The Indianapolis Colts select Washington State wide receiver Dezmon Patmon with the 212th pick.

Colts find developmental quarterback on Day 3 of Draft.

Colts scouts dish on what make certain prospects special and what others have to work on to reach their full potential.

No one knows for sure how these picks will shake out and most of these grades will likely end up on Freezing Cold Takes.

Eason, a five-star recruit who was a freshman starter at Georgia before transferring to Washington, is used to the weight of expectation

"Every team in this league has holes."

Joel A. Erickson and Jim Ayello discuss the Colts' 2020 NFL Draft, including the selection of Jacob Eason

Safety Malik Hooker now only under contract with the Colts through 2020 season

On Monday, Frank Reich provided a sneak-peek into how the new acquisitions will fit into a suddenly stacked Colts offense.

When the Chargers legend isn't carrying a team on his back, Rivers has been far more efficient.

Frank Reich has worked hard to find ways to teach the Colts virtually, including bringing in an NBA legend to inspire the team.

AMERICA FIRST: PRESIDENT TRUMP WITHDRAWS FROM THE PARIS CLIMATE ACCORD Christi Gibson, June 2, 2017 President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord undoubtedly puts the interests of American workers first. From the beginning, the agreement clearly undermined U.S. competitiveness and jobs, extracted meaningless commitments from the world’s […]

Iowa Statesman, I was happy to hear the joint statement on tax reform from the US Congress, The White House and others in Washington. It’s about time. Our current tax code is severely dated, complex and debunked. Our tax code has not been updated since Reagan was in office and […]

We must rediscover the bonds of love and loyalty that brings us together as Americans. Racism is evil, and those who cause violence, in its name, are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, and any other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as […]

After a court acquittal former Labor Secretary, Ray Donovan, was famously quoted as saying, “Which office do I go to to get my reputation back?” I’ve chosen pursuits that have put me under a microscope for public scrutiny. I was an Army Officer and after leaving the service I got […]

Although it hasn’t actually happened yet, the odds are strong that the Korean War may be finally coming to an end.  New information has come to light that North Korean leader Kim Jong-un has been meeting secretly with China’s President Xi Jinping shortly before the planned summit meetings with President […]

2020-04-07 -

2020-04-14 -

In his big speech on Libya, President Barack Obama answered two big questions, left two hanging in the air, and rewrote some recent history.

He said he had ordered military action in Libya to prevent a massacre that would have "stained the conscience of the world", and would have meant "the democratic impulses that are dawning across the region would be eclipsed by the darkest form of dictatorship, as repressive leaders concluded that violence is the best strategy to cling to power".

He said that that "would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action."

Having dealt with critics who say he's gone too far, Mr Obama turned to those who say he hasn't gone far enough.

He said the world would be a better place without Col Muammar Gaddaffi, but to widen military aims to get rid of him would have splintered the coalition and meant American boots on the ground.

"To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq. Thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our troops and the determination of our diplomats, we are hopeful about Iraq's future. But regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya."

In this, he is preparing people for what may be quite a messy period, and he warned that Libya will remain dangerous until Col Gaddafi goes, that the Libyan leader may cling to power for a while, but that his people had been given "time and space" to decide their own destiny.

This is one question hanging in the air. How far is the coalition acting as the rebel air force? It may not be targeting the top man, but is it intent on destroying his military force? How thin is the line between driving off an army that may attack civilians and destroying that army in case they do?

The other question left hanging was whether there was such a thing as an "Obama doctrine", or at least a consistent approach to intervention. On the one hand, he seemed to argue against those who said America should not police the world: "There will be times, though, when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and values are."

However, he accepted that didn't mean action in every case. "It is true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what's right."

So he seems to be saying, sometimes you do, sometimes you don't, take each case on its merit.

But what struck me most forcibly was the determined, confident tone of the speech. Every single news conference, sound bite or statement so far by Mr Obama has stressed that the UK and France were in the lead, the Arabs were supporting, the US was just part of a broad coalition. They've been thoughtful and a little hesitant. Those were the "on the road" snapshots. This was the air-brushed studio portrait.

Now Mr Obama repeatedly talked of the decisions he took, his leadership, his reasoning for taking firm action. The fact that the US mission is winding down and that it is handing over control to Nato was in there, but it wasn't the emphasis. Now it seems as if the action has worked, Mr Obama is claiming credit. The "I" word was to the fore, and I don't just mean Iraq.

