Most Recent Posts

Saturday in Buenos Aires, Argentina, the International Olympic Committee will announce the host of the 2020 Summer Games. The committee is choosing from among Istanbul, Madrid and Tokyo. The contenders all have strong selling points but each also has serious issues clouding its bid.

Violent Crackdown Hangs Over Turkey's Bid

Predicting an IOC vote is a tricky affair, but earlier this year Turkish officials were fairly aglow with the sense that this city linking Europe and Asia had the inside track to become the first Muslim country to host the games. Even today, judging by the noise of heavy machinery, one would think the games were practically a sure thing.

In the Besiktas neighborhood near Taksim Square, the old soccer stadium is coming down to make way for a new arena. In addition to a massive new airport, a tunnel beneath the Bosphorus is nearly finished and a third bridge spanning the strait is in the works.

But violent crackdowns on street protests thrust Istanbul into the headlines this summer, and a doping scandal has rocked the country's sporting federation.

Tugba Guvenc, 19, an 800-meter specialist training for the 2020 games, says she hopes the bad publicity won't ruin Istanbul's chances.

"These negative events have hurt us, but our advantages are still strong," she says. "The Olympics is about bringing people together and we bring two continents together."

Environmentalists and urban planners hope the games don't come here, saying the last thing Istanbul needs now is another rush of mega-projects. But Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is taking a personal interest in the bid, traveling directly from the G-20 summit to Buenos Aires for a last minute push.

Will Third Time Be A Charm For Madrid?

Enlarge image i

It's a typical day — which means it's a very dangerous one — at the Karaj al-Hajez crossing point that separates the eastern part of Aleppo that's held by the rebels and the western part that's held by President Bashar Assad's army.

Despite the risks, street vendors still shout about their merchandise on offer and residents carry on with their daily shopping. An old man urges his wife to hurry so that they can cross back to the other side before trouble erupts, which it does with regularity.

Suddenly, a sniper begins to fire and people start running and hiding behind walls or dashing onto side streets. The shooting gets heavier and machine guns join the noisy exchange of fire.

People wait patiently until the shooting stops and the crossing point opens again, allowing residents to home in the areas controlled by the government forces.

This used to be a main road connecting two neighborhoods in Aleppo, Syria's largest city and commercial capital. But heavy fighting broke out in Aleppo more than a year ago. With the battle now largely a stalemate, Aleppo has been cleaved in two.

And for more than two months now, this crossing on Karaj al-Hajaz street — which residents call the Death Crossing — has been the only point that links the two parts of the city.

Enlarge image i

The nation's jobless rate dipped to 7.3 percent in August from 7.4 percent in July as 169,000 jobs were added to public and private payrolls, the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimated Friday morning.

The figures were roughly in line with what economists had been expecting to hear.

But buried within the report was a troubling revision: Instead of the 162,000 jobs that BLS thought had been added to payrolls in July, it now estimates that employment grew by just 104,000 jobs that month.

We'll post more highlights from the report, as well as reactions to it and analyses about how policymakers at the Federal Reserve may react, in the coming hour. Be sure to hit your "refresh" button to see our latest updates.

Update at 9:10 a.m. ET. Fed Could Go Either Way?

The report "'is a mixed bag that can be used to support an immediate tapering of the Fed's monthly asset purchases or delaying that move until later this year," Paul Ashworth, an economist at Capital Economics, tells The Associated Press.

Update at 9:05 a.m. ET. "Participation Rate" Lowest In 25 Years:

In what could be a disturbing sign that many Americans are still finding it hard to get work, the report says the labor force "participation rate" last month was 63.2 percent — the lowest it's been since August 1978.

Update at 9 a.m. ET. Will The Fed Hold Off On Dialing Back?

Bloomberg News writes that:

"Fed policy makers have been weighing data to determine whether the economy is strong enough for it to scale back the pace of its $85 billion in monthly bond buying. The Fed said Sept. 4 that the economy maintained a modest to moderate pace of growth.

"Fed Bank of Chicago President Charles Evans, a voter on policy this year, said today the central bank shouldn't taper its $85 billion in monthly bond buying until inflation and economic growth pick up. He has consistently supported record stimulus."

This won't be a standard party-line vote. Big factions within both parties remain skeptical about President Obama's plans to launch punitive airstrikes against Syria.

If the vote were held today, it might not pass. Obama and his allies — including top House leaders of both parties — have a big selling job yet to do to persuade a majority of members to authorize military action.

