Boston January 7, spewing molten electrolyte.

George Blomgren worked for Eveready, a batteries and flashlights company, for 40 years. He says lithium ion batteries are bundled together for the 787, and that increases the risk.

"These fires burn at very high temperatures, so they are just very dangerous fires," he said.

George Blomgren, a battery expert for Eveready

/

CBS News

The Boston fire, and the burned-out battery on a Dreamliner in Japan, is not the first time lithium ion batteries have caused problems.

In 2011, a Chevy Volt lithium ion battery was damaged in a crash test. Three weeks later, it burst into flames. Chevrolet installed a number of fixes to prevent fires.

Safety features also were added to lithium ion batteries in some cell phones and laptops after 56 million were recalled for risk of overheating and exploding.

Boeing says lithium ion batteries "best met the performance and design objectives of the 787" and "Based on everything we know at this point, we have not changed our evaluation."

Blomgren considers the safety of lithium ion batteries on planes questionable.

"From what I know about incidents, I would not fly in a Dreamliner tomorrow. I just wouldn't feel that it was appropriate or safe," Blomgren said.

Many experts believe in the promise of lithium ion batteries, including for airlines, but they just aren't sure its safety has been perfected.

Feds Bust Man in Alleged Bombs-for-Drugs Sting

Labels: Business

Jan 24, 2013 7:07pm

ht explosives in jeff co house tk 130124 wblog Federal Agents Bust Colorado Man in Alleged Bombs for Drugs Sting

Ryan Budnick/KMGH

A Colorado man who claimed to be a former demolition expert in the U.S. Marines was arrested Thursday after he allegedly tried to trade guns and homemade bombs with a 20-meter “kill zone” for cocaine.

Richard Lawrence Sandberg, 35, was taken into custody Thursday at his Morrison, Colo. home, ATF spokesman Bradley Beyersdorf told ABC News. Sandberg is facing one count of unlawful possession of a firearm or explosive device.

According to court documents, police became aware of Sandberg on January 18, when a confidential informant told a Denver police detective that Sandberg wanted to trade “numerous firearms and grenades” for drugs. The Denver police detective then contacted the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

On Tuesday, the documents say, an undercover ATF agent met with Sandberg at his home.

Sandberg allegedly told the undercover agent that he was in possession of 18 M67 military grenades that he offered to sell for $200 to $300 a piece, according to the criminal complaint.

The complaint did not say where Sandberg may have gotten the grenades, but said “Sandberg claimed to have been active in war zones in Iraq, Somalia, Africa, and Pakistan.”

“Sandberg also stated that he was in possession of several thousand rounds of ammunition and also in possession of uranium-tipped armor-piercing ammunition,” the complaint said.

In addition to the grenades, Sandberg allegedly claimed to have about a dozen homemade bombs, called “frags,” designed to create a “kill zone” within 20 meters and a “hurt zone” within 60 meters if they went off. The complaint says Sandberg also claimed to have access to C4 plastic explosives and napalm.

In one conversation, Sandberg “made disparaging remarks about the current administration and them wanting to take away his guns,” according to the complaint.

ht drugbust tk 130124 wblog Federal Agents Bust Colorado Man in Alleged Bombs for Drugs Sting

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

If any law enforcement officers tried to take his guns, the complaint says Sandberg told the agent that “it would be a bad day for them and lots of them would die. Sandberg stated that he was ready and willing to die.”

At one point, the undercover ATF agent offered to pay for pipe bombs and a small explosive called a “cricket.” Sandberg refused, the complaint says, instead insisting that “they could set up a trade for cocaine.”

During the Thursday operation, the street in front of Sandberg’s home was blocked for several hours while ATF agents and three local bomb squads made sure the house was safe. Multiple improvised explosive devices were taken from the house and rendered safe at a remote location,according to U.S. Attorney’s spokesman Jeffrey Dorchner.

One house next door to Sandberg’s had to be temporarily evacuated, Beyersdorf said.

Sandberg appeared in federal court Thursday afternoon and was advised of the charges against him. He has not entered a plea. Sandberg is being held without bond until a detention hearing scheduled for Jan. 29, Dorchner said.

SHOWS: World News

N. Korea plans nuke test in U.S. threat

Labels: Lifestyle

Kim Jong Un and his military

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

NEW: U.S. places sanctions on Korean financial entities

The U.S. secretary of defense says predicting a North Korean test is difficult

Pyongyang says it plans a new nuclear test and further long-range rocket launches

North Korea is upset by a recent U.N. Security Council resolution, an analyst says

Seoul, South Korea (CNN) -- North Korea said Thursday that it plans to carry out a new nuclear test and more long-range rocket launches, all of which it said are a part of a new phase of confrontation with the United States.

