Thursday, October 25, 2012

Iran weighs tougher line in stalled nuclear talks

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) ? Iranian officials say the country is considering a harder line in nuclear talks with world powers: Threatening to step up uranium enrichment unless the West makes immediate concessions on sanctions.

The proposed demands ? outlined by senior Iranian officials this week ? have not yet been adopted as a negotiating policy, but they suggest economic pressures have pushed Iran to consider ultimatum-style tactics to seek relief from sanctions.

Boosting enrichment levels also would push Iran's nuclear program far closer to the "red line" set by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to consider possible military options and shift world opinion away from trying to rein in Iran through economic pressures and diplomacy.

Mansour Haghighatpour, deputy head of the parliament's influential National Security Committee, said failure to negotiate a deal could clear the way for Iran to enrich uranium above the current highest level, 20 percent. The West fears Iran's enrichment program could lead to nuclear weapons. Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.

Several rounds of talks have produced little progress. No date has been set for their resumption.

"The West now has a chance to strike a deal with Iran. Perhaps we may need to produce nuclear fuel for large commercial vessels that need 60 percent purity," he told The Associated Press in an interview.

That would mark a dramatic move toward the threshold for warhead-grade material at about 90 percent and would certainly bring a sharp escalation in calls for military action from Israel and others in the West. Iran denies it seeks nuclear weapons, but there have been suggestions it could ramp up uranium enrichment to future projects such as nuclear-powered submarines.

The tougher line outlined by officials has not been made public and it's still unclear whether it will be adopted as a negotiating position. But the fact it's under review suggests Iran is eager for a sweeping deal to lift sanctions and could try to jolt the West with a now-or-never choice: Roll back the sanctions or face a stepped up Iranian nuclear program.

"The West feels sanctions are biting and this is forcing Iran to return to the negotiating table. That's wrong. We never left the table. Sanctions have been harmful but will never make us give up our nuclear activities," said lawmaker Hossein Naqavi, spokesman for the parliament Security Committee. "Pressures, sanctions and military threats won't make us retreat."

Many Iranian lawmakers and conservative clerics have said in recent months that Iran should enrich uranium to higher levels for proposed vessels such as nuclear-powered oil tankers. Iran currently has no such ships.

Nuclear-powered vessels other than warships are rare, and the International Atomic Energy Agency has said in the past that nuclear-powered merchant ships would be uneconomical.

But Iran's deputy navy chief in charge of technical affairs, Adm. Abbas Zamini, said in June that Iran has begun "initial stages" of designing a nuclear submarine. The West has raised concerns that Iran might cite submarine and other nuclear-powered vessel construction as a justification for producing weapons-grade 90 percent enriched uranium.

Nuclear submarines are powered by fuel ranging from 20 percent purity to more than 90 percent. Many U.S. submarines use nuclear fuel enriched to more than 90 percent, the same level used to build atomic bombs.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/iran-weighs-tougher-line-stalled-nuclear-talks-140346617.html

king jong il dead south korea baron davis duggar family gilbert arenas facebook timeline kim jong il