Washington teeters on the brink. If there is no agreement on a budget by midnight on Friday, the federal government will shut down. While cops and soldiers, air traffic controllers and others deemed essential won't down tools this is serious, at least according to the Obama administration. A senior administration official has told us loans to small businesses and home buyers will stop, which will have an impact on an already fragile housing market. Military and civilian workers won't be paid. The lions at the zoo will be fed (and unlike last time their waste should be collected) but the gates won't open to visitors. National parks will close. This is, of course, the most serious, as I am planning a vacation to one of them next week.

I am just back from the Capitol, and talking to people at a Tea Party rally. Their view might be summed up as "bring it on!" They were chanting "Shut it down!" Several made the point that if non-essential parts of the government shut down, they'd be quite happy. If it's not essential, the view is, then the government shouldn't be doing it anyway.

I suspect there will be a deal. There is too much for both sides to lose in the blame game that would follow. But the strength of the Tea Party has already made it hard for their leadership to compromise, and will make selling any deal tough. President Barack Obama and the Democrats don't have quite the same problem but the cuts he has accepted have already upset supporters.

Compromise is a peculiar business, I reflected as I started reading a book called At the Edge of the Precipice, by Robert Remini, the former historian of the US House of Representatives. It is about the 1850 compromise over slavery. He writes that the man at the centre of this, Henry Clay, "understood the importance of compromise... each side must feel that it has gained something that is essential to its interest as the result of the compromise. To achieve that goal each side must surrender something important to the opposing side. Both sides can then claim victory."

His contention is that compromise prevented an early civil war that the North would have lost, having neither leadership nor material to win at that stage. The argument is that it prevented the splitting of the US into two nations and thus was a good move. All history is hindsight, but I am uncertain about praising an agreement on the grounds that it turned out that it came unstuck later with better results. It was hardly the argument at the time. And compromises depend who is at the table. The compromise was between white gentlemen, while the slaves themselves had no say. Perhaps they might have had some thoughts about the value of compromise.

What's this got to do with today's politics? Simply that like Mr Remini, most Americans admire politicians who can behave with dignity and find a way through a difficult problem, by giving and taking. Bipartisanship is one of the highest ideals of US politics. But many of the politicians might question the morality of this. Enough of them might see the matters of practicality and principle at stake as too important to allow the other side to claim any sort of victory.

The president has cancelled his travel plans and says he expects an answer on whether a government shutdown can be averted by Friday morning, Washington time. He says: "I'm not yet prepared to express wild optimism", but sounded stern about the consequences of failure, particularly damage to a fragile recovery. "For us to go backwards because Washington couldn't get its act together is unacceptable."

He could be simply preparing the way for failure and claiming the moral high ground. But If that was the case I think we would have heard from John Boehner, the Republican leader in the house. They appear to be on the edge of a deal. What to look for next is how enthusiastic or otherwise are the Tea Party about any such agreement. If there are very few moans then the Republican leadership will have pulled off something of a coup.

Both sides looked over the brink and didn't like what they saw. Or rather they couldn't peer through the fog of competing narratives to see what was at the bottom of the abysses. I tend to think that at the start the American people would blame "politicians" in general without bothering to distinguish their party.

Some Democrats think it would be a straight replay of the last shutdown in 1995. Newt Gingrich badly miscalculated, was blamed for the shutdown and was forced to give way. It was seen as a turning point in the Clinton presidency which had been in the doldrums until this victory. Incidentally it had another huge impact. During the shutdown, in an understaffed and quiet White House, one intern was at work and had an opportunity to be alone with the president. Bill met Monica and the presidency was never the same.

That aside, many think this wouldn't be a straight repeat of 95. Bill Walker, who's still close to Newt Gingrich, was an influential deputy chief whip at the time. He told me: "I think in many ways it would be different than 95, because I do get the feeling, when I'm back home in Pennsylvania, that people have come to the conclusion that when a country reaches the point that its debt is equal to its gross national product, that country is in trouble.

"I think the blame is likely to vastly more divided. Clearly, the partisans are going to come down on the side of their party affiliations, so the question is - where do the independents come down?

"And, by every measure, so far the independents have said they are extremely concerned about the situation we're in with regard to debt, so if they come to the conclusion that Republicans have stood on principle, i think the Republicans will get at least a percentage of the independent vote."

Perhaps this is so. But there are huge risks on both sides. Even if a breakdown is averted today, there are many more moments yet to come over budget, debt and deficit. Late night crisis meetings at the White House may become a fixture.