The North's National Defense Commission said the moves would feed into an "upcoming all-out action" that would target the United States, "the sworn enemy of the Korean people."

Carried by the state media, the comments are the latest defiant flourish from the reclusive North Korean regime, whose young leader, Kim Jong Un, has upheld his father's policy of pursuing a military deterrent and shrugging off international pressure.

U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said Thursday there are no "outward indications" that North Korea is about to conduct a nuclear test, but he admitted it would be hard to determine that in advance.

"They have the capability, frankly, to conduct these tests in a way that makes it very difficult to determine whether or not they are doing it," he said in a Pentagon press conference.

"We are very concerned with North Korea's continuing provocative behavior," he said, but he added that the United States is "fully prepared" to deal with any provocations.

Read more: U.N. Security Council slams North Korea, expands sanctions

North Korea's statement prompted France and Great Britain to express exasperation with the secretive regime.

Britain's mission to the United Nations called on North Korean leaders to "refrain from further provocation." France said it "deplores" North Korea's statement, telling its leaders that they need not to threaten, but instead to work toward dismantling their nuclear and missile programs.

In addition to Panetta's statement, the United States responded by adding sanctions against more bank officials and a business linked to the regime's nuclear weapons program.

The Treasury Department announcement targets two Beijing-based representatives of Tanchon Commercial Bank and a company -- Leader (Hong Kong) International Trading Limited -- that the U.S. government says shipped machinery and equipment in support of North Korea's nuclear program.

The organizations are "part of the web of banks, front companies and government agencies that support North Korea's continued proliferation activities," said Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence David S. Cohen.

"By continuing to expose these entities, and the individuals who assist them, we degrade North Korea's ability to use the international financial system for its illicit purposes," he said.

North Korea's statement followed a U.N. Security Council resolution approved Tuesday that the United States pushed for, condemning a recent rocket launch by North Korea and expanding existing sanctions.

Read more: North Korea silences doubters, raises fears with rocket launch

The statement "should have been the expected outcome" from the U.N. decision, said Daniel Pinkston, senior analyst for the International Crisis Group covering Northeast Asia.

"I think they are completely outraged and insulted by it," he said.

Read more: N. Korea's launch causes worries about nukes, Iran and the Pacific

North Korea, which often issues bellicose statements in its state media, said Thursday that it rejects all Security Council resolutions concerning it, describing the most recent resolution as "the most dangerous phase of the hostile policy" toward it.

Read more: U.S. official: North Korea likely deceived U.S., allies before launching rocket

Analyst: Threat meant as a deterrence

The threats toward the United States, a constant theme in the North's propaganda, have more to do with deterrence than a desire for full conflict, Pinkston said.

"I don't believe they have the capability, the intention or the will to invade or destroy the United States," he said. "They wish to deter interference from the U.S. or any outside powers."

Read more: North Korea's rocket launches cost $1.3 billion

North Korea's successful rocket launch last month nonetheless changed the strategic calculations for the United States, showing that the North's missile program is advancing despite an array of heavy sanctions imposed on it.

Analysts say it still has a lot of work to do to master the technology necessary to mount a nuclear warhead on a missile or accurately target it.

At the same time, Pyongyang has been hinting for a while that a new nuclear test could be in the cards.

Read more: South Korean officials: North Korean rocket could hit U.S. mainland

Just before the North sent out its latest hostile statement Thursday, a U.S. State Department official was telling reporters in Seoul that Washington hoped Pyongyang wouldn't go ahead.

"We think that that would be a mistake, obviously," said Glyn Davies, the U.S. special envoy on North Korea. "We call on North Korea, as does the entire international community, not to engage in any further provocations."

North Korea has carried out two previous nuclear tests, in 2006 and 2009, both of which were condemned by the United Nations.

Read more: Huge crowds gather in North Korean capital to celebrate rocket launch

Pyongyang didn't say Thursday when exactly it would carry out a third test, but it could happen "at any time," according to Pinkston.

He said it is hard for anybody outside the North Korean nuclear sector to know if the country is technically ready to carry out the test, but that politically, "it seems an appropriate time."

Demands unlikely to sway North

South Korean defense officials said last year that they believed the North was in a position to carry out a new test whenever leaders in Pyongyang gave the green light.