Quotations of the day

{ttle}

{cptn}","template_name":"ss_thmb_play_ttle","i18n":{"end_of_gallery_header":"End of Gallery","end_of_gallery_next":"View Again"},"metadata":{"pagination":"{firstVisible} - {lastVisible} of {numItems}","ult":{"spaceid":"97326735","sec":""}}},{"id": "hcm-carousel-1319759430", "dataManager": C.dmgr, "mediator": C.mdtr, "group_name":"hcm-carousel-1319759430", "track_item_selected":1,"tracking":{ "spaceid" : "97326735", "events" : { "click" : { "any" : { "yui-carousel-prev" : { "node" : "a", "data" : {"sec":"HCMOL on article right rail","slk":"prev","itc":"1" }, "bubbles" : true, "test": function(params){ var carousel = params.obj.getCarousel(); var pages = carousel._pages; // if same page, don't beacon if(("_ult_current_page" in carousel) && carousel._ult_current_page==pages.cur) return false; // keep track of current position within this closure carousel._ult_current_page = pages.cur; return true; } }, "yui-carousel-next" : { "node" : "a", "data" : {"sec":"HCMOL on article right rail","slk":"next","itc":"1" }, "bubbles" : true, "test": function(params){ var carousel = params.obj.getCarousel(); var pages = carousel._pages; // no more pages, don't beacon again // if same page, don't beacon if(("_ult_current_page" in carousel) && carousel._ult_current_page==pages.cur) return false; // keep track of current position within this closure carousel._ult_current_page = pages.cur; return true; } } } } } } })); }); Y.later(10, this, function() {(function() { try{ if (Math.floor(Math.random()*10) == 1) { var loc = window.location, decoded = decodeURI(loc.pathname), encoded = encodeURI(decoded), uri = loc.protocol + "//" + loc.host + encoded + ((loc.search.length > 0) ? loc.search + '&' : '?') + "_cacheable=1", xmlhttp; if (window.XMLHttpRequest) xmlhttp = new XMLHttpRequest(); else xmlhttp = new ActiveXObject("Microsoft.XMLHTTP"); xmlhttp.open("GET",uri,true); xmlhttp.send(); } }catch(e){} })(); }); Y.later(10, this, function() {Y.namespace("Media").ywaSettings = '"projectId": "10001256862979", "documentName": "", "documentGroup": "", "ywaColo" : "vscale3", "spaceId" : "97326735" ,"customFields" : { "12" : "classic", "13" : "story" }'; Y.Media.YWA.init(Y.namespace("Media").ywaSettings); }); Y.later(10, this, function() {if(document.onclick===YAHOO.Media.PreventDefaultHandler.newClick){document.onclick=YAHOO.Media.PreventDefaultHandler.oldClick;} }); }); });

NHL rejects union bid to return to negotiations

NEW YORK (AP) ? Forget about a deal to save a full hockey season: the NHL and the players' association can't even agree to get together to talk.

The union wants anything and everything open for discussion. The league says if the players aren't willing to discuss the offer the NHL presented last week, and has no interest in presenting something new with that proposal as a framework, then there really is nothing to talk about.

It didn't take long for the NHL to fire that message back Tuesday night after the union tried to convince the league to return to the bargaining table on Wednesday.

"I don't anticipate any (talks) taking place for the balance of the week," NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly said in an email to The Associated Press. "The union has rejected the proposal we made last Tuesday and is not offering another one. We see nothing to be gained at this point by meeting just to meet."

If that is the case, then there is no reasonable hope that a deal will be struck by Thursday ? the deadline Commissioner Gary Bettman set in order to preserve a full 82-game season. Games have already been called off through Nov. 1, and those contests soon could be wiped off the schedule for good.

Following a conference call held by the union's executive board on Tuesday night, the players' association informed the NHL it is willing to meet on Wednesday "or any other date, without preconditions, to try to reach an agreement," the union said in a statement.

The NHL's response wasn't what the union had hoped to hear.

The sides haven't met since the league turned down three counterproposals from the union on Thursday, two days after the NHL's offer that included a 50-50 split of hockey-related revenue. The players' association hasn't shown an inclination to use that offer as a starting point in negotiations, resulting in a stalemate that could last for a while.

"The league is apparently unwilling to meet," NHLPA special counsel Steve Fehr said in a statement. "That is unfortunate, as it is hard to make progress without talking."

No talks have been scheduled, and no last-minute discussions seem to be on tap.

The developments on Tuesday night came hours after more discourse between the sides on the 38th day of the league's lockout.

While negotiators for the NHL and union kept conversations to a minimum, club officials had a brief window last week to discuss the league's latest proposal directly with their players.

Those secretive discussions didn't produce a breakthrough, but they have inflamed an already unsettled atmosphere. The union hierarchy wasn't informed about the window then, and isn't happy about it.

"Most owners are not allowed to attend bargaining meetings," Fehr said Tuesday. "No owners are allowed to speak to the media about the bargaining. It is interesting that they are secretly unleashed to talk to the players about the meetings the players can attend, but the owners cannot."