Not to mention the public. A flurry of polls has shown that few Americans support a new bombing campaign in the Middle East.

What makes this particularly difficult is the need to get the authorization language just right — tough enough to preserve support among those who favor an aggressive stance against Bashar Assad's regime in Syria, without making it sound too bellicose to drive away those nervous about bombing leading to a broader U.S. engagement.

Here are some of the various congressional factions that Obama will have to contend with:

War-Weary Democrats

Democratic House members such as Steve Cohen of Tennessee and Rick Nolan of Minnesota have publicly described themselves as "war weary." After more than a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, they want to avoid casualties and prefer to spend U.S. funds at home.

In a letter to Obama, Rep. Kathy Castor of Florida warned than an overt military strike "is likely to exacerbate violence in the Middle East."

Those opposed to the use of force could make up a sizable percentage of the Democratic House caucus. Two years ago, 70 Democrats voted against authorizing force in Libya. In July, 111 voted for an amendment that would have blocked the National Security Agency from freely collecting phone data on Americans.

"There's maybe a third of the Democratic caucus who, even when the administration has been supportive of the use of force, have been skeptical," says an aide to one House Democrat.

Tea Party Isolationists

Some Republicans reject the "isolationist" label when it comes to this vote, saying they don't see the value of taking sides in another country's civil war. Senators such as Rand Paul of Kentucky and Mike Lee of Utah have said there's no vital interest at stake for the U.S. in Syria.

Many have also questioned Obama's handling of national security issues in general.

"I don't think the president has met the burden with members of Congress or the American people in terms of laying out what exactly a limited strike would achieve and what the way forward is," says GOP Rep. Tim Griffin of Arkansas. "I'm not convinced it's in our national interest."

Griffin promises to keep an open mind during the coming days of debate, but he says his constituents are almost unanimously opposed to such an operation. "I've heard most of the arguments, I think, and I'm not convinced," he says.

At least in the House, Republican doubters might make up a majority of the caucus.

"Even if you give a limited OK, is there the potential for that to be drawn out into something bigger?" asks Doug Sachtleben, spokesman for GOP Rep. John Fleming of Louisiana, who is against authorizing the use of force.

International Norm Upholders

No matter their queasiness about getting the U.S. involved in another war, numerous members of Congress are also troubled by Syrian use of chemical weapons. They can be persuaded to support punitive strikes — as long as such action is strictly limited.

Democratic Rep. Jim Langevin of Rhode Island, for instance, says he's worried that letting the Aug. 21 gas attack go unanswered will "give the green light" to other nations and terrorist groups.

But he's wary of war. Langevin will only support strikes that are "very targeted, with limited scope and duration," says his press secretary, Meg Fraser. "He's been very strong on that — he does not want to see boots on the ground."

This is Obama's most potentially fertile territory, with lots of Democrats and Republicans alike ready to punish Assad over chemical weapons but not wanting to get drawn deeply into the conflict.

Interventionists

Almost since the start of the Syrian conflict in 2011, some members of Congress, mostly on the Republican side, have urged that the U.S. play an active military role.

GOP Reps. Mike Pompeo of Kansas and Tom Cotton of Arkansas — both veterans — say that Obama should have acted earlier against Assad.

"Inaction will tell Assad, Kim Jong Un [of North Korea] and others that it's open season for the use of chemical weapons," they wrote in The Washington Post. "If we won't act against a use of weapons of mass destruction, Iran will surely believe that we will not act against its nuclear program."

At this juncture, some members of Congress — notably GOP Sen. John McCain of Arizona — want Obama to do more than punish Assad. The U.S. must also "degrade" the Syrian regime's killing capabilities and help the rebels overthrow him.

One way to characterize it: If you're going to go in, go in big. On Wednesday, McCain successfully amended the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's draft resolution to state that it would be U.S. policy "to change the momentum on the battlefield in Syria."

"I'm trying to reconcile why, if we're going to go in there militarily, if we're going to strike, why wouldn't we try to do some kind of knockout punch?" Wisconsin Republican Sen. Ron Johnson said at Tuesday's Foreign Relations Committee hearing.

Johnson voted against the resolution approved by the committee on Wednesday. Other Republican members have questioned the value of "pinprick strikes" that wouldn't destroy Syria's chemical weapons stocks or tip the balance of power.

But pleasing them by taking on a more expansive mission could cost Obama more votes among congressional skeptics than he'd be likely to gain.