North Korea's nuclear program is "an element of threat to peace not only for Northeast Asia but also for the world," Park Soo-jin, deputy spokeswoman for the South Korean Unification Ministry, said Thursday.

"North Korea should immediately stop its nuclear test and other provocation and should choose a different path by cooperating with the international community," Park said.

That appears unlikely at this stage, though.

After a failed long-range rocket launch in April, North Korea ignored international condemnation and carried out a second attempt last month. That one succeeded in putting a satellite in orbit, Pyongyang's stated objective.

But the launch was widely considered to be a test of ballistic missile technology. And it remains unclear if the satellite, which the North insists is for peaceful purposes, is functional.

Both North Korea's previous nuclear tests took place weeks or months after long-range rocket launches.

Those tests were carried out under the rule Kim Jong Il, the deceased father of the current leader, and the man who channeled huge amounts of money into North Korea's nuclear and missile development programs.

Kim Jong Il died in December 2011 after 17 years in power, during which the North Korean people became increasingly impoverished and malnourished.

Economically, the country relies heavily on trade with its major ally, China.

On Tuesday, China's Foreign Ministry appealed for calm.

Spokesman Hong Lei urged North Korea and the West to "keep calm, remain cautious and refrain from any action that might escalate the situation in the region."

The U.S. Treasury Department on Thursday prohibited future transactions between Americans and two North Korean bankers and one financial service company the agency said support North Korea's nuclear program.

Read more: For the U.N. and North Korea: Game on

CNN's K.J. Kwon reported from Seoul, and Jethro Mullen from Hong Kong. CNN's David Hawley in Seoul contributed to this report.

Benghazi blame-game is useless

Labels: World

Hillary Clinton through the years

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Anthony Cordesman: Questions for Hillary Clinton on Benghazi attack inevitable, important

But political blame game useless, a discouraging message to diplomats, military advisers, he says

He says in hindsight, warnings, pleas for support mistakenly make crisis seem obvious

Writer: U.S. must focus forward: encourage, support risk-takers doing crucial work in field

Editor's note: Anthony H. Cordesman holds the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Follow CSIS on Twitter.

(CNN) -- Politics are politics, and partisan congressional challenges over the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and other Americans in Benghazi, Libya, last September were inevitable.

But while some of the questions Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was asked in her appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee bordered on politics at their worst, some represented democracy at its best: A legitimate challenge of how the government works. The fact is, we do need to ask serious questions about the way our diplomats function, how they are deployed and protected.

In her responses, Clinton took responsibility, as the top official in every department always must. The question now, however, is what, if anything, will we really learn from the events that led to the deaths of Stevens and his colleagues?

Anthony H. Cordesman

Do we actually learn something from their courage and sacrifice, and the similar experience of other American diplomats and officers that have faced similar attacks in the past? Or do we go on playing a pointless blame game, creating a climate that discourages our diplomats, U.S. military advisory teams and intelligence officers from taking necessary risks -- and relies even more on fortifying our embassies.

Three lessons here. The first: Virtually every post mortem that relies on the blame game has the same result. There is always someone who asked for more resources and warned of the risk before the event. There are always enough intelligence indicators so that once you go back -- knowing the pattern of actual events -- it becomes possible to predict the past with 20-20 hindsight.

The problem is that the post mortems and hearings tend to be useless. Every prudent security officer has always asked for more; the indicators that could provide warning with 20-20 hindsight will still be buried in a flood of other reporting that warns of crises that don't take place; U.S. officials will still have to deal with what intelligence experts call "noise" -- the vast amount of reporting and other data that make it impossible to sort out the right information until the event actually occurs and the patterns are known. All of this makes it hard to know what request or warning ever matters.

Opinion: Algeria hostage crisis shows jihadists on rise

Yes, intelligence and warning can always be improved if the post mortem is realistic and objective. But the resulting improvements will never be enough. No one will ever assess all the risks correctly, U.S. diplomats and other Americans will be vulnerable when they operate in a hostile environment, and risk-taking will remain inevitable.

The second lesson is that we cannot deal with crises like the political upheavals in the Arab world, or the more direct threats that countries like Iran and North Korea can pose, unless our diplomats and military advisers take risks -- and more casualties -- in the process.

Stevens and those around him did what had to be done. These are the teams that can help lead unstable countries towards democracy and stability. They are the crucial to our counterterrorism efforts in the field and to building up the military security capabilities of developing states. They are key to uniting given factions, creating effective governance, and persuading states to move toward development and greater concern for human rights.