The NHL said Tuesday that team officials were allowed to have temporary contact with players and there were parameters regarding what could be discussed.

"From our perspective, this is a nonissue and a nonstory," Daly said Tuesday in an email to The Associated Press. "There is nothing ? legally or otherwise ? that precludes club personnel from communicating with their players."

More important is the lack of productive talks between NHL officials and union leaders. Now it seems unlikely that a full season, which was slated to start Nov. 2, will take place.

Last week, the NHL's most recent contract offer was presented to the union and then publicly released in full. The union returned to the bargaining table last Thursday with its various counterproposals, which also would get to an even split of hockey revenue, but each was quickly rejected by the league.

There is a major divide between the sides over how to deal with existing player contracts. The union wants to ensure that those are all paid in full without affecting future player contracts.

After the NHL released its offer on Wednesday, club officials were given until Friday to speak to players and answer questions they might have about the proposal.

In an internal league memo obtained by The Canadian Press, the NHL stated that those discussions must be limited to the contents of the proposal on the table. It also provided examples of questions that shouldn't be asked of players and noted that straying from the rules could "cause serious legal problems."

"You may not ask (a player) what he or others have in mind," the memo stated. "If he volunteers what he has in mind you should not respond positively or negatively or ask any questions but instead refer him to the NHLPA.

"Likewise, you may not suggest hypothetical proposals that the league might make in the future or that the league might entertain from the union."

This was the first time club officials were permitted by the NHL to talk to players since the lockout took effect Sept. 16.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/nhl-rejects-union-bid-return-negotiations-074940235--nhl.html

did groundhog see his shadow soul train don cornelius rod parsley barry sanders jr nick carter sister recruiting rankings san onofre

Divided Hungary marks 1956 anti-Soviet revolt

Hungarians are feuding bitterly amongst themselves as they mark the 56th anniversary on Tuesday of the revolt in which the nation rose up to overthrow Soviet rule in a 1956 revolution.

With politicians of the ruling right and opposition left at loggerheads, Hungary will have two separate mass rallies, one for and one against Prime Minister Viktor Orban's government, highlighting sharps divisions over his controversial reforms.

Hungary's uprising in 1956 was the first serious blow to the Soviet bloc established after Soviet tanks drove out Nazi German troops from Central Europe at the end of World War Two. Though the uprising was crushed, its impact was lasting and it played a role in the collapse of Soviet rule three decades later.

The anniversary will give the conservative Orban, whose centralizing style and unorthodox policies alienated throngs of supporters since a 2010 election landslide, a symbolic platform to brandish his go-it-alone approach to fixing the economy.

Shunning European Union advice from Brussels, which Orban compares to Hungary's former communist ruler Moscow, the premier has flagged higher taxes on banks and other big businesses to curb the budget deficit.

"We ... will clearly signal over the next days, weeks and months that Hungary will not backtrack one iota from its stance that the West is mishandling its crisis," Economy Minister Gyorgy Matolcsy said on state radio on Monday.

"This is their problem, but in Hungary we refuse to build our policies on flawed recipes and austerity packages," said Matolcsy, the architect of Hungary's unorthodox measures such as Europe's highest bank levy and special taxes on various sectors.

Orban will address supporters from 4 p.m. local time (10 a.m. ET) outside parliament, while opposition groups will stage a rally in central Budapest from 3 p.m. local time (9 a.m. ET) featuring a speech by former Prime Minister Gordon Bajnai, Orban's predecessor.

iPad used to draft Hungarian constitution

The far-right Jobbik party, which holds 45 of 386 parliament seats and has capitalized on widespread resentment of Hungary's around 700,000 Roma, will hold a rally of its own from 3 p.m. local time (9 a.m. ET).

'A very specific message'
Critics say the government's measures and its reluctance to change its flagship flat-tax policy have prolonged a crisis in the central European country of 10 million people which is seeking an international loan to shore up its shrinking economy.