President Obama said he wanted an answer on a budget deal by the morning. That deadline has passed. The talking goes on but the blame game is on in earnest. If there is a shutdown it will do deep damage to the image of one or both parties. The two sides can't even agree what it is they disagree about.

The Democrats are doing a better job of setting the narrative. John Boehner made a mistake allowing the president to speak for him last night and issuing a joint statement with Harry Reid. He is not doing a good job of setting the narrative.

The Republicans insist the argument is about the size of cuts. The Democrats say it is about ideology. Harry Reid's case is that the remaining issue is a Republican demand to take funds away from Planned Parenthood. Although this is a group that funds abortions he says it is illegal for federal money to go towards this. As far as I can see he is factually correct.

So Mr Reid argues the Republicans are holding up the budget because they want to attack cancer screening for women. He says if that sounds ridiculous, it is because it is ridiculous.

By contrast John Boehner, tense and strained before the microphones says it is about the size of the cuts. He says few policy issues remain. But he won't answer the question whether Planned Parenthood is one of them. He is not trying hard to set out his side of the story. I am not arguing that the Republicans don't have a case. But they are not making it with any verve or enthusiasm. Mr Boehner's lack of fighting spirit suggests that he accepts he will get the blame for a shut down.

President Barack Obama is making it clear that the killing of Osama Bin Laden didn't occur by accident - and that it happened while he was in charge. He told former Presidents Bush and Clinton what he was about to announce before he made his televised White House statement. I am sure he resisted any suggestion that he had done what they had only talked about. Yet he made it clear that his administration had been determined.

The president said that on taking office he had told the CIA that the al-Qaeda chief's death or capture was to be the agency's top priority. Senior administration officials say that he chaired five meetings in March working out the plans for this attack. It's really not clear to me if the political leadership makes much difference to operations like this, but it is certainly the impression Mr Obama wants to linger.

The raid took 40 minutes. The intelligence operation took years. It started with the search for a courier, perhaps something of a misnomer for a senior aide to Bin Laden, one of the few men he trusted, according to prisoners who had been interrogated. Four years ago they uncovered his identity. The very high level of precautions the man took made them all the more suspicious. Two years ago they discovered the areas in which he operated. Last summer they identified the compound, in an affluent suburb of Islamabad. Eight times the size of similar homes in the area, it had 18ft-high walls topped with barbed wire and inner walls 7ft high. A large place, worth a million dollars, but with no phone, no internet access. The CIA believes it was purpose-built to hide Bin Laden.

The US didn't tell the Pakistanis about the compound or about the raid until it had happened. That may create some diplomatic friction.

But the mood in America is exultant. As Twitter proclaimed the death of Bin Laden, before the president spoke, crowds gathered outside the White House, waving the stars and stripes and chanting "USA, USA". This is not a country that does quiet satisfaction. This is a cathartic moment for the nation, a moment when America's military might, know how and sheer will power seem to have come together to produce a result.

At a time when there are so many doubts about America's role in the world, and so much economic gloom, there is something clear and plain about celebrating the "rubbing out" of a bad guy, an enemy. The president has been congratulated by even his opponents, and this success allows him to appear grimly resolute in pursuit of America's core interests.

Senior administration officials say Bin Laden's death is not just a symbol, it removes a charismatic and respected leader whom al-Qaeda cannot replace. The official suggests the organisation is on a downward path that will be difficult to reverse. The domestic implications for Mr Obama are in the opposite direction, but may be just as important.

The White House has had to correct its facts about the killing of Bin Laden, and for some that has diminished the glow of success that has surrounded all those involved in the operation.

Bin Laden wasn't armed when he was shot. It raises suspicions that this was indeed a deliberate shoot-to-kill operation.

Here are the inaccuracies in the first version. The woman killed was not his wife. No woman was used as a human shield. And he was not armed.

The president's press secretary Jay Carney suggested this was the result of trying to provide a great deal of information in a great deal of haste.

I can largely accept that. There is no mileage in misleading people and then correcting yourself. But the president's assistant national security advisor John Brennan had used the facts he was giving out to add a moral message - this was the sort of man Bin Laden was, cowering behind his wife, using her as a shield. Nice narrative. Not true. In fact, according to Carney this unarmed woman tried to attack the heavily armed Navy Seal. In another circumstance that might even be described as brave.