They can only be effective if they are on the scene, work with the leaders and factions involved, and often go into harms way where there are terrorist and military threats. Like Stevens, they cannot wait for perfect security, stay in a safe area, or minimize risks and deal with the realities of Libya, filled with local power struggles, extremist elements and potential threats.

We need risk-takers. We need them in any country that is going through the kind of upheavals taking place in Libya, as well as in countries where our enemies operate, and semi-war zones like Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen. We need diplomats, U.S. military advisory teams, and intelligence officers that reach far beyond our embassies and go into high risk zones. We need to reward and honor those risk-takers, not those who shelter in safety and avoid the risks they should take or fear their career will be damaged if anyone is killed or hurt.

Opinion: Algeria crisis is a wakeup call for America

The third lesson is that we do need to steadily strengthen our ability to provide secure mobility, better intelligence, better communications, and better protection for those diplomats, U.S. military advisory teams and intelligence officers. We need to be able to better provide emergency help to those American NGO personnel and businessmen who take similar risks.

We need both an administration and a Congress that look beyond the blame game and understand that some things are worth spending money on. We need them to understand that what we once called the Arab Spring is clearly going to be the Arab Decade, and we face different but equally real risks in the field in Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

It is far better -- and cheaper even, in the medium term -- to fund strong U.S. country teams, military advisers, counterterrorism teams and development efforts than to let nations collapse, to let extremists take over, to lose allies, and see American NGOs and businesses unable to operate.

We need to see what new methods and investments can protect our people in the field and reduce the risks they should be taking. The answer may be special communications, intelligence system, helicopters and armored vehicles, emergency response teams and new career security personnel to replace contractors and foreign nationals.

What the answer is not is partisan blame, risk avoidance, punishing those who do take risks for the result, and failing to make the improvements in security for risk takers -- while building larger fortress embassies. If you want to honor the Americans lost in the line of duty, focus on the future and not the past.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Anthony Cordesman

Romney to be honored Friday at D.C. luncheon

Labels: Health

Mitt Romney will make it to Washington, D.C. for inauguration week after all.

The 2012 GOP presidential nominee and his wife Ann are scheduled to attend a luncheon in their honor Friday at Washington's J.W. Marriott hotel, National Journal reported this afternoon. The reception will be hosted by two of Romney's biggest campaign fundraisers: Virginia philanthropist Catherine Reynolds and hotel tycoon Bill Marriott, Jr.

Romney, a longtime friend to the Marriott family, serves on Marriott International's board of directors. While on the trail, he and his traveling staff stayed almost exclusively at Marriott hotels.

Having opted to spend Inauguration Day at his home in La Jolla, Calif., on Monday, Romney became the first presidential nominee since Michael Dukakis in 1989 to not attend the ceremonial event. But he's made at least one appearance in the nation's capital since the election: Several weeks following his loss, he enjoyed a lunch of white turkey chili with President Obama at the White House.

Clinton on Benghazi: Afghanistan Diverted Resources

Labels: Business

House Republicans slammed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton today for her lack of awareness of State Department cables warning of security threats in Benghazi, Libya, prior to the Sept. 11 attack that killed four Americans, including Amb. Chris Stevens.

In the second congressional hearing of the day reviewing a report by the Accountability Review Board on the State Department's security failures, Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, asked Clinton this afternoon why her office had not responded to a notification from Stevens about potential dangers in Libya.

"Congressman, that cable did not come to my attention," Clinton calmly told the House Foreign Affairs Committee hours after her Senate testimony this morning. "I'm not aware of anyone within my office, within the secretary's office having seen that cable."

She added that "1.43 million cables come to my office. They're all addressed to me."

Hillary Clinton's Fiery Moment at Benghazi Hearing

Rep. Matt Salmon, R-Ariz., asked Clinton whether she thought that signaled the need for a shifting of priorities to make sure she is notified about these kinds of threats in the future.

"That's exactly what I'm intent on doing," Clinton said. "We have work to do. We have work to do inside the department. We have work to do with our partners in DOD and the intelligence community."

Such answers failed to appease members like Rep. Jeff Duncan, R-S.C., who accused Clinton of letting "the consulate become a death trap."

Clinton also told the House committee that an emphasis on security in Iraq and Afghanistan in the past decade diverted resources from other outposts around the world.

She told Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., that legislation he championed reorganizing the State Department in the 19990s had "been very important in protecting our people around the world," but that the need for funding was ongoing and unmet.

Clinton reprised her role as defender of the State Department this afternoon in the second half of congressional testimony on the security failures that led to the deaths of Stevens and the other Americans.

Stevens understood the significance of the mission, she told the committee several hours after a morning Senate appearance.