Orban's ruling Fidesz and the main opposition Socialists both nudged higher in an October opinion poll, while more than half of eligible voters had no party preference.

Organizers of the opposition rally, which attracted about 25,000 people last year, say they want to send a strong signal that a change of government is needed at an election due in the first half of 2014.

"We formed a political association to convey a very specific message to replace the current government of Viktor Orban," Peter Juhasz, chairman of opposition group Milla, which is organizing the rally, told Reuters.

Some in the opposition camp, like Juhasz, hope that Bajnai, who led a government of technocrats supported by the Socialists in 2009-2010, could emerge as a credible challenger to Orban and sway millions of undecided voters.

The 44-year-old Bajnai, who implemented an International Monetary Fund program that pulled Hungary back from the brink of bankruptcy in 2008, called for an "immediate and radical" turnaround in economic policy in a speech last week.

Hungary President Pal Schmitt quits in plagiarism scandal

Organizers of the pro-government rally, which will march across central Budapest to parliament where Orban is speaking, say they want to express support for the government which they say resists outside meddling in Hungary's affairs.

"The European Union and the European Commission have not abandoned their attack against Hungary," political scientist Tamas Fricz, an organizer of the rally told conservative daily Magyar Nemzet in an interview on Monday.

"We need to show ... that the government, which defends national sovereignty is not in a vacuum, that it has a majority."

More world stories from NBC News:

Follow World News from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook

(c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2012.

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49514351/ns/world_news-europe/

facebook ipo egypt soccer riot right to work mike kelley puxatony phil josh harvey clemons college football recruiting rankings

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Microsoft Surface: Good marks for the tablet, but how about that software?

The Microsoft Surface tablet debuts today. We take a peek at the early reviews.?

By Matthew Shaer / October 24, 2012

A Microsoft representative holds a Surface tablet computer as it is unveiled by Microsoft in Los Angeles, Calif., in this June 18, 2012 file photo. The Surface goes on sale this week.

Reuters

Enlarge

After a few months of hype, Microsoft will finally begin selling its Surface tablet tomorrow. The device, which runs the Windows RT operating system, starts at $499 ? the same price as the Apple iPad. (To get the patented Touch Cover keyboard, you'll have to fork over an extra hundred bucks.) Microsoft had previously said that pre-order demand was high in the US; in the UK, meanwhile, the base-level Surface appeared to have sold out.?

Skip to next paragraph

Recent posts

' + google_ads[0].line2 + '
' + google_ads[0].line3 + '

'; } else if (google_ads.length > 1) { ad_unit += ''; } } document.getElementById("ad_unit").innerHTML += ad_unit; google_adnum += google_ads.length; return; } var google_adnum = 0; google_ad_client = "pub-6743622525202572"; google_ad_output = 'js'; google_max_num_ads = '1'; google_feedback = "on"; google_ad_type = "text"; google_adtest = "on"; google_image_size = '230x105'; google_skip = '0'; // -->

So hey, how does the Surface stack up to competitors such as the Apple iPad and Amazon Kindle Fire??

Well, reviews started to trickle out today, and the consensus seems to be this: The Surface is a good looking and snappy machine, burdened with a less than stellar OS. Over at The New York Times, for instance, David Pogue praises the lines on Microsoft's new tablet.

"The edges of the black magnesium body are angled and crisp, like a prop from a Batman movie.?Then there?s the kickstand. The lower half of the back is a hinged panel, held shut magnetically until you pop it out with a fingernail. It snaps to a 22-degree angle, ready to prop the tablet sturdily upright," Pogue writes. "A lesser kickstand would add weight, bulk or ugliness. But this one is razor-thin and disappears completely when you?re not using it."?

Still, Pogue warns, the software on the Surface is "heartbreaking." As Pogue points out, the Surface isn't running Windows 8. It's running Windows RT.?

And Windows RT, "is not the full Windows," he continues. "The Surface comes with preview 2013 versions of Word, Excel and PowerPoint ? workable, but sometimes sluggish.?Otherwise, though, Windows RT can?t run any of the four million regular Windows programs. Or the 275,000 iPad apps. Or the 17 Android tablet apps. (That?s a joke! There are actually 19 Android tablet apps.)?Instead, it requires all new apps."?