Jay Carney said that Bin Laden didn't have to have a gun to be resisting. He said there was a great deal of resistance in general and a highly volatile fire fight. The latest version says Bin Laden's wife charged at the US commando and was shot in the leg, but not killed. The two brothers, the couriers and owners of the compound, and a woman were killed on the ground floor of the main building. This version doesn't mention Bin Laden's son, who also died.

By this count only three men, at the most, were armed. I do wonder how much fight they could put up against two helicopters' worth of Navy Seals.

Does any of this matter? Well, getting the fact right is always important. You can't make a judgment without them. We all make mistakes, and journalists hate doing so because it makes people trust us less. For those involved an operation like this, time must go past in a confused and noisy instant, and they aren't taking notes. Confusion is very understandable. But you start to wonder how much the facts are being massaged now, to gloss over the less appealing parts of the operation.

And of course there is the suspicion that the US never wanted to take Bin Laden alive. Here at least many see a trial as inconvenient, awkward - a chance for terrorists to grandstand. Look at all the fuss about the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

In the confusion of a raid it's hard to see how the Seals could be sure that Bin Laden wasn't armed, didn't have his finger on the trigger of a bomb, wasn't about to pull a nasty surprise. If he had his hands in the air shouting "don't shoot" he might have lived, but anything short of that seems to have ensured his death.

I suspect there will be more worry about this in Britain and Europe than in the US. That doesn't mean we are right or wrong. It is a cultural difference. We are less comfortable about frontier justice, less forgiving about even police shooting people who turn out to be unarmed, perhaps less inculcated with the Dirty Harry message that arresting villains is for wimps, and real justice grows from the barrel of a gun. Many in America won't be in the slightest bit bothered that a mass murderer got what was coming to him swiftly, whether he was trying to kill anyone in that instant or not.

Fighting Irish went 32-6 and also went to the Elite Eight the next season.

Key players at IU: Mental health providers battle depression among athletes

"I look at that group — it was not sexy at that time to play for Indiana. They made it sexy."

'It starts with the team and the students'; athletic director Jack Swarbrick ponders possibilities for Notre Dame Stadium this year

Matt Balis has tried to guide Fighting Irish football players through offseason training from a distance.

IU basketball alum Cody Zeller recalls getting an unusual pep talk from Super Bowl coaches John and Jim Harbaugh

Wisconsin AD Barry Alvarez announced his school will not submit waivers for spring-sport seniors to regain a year of eligibility.

Indiana projects to return more 2019 production than almost any other team in the country.

IU basketball coaching legend got to see Michael Jordan up close as part of the 1984 U.S. Olympic team; Knight came away quite impressed.

Michael Jordan spent the spring of 1984 in Bloomington before he became Michael Jordan

Key players at IU: Mental health providers battle depression among athletes

IU basketball alum Cody Zeller recalls getting an unusual pep talk from Super Bowl coaches John and Jim Harbaugh

"I look at that group — it was not sexy at that time to play for Indiana. They made it sexy."

Grocery stores continue to make changes for the safety of shoppers and employees during the coronavirus pandemic.

Some employees disagree with employers who say their businesses are essential. Experts say the definition's gray area makes it hard for workers.

The U.S. House of Representatives on Friday passed the latest aid package to help the U.S. economy stay afloat during the coronavirus outbreak.

As coronavirus shutters cookie booths in Indiana and around the country, Girl Scouts take sales online and embrace an entrepreneurial spirit.

The financial disruptions from the coronavirus pandemic are growing. April brings new challenges for renters, homeowners and small-business owners.

Plans have been delayed by actions taken to slow the spread of the coronavirus, but Indianapolis restaurant owners have not given up on their dreams.

Business interruption insurance replaces income lost when a business must close. But insurers say policies don't cover coronavirus-related closures.

Here's how grocery stores are trying to accommodate shoppers with new hours, special times for at-risk customers and other changes as of April 29.

Restaurants struggling during the coronavirus pandemic are becoming grocery stores to survive. Here's where to score groceries around Indianapolis.

Indiana businesses operating during the coronavirus should follow certain sanitation measures. Guidelines vary based on a worker's risk of exposure.

Simon Property Group has published protocols to keep shoppers safe during coronavirus. Here's what changes the shopping mall owner is planning.

Indiana workers could lose their eligibility for unemployment benefits if they are recalled to work but refuse to return over fears of the coronavirus

Simon Property Group has changed the opening date for malls in Indianapolis to May 16. Its other shopping centers in Indiana will reopen earlier.