"That's why Chris Stevens went to Benghazi in the first place," she said. "Nobody knew the dangers better than Chris, first during the revolution and then during the transition. A weak Libyan government, marauding militias, even terrorist groups … a bomb exploded in the parking lot of his hotel. He never wavered. He never asked to come home. He never said let's shut it down, quit, go somewhere else."

Representatives repeatedly asked about U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice's assertion on Sunday morning talk shows in September that the attack was fueled by outrage over a video attacking Islam.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Hillary Clinton Cites Lack of Funding in Global Outposts Watch Video

Clinton: Security Request Not Brought to My Attention Watch Video

Hillary Clinton Gets Choked Up at Benghazi Hearing Watch Video

Clinton's response was to refer to the ARB report, which said the motivations behind the attack were complicated and still not all known. She maintained that Rice was speaking based upon talking points given to her by the intelligence community.

Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., asked why the secretary of state herself did not appear in Rice's place to give those televised explanations to the country.

"Well, I have to confess here in public [that] going on the Sunday shows is not my favorite thing to do. There are other things that I prefer to do on Sunday mornings," Clinton replied. "And I did feel strongly that we had a lot that we had to manage, that I had to respond to. And I thought that should be my priority."

The afternoon appearance followed morning testimony from an energized Clinton, who stood her ground and told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that she has overseen plans to secure diplomatic outposts around the world while cuts in State Department funding undermine those efforts.

Citing a report by the department's Accountability Review Board on the security failures that led to the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya, during an attack last year, Clinton said the board is pushing for an increase in funding to facilities of more than $2 billion per year.

"Consistent shortfalls have required the department to prioritize available funding out of security accounts," Clinton told the Senate this morning, while again taking responsibility for the Benghazi attack. "And I will be the first to say that the prioritization process was at times imperfect, but as the ARB said, the funds provided were inadequate. So we need to work together to overcome that."

Clinton, showing little effect from her recent illnesses, choked up earlier in discussing the Benghazi attack.

"I stood next to President Obama as the Marines carried those flag-draped caskets off the plane at Andrews," Clinton said this morning, her voice growing hoarse with emotion. "I put my arms around the mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, sons and daughters."

The outgoing secretary of state was the only witness to giving long-awaited testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee this morning, and appeared before the House Foreign Affairs Committee at 2 p.m.

The secretary, who postponed her testimony in December, started today by giving context to the terrorist attack.

"Any clear-eyed examination of this matter must begin with this sobering fact," Clinton began. "Since 1988, there have been 19 Accountability Review Boards investigating attacks on American diplomats and their facilities."

But the secretary did not deny her role in the failures, saying that as secretary of state, she has "no higher priority and no greater responsibility" than protecting American diplomats abroad like those killed in Benghazi.

"As I have said many times, I take responsibility, and nobody is more committed to getting this right," Clinton said. "I am determined to leave the State Department and our country safer, stronger and more secure."

Among the steps Clinton has taken, she said, is to "elevate the discussion and the decision-making to make sure there's not any" suggestions that get missed, as there were in this case.

Clinton testified that the United States needs to be able to "chew gum and walk at the same time," working to shore up its fiscal situation while also strengthening security, and she refuted the idea that across-the-board cuts slated to take place in March, commonly referred to as sequestration, were the way to do that.

"Now sequestration will be very damaging to the State Department and USAID if it does come to pass, because it throws the baby out with the bath," Clinton said, referring to the United States Agency for International Development, which administers civilian foreign aid.

While the State Department does need to make cuts in certain areas, "there are also a lot of very essential programs … that we can't afford to cut more of," she added.

More than four months have passed since the attack killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans in Libya. These meetings, during which Clinton discussed the report on State Department security failures by the Accountability Review Board, were postponed because of her recent illness.

Clinton told the Senate that the State Department is on track to have 85 percent of action items based on the recommendations in the ARB report accomplished by March, with some already implemented.

News nympholept

Category

Archive

Flu bout lands Burt Reynolds in intensive care

Neanderthal cloning? Pure fantasy

Australians warned to leave Benghazi immediately

Battery expert: "I would not fly in a Dreamliner"

Feds Bust Man in Alleged Bombs-for-Drugs Sting

SHOWS: World News

N. Korea plans nuke test in U.S. threat

Benghazi blame-game is useless

More covered linkways, elderly friendly bridges for commuters

Romney to be honored Friday at D.C. luncheon

Clinton on Benghazi: Afghanistan Diverted Resources

Subscribe Me