Zach Epstein of BGR has titled his review of the Surface "a tale of two tablets." The Surface, he writes,?"really is the perfect combination of a tablet and a notebook thanks to the Touch Cover and the Type Cover, and I felt right at home with the Surface the moment I turned it on. On the other hand, the software experience does not feel like home. It?s new, and for many it will be scary."

Moreover, he adds, "Windows RT has a lot of growing to do. The faster Microsoft can get developers on board, the better ? and the early days will be slow-going in some respects as a result of this lack of apps."?

We'll give the last word here to Eric Franklin of CNET, who ? surprise! ? finds the Surface to be well-built and solid, and a pleasure to look at. But he calls the Windows Store a "ghost town" and says the tiled interface will likely befuddle many users.

"If you're an early adopter willing to forget everything you know about navigating a computer, the Surface tablet could replace your laptop. Everyone else: wait for more apps," Franklin writes.?

Thinking about picking up a Surface? Drop us a line in the comments section. And for?more tech news, follow us on?Twitter @venturenaut.

Source: http://rss.csmonitor.com/~r/feeds/csm/~3/vKa9mBNoccc/Microsoft-Surface-Good-marks-for-the-tablet-but-how-about-that-software

kevin durant jazz fest zurich classic selena lamichael james lamichael james derrick rose

Medical studies with striking results often prove false

If a medical study seems too good to be true, it probably is, according to a new analysis.

In a statistical analysis of nearly 230,000 trials compiled from a variety of disciplines, study results that claimed a "very large effect" rarely held up when other research teams tried to replicate them, researchers reported in Wednesday's edition of the Journal of the American Medical Assn.

"The effects largely go away; they become much smaller," said Dr. John Ioannidis, the Stanford University researcher who was the report's senior author. "It's likely that most interventions that are effective have modest effects."

Ioannidis and his colleagues came to this conclusion after examining 228,220 trials grouped into more than 85,000 "topics" ? collections of studies that paired a single medical intervention (such as taking a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug for postoperative pain) with a single outcome (such as experiencing 50% relief over six hours). In 16% of those topics, at least one study in the group claimed that the intervention made patients at least five times more likely to either benefit or suffer compared with control patients who did not receive the treatment.

In at least 90% of those cases, the team found, including data from subsequent trials reduced those odds.

The analysis revealed several reasons to question the significance of the very-large-effect studies, Ioannidis said.

Studies that reported striking results were more likely to be small, with fewer than 100 subjects who experienced fewer than 20 medical events. With such small sample sizes, Ioannidis said, large effects are more likely to be the result of chance.

"Trials need to be of a magnitude that can give useful information," he said.

What's more, the studies that claimed a very large effect tended to measure intermediate effects ? for example, whether patients who took a statin drug reduced their levels of bad cholesterol in their blood ? rather than incidence of disease or death itself, outcomes that are more meaningful in assessing medical treatments.

The analysis did not examine individual study characteristics, such as whether the experimental methods were flawed.

The report should remind patients, physicians and policymakers not to give too much credence to small, early studies that show huge treatment effects, Ioannidis said.

One such example: the cancer drug Avastin. Clinical trials suggested the drug might double the time breast cancer patients could live with their disease without getting worse. But follow-up studies found no improvements in progression-free survival, overall survival or patients' quality of life. As a result, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2011 withdrew its approval to use the drug to treat breast cancer, though it is still approved to treat several other types of cancer.

With early glowing reports, Ioannidis said, "one should be cautious and wait for a better trial."

Dr. Rita Redberg, a cardiologist at UC San Francisco who was not involved in the study, said devices and drugs frequently get accelerated approval on the basis of small studies that use intermediate end points.

"Perhaps we don't need to be in such a rush to approve them," she said.

The notion that dramatic results don't hold up under closer scrutiny isn't new. Ioannidis, a well-known critic of the methods used in medical research, has written for years about the ways studies published in peer-reviewed journals fall short. (He's perhaps best known for a 2005 essay in the journal PLoS Medicine titled, "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.")

But the scope of the JAMA analysis sets it apart from Ioannidis' earlier efforts, said Dr. Gordon Guyatt, a clinical epidemiologist at McMaster University in Hamilton, Canada, who was not involved in the work.

"They looked through a lot of stuff," he said.

Despite widespread recognition that big effects are likely to disappear upon further scrutiny, people still "get excited, and misguidedly so" when presented with home-run results, Guyatt said.

He emphasized that modest effects could benefit patients and were often "very important" on a cumulative basis.

eryn.brown@latimes.com

Source: http://feeds.latimes.com/~r/latimes/news/science/~3/BgFtIeYKXUY/la-sci-medical-studies-uncertain-20121024,0,5207372.story

ron white buckyballs buckyballs awake mario batali lone ranger aaron brooks

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Breast Cancer 5K Walk held in Richmond | WTKR.com ? Hampton ...

Sorry, Readability was unable to parse this page for content.

Source: http://wtkr.com/2012/10/22/breast-cancer-5k-walk-held-in-richmond/

cruise ship sinking vernon davis starship troopers starship troopers cruise ship italy patriots broncos game saints

India prepares to kick Monsanto to the curb

(NaturalNews) India, the world's second-most populous country and one of its poorest, has apparently had enough of agribusiness giant Monsanto.

According to a recent story in Science magazine:

Sounding what some regard as the death knell for the development of genetically modified food crops in India, a high-profile parliamentary panel last week recommended that GM crop "field trials under any garb should be discontinued forthwith," and that agricultural GM research should "only be done under strict containment." If implemented, the report's recommendations would paralyze research and erode India's food security, warns India's chief of crop research.

Even more damning is this: Following the release of the report, the panel's chair, Basudeb Acharia, said in no uncertain terms: "India should not go in for GM food crops."

According to the author of the piece, Pallava Bagla, the panel's recommendation has been looked upon by some "as the death knell of the development of genetically modified food crops in India," a development that, despite the country's burgeoning population, would nonetheless be a sound policy decision, given what we know about the ill effects of GM foods.

'Sending mixed signals'

Consider that, from a public policy perspective, it's fair to ponder just how much India will save in healthcare costs alone for its citizens - health expenditures that would have been caused by GM foods but that would never materialize if the country abandons such foods altogether.

As you might have guessed, not everyone is pleased, or agrees with, the panel's recommendation. Swapan Dutta, a rice geneticist and deputy director of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, suggested that if the panel's recommendation is implemented, it would paralyze research and threaten the country's food security. He added that "hope for GM research in India is lost."

But this development is not a new one to those who have been following India's souring relationship with Monsanto over the past few years.

"The Indian government has been sending mixed signals about its commitment to agricultural GM technology," writes Sayer Ji, founder of the scientific health food website GreenMedInfo.com.

For example, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has voiced his support recently for GM crops, telling Science magazine, "In due course of time we must make use of genetic engineering technologies to increase the productivity of our agriculture."

Also, in 2002, the government approved Bt-toxin carrying cotton as the first GM commercial crop in India, a decision that has led to more than 1,100 varieties of GM cotton in the country now, accounting for some 93 percent of total cotton production.

"But," Ji points out, "Singh's own ministers are not towing the party line." He says the Science article notes that "in 2010, former environment minister Jairam Ramesh imposed a moratorium on the commercialization of Bt brinjal, a traditional Indian eggplant, even after the ministry's scientific advisory panel had given the GM variety approval."

History of grief between India and Monsanto

The article further points out in its June issue that environmental minister Jayanthi Natarajan was quoted as saying, "Genetically modified foods have no place in ensuring India's food security."

Indian officials generally admit that utilizing GM foods has managed to allow the country to produce much higher yields of economically important crops, such as cotton. But, they argue, perhaps the biggest driver of the panel's decision is Monsanto's trademarking of its seeds; controlling the seeds, they believe, is compromising India's food safety and security.

The panel's recommendation will carry political weight but it is not mandatory. Ji says "the next step is for government ministries to digest the panel's report and to decide if the report's recommendations, which carry political weight but are not mandatory, will be implemented."

The panel's recommendation is just the latest snafu between India and Monsanto.

A year ago, India sued the agribusiness giant for "biopiracy," accusing the company of stealing India's indigenous plants in order to re-engineer them into patented varieties.

Indian officials complained then that Monsanto and other agri-giants were attempting to exploit the country's crops for their own personal gain.

Sources:

http://www.greenmedinfo.com

http://www.naturalnews.com/033714_biopiracy_Monsanto.html

http://www.naturalnews.com/Monsanto.html

Have comments on this article? Post them here:

?people have commented on this article.

Source: http://www.naturalnews.com/037649_India_Monsanto_GM_foods.html

Steel Magnolias Niels Bohr the Rumble 2012 snl Columbus Day 2012 carlina white Sam Champion Engaged

With election near, sober Romney on foreign policy

FILE - This Oct. 22, 2012 file photo shows Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney making a point during the third presidential debate with President Barack Obama at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Fla. Romney's shift toward the center on foreign policy issues including Iran and the war in Afghanistan are a clear effort to attract independent voters. But he risks upsetting some conservatives in his own party, and possibly reinforcing the idea that he lacks strong convictions. (AP Photo/David Goldman, File)

FILE - This Oct. 22, 2012 file photo shows Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney making a point during the third presidential debate with President Barack Obama at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Fla. Romney's shift toward the center on foreign policy issues including Iran and the war in Afghanistan are a clear effort to attract independent voters. But he risks upsetting some conservatives in his own party, and possibly reinforcing the idea that he lacks strong convictions. (AP Photo/David Goldman, File)

(AP) ? Mitt Romney abruptly moderated his foreign policy positions in this week's debate on issues like ending the war in Afghanistan and averting another conflict in Iran, hoping to neutralize one of President Barack Obama's main strengths with the election only two weeks away. But the move toward the political center comes with potential pitfalls.

By abandoning several of his sharpest criticisms of Obama from the past several months, Romney risks upsetting some conservatives and reinforcing the allegation ? levied repeatedly by the president on Monday night ? that his positions lack conviction and leadership.

His aim was to appear sober and serious, a plausible commander in chief, by not engaging in saber-rattling for political points. By narrowing the gap between his positions and those of Obama, he also may have succeeded in giving undecided voters, particularly women, the impression that he would lead a war-weary America into another conflict only reluctantly.

Romney aides said both the tone and substance of their boss' arguments were intentional and that he carried with him into the debate a key piece of advice: Talk about peace.

The overarching goal, they said, was for Romney to look like a suitable commander. After adopting a more assertively militaristic tone to win the GOP nomination amid challenges from more conservative candidates, he sought at all costs to avoid appearing as a warmonger.

"I want to see peace," Romney said in his closing statement.

The shifts in the debate were stark for a candidate who only last week described Obama's foreign policy as "unraveling before our very eyes."

Unconditionally endorsing Obama's 2014 deadline for removing U.S. combat troops from Afghanistan, Romney reversed his opposition to what he had termed a "political" timetable that wasn't necessarily supported by U.S. generals on the ground. And he declared the president's troop surge in Afghanistan a success, after previously accusing Obama with removing too many troops too quickly.

On Iran, Romney stressed that efforts to dissuade the Islamic Republic from developing a nuclear weapon should be "through peaceful and diplomatic means." That came after spending the past year-and-a-half lambasting Obama for failing to levy a credible military threat against Iran and spending too much time trying to rein in Israel's hawkish Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Monday night, Romney's said Obama's sanctions on Iran were working, calling war a last resort: "It is something one would only consider if all of the other avenues had been tried to their full extent."

And on Syria, Romney modified the argument for deeper involvement he had presented in a foreign policy address earlier this month in Virginia. He argued at that time for a concerted, U.S.-led approach to ensure that Syrian rebels obtain the weapons to defeat the Assad government's "tanks, helicopters and fighter jets." On Monday he adopted Obama's caution by emphasizing the need to ensure arms don't reach "the wrong hands" and stating unequivocally that he wouldn't pursue U.S. military involvement in the conflict.

He expressed his support "entirely" for the administration's escalated drone campaign against terrorist suspects overseas and said the president acted rightly in urging Egyptian strongman Hosni Mubarak to leave power despite three decades of close partnership with the United States.

Obama seized on Romney's shift, rather than his new agreeability.

"We are accustomed to seeing politicians change their position from four years ago," Obama told a Florida rally Tuesday. "We are not accustomed to seeing politicians change their positions from four days ago."

The new focus reflected Romney pitching his case to a changed audience. Having largely satisfied the Republican base over several grueling months of primary campaigning, Romney is now making a last-ditch appeal to women, independents and America's remaining undecided voters as the Nov. 6 election nears. National polls show the president and the challenger running neck and neck, with battleground states such as Ohio, Virginia and Florida ? the scene of Monday's debate ? perhaps proving pivotal.

Romney's move toward the center on foreign policy follows a similar shift he has tried to engineer on domestic issues. In recent weeks, he's softened his rhetoric on immigration, emphasized the importance of regulating Wall Street banks and used a TV ad to emphasize his support for abortion rights in instances of rape and incest and if the mother's health is threatened, all risky positions in a GOP primary battle.

While Romney continues to criticize Obama for military spending cuts, his decision not to visit Israel as president and for failing to challenge Chinese currency manipulation and intellectual property theft, talking up peace was a new wrinkle designed in part to broaden his appeal particularly to women.

During debate preparation, Romney's advisers looked to the first encounter between Ronald Reagan and President Jimmy Carter in 1980. Answering his first question in that debate, Reagan said: "Our first priority must be world peace, and that use of force is always and only a last resort, when everything else has failed."

Aides also urged Romney to follow Reagan in projecting optimism.

"I'm optimistic about our future," Romney said in his closing statement.

The strategy came as a surprise to some conservatives, who expected Romney to challenge Obama directly on some of the biggest foreign policy issues as he had with the economy, unemployment and debt in their first debate earlier this month. Republican commentators lamented Romney's use of "kid gloves" against Obama and his failure to challenge Obama on the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that killed a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.

Libya seemed teed-up for Romney after weeks when he and other Republicans had hammered the administration for possible intelligence and security failures and a shifting message on how it happened.

Asked about the attack with the first question of the debate, Romney instead chose to focus on the larger challenges facing a Middle East in the throes of democratic transition and the continued threat posed by al-Qaida and Islamist extremism. After Obama parried by saying he was investigating the attack and going after the perpetrators, one of Romney's most obvious lines of attack was effectively eliminated from the discussion.

A Romney aide said the Libya issue was already clarified.

"The governor's made clear in many different forums and interviews that he believes that there are more questions than answers at this point," senior adviser Eric Fehrnstrom said. "He's covered that ground."

Aides said the candidate wanted to avoid any traps in territory that he was less familiar with, perhaps explaining the Republican's comfort in allowing the conversation to veer toward education, automobiles, job creation plans and other economic questions.

On many of these issues, Romney has outscored Obama in national polls. On foreign policy, the president has held an advantage. And Romney has struggled to establish his national security credentials after a problematic summer tour overseas that saw him offend his British hosts by questioning their security preparations for the Olympic Games and raise hackles among Palestinians who accused him of racism when he said culture was part of the reason Israelis were more economically successful than they.

___

Hunt reported from Boca Raton, Fla.

Associated Press

Source: http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/89ae8247abe8493fae24405546e9a1aa/Article_2012-10-23-US-Romney-Center-Shift/id-e1026f7135f74523a47b36567b85dd16

kate gosselin helicopter crash matt jones whitney houston in casket photo resolute national enquirer whitney houston casket photo jk rowling