Thursday, May 31, 2007

State Department Daily Press Briefing, 05/31/07 (VIDEO, PODCAST)

Daily Press Briefing, Tom Casey, Deputy Spokesman, FULL STREAMING VIDEO file is windows media format, running time is 17:58, PODCAST of Briefing mp3 format for download. Washington, DC, May 31, 2007, 12:35 p.m. EST. Streaming Audio of briefing mp3 in m3u format for online listening.

MR. CASEY: Good afternoon, everyone. I don't have statements or formal announcements. But I do want to note that it probably doesn't matter anyway because it must be the end of the world since this is George Gedda's last briefing after more than 30 years of covering the State Department, a record that shall probably not be matched or beaten anytime soon.
And George, in your honor, since you're heard a lot of phrases from this building over time, I just want to say that the United States and the State Department deplore, condemn, are deeply troubled by, are extremely saddened, regret, and are extremely concerned about the fact that you will no longer be here with us. And with that, if you have any real questions, I'd be happy to take them or we can just say thank you and move on to champagne.

MR. GEDDA: Let's see --

MR. CASEY: (Laughter.) Or if you wish to have a rebuttal.

MR. GEDDA: I want you to know that it strains credulity for you folks to describe the last 175 diplomatic meetings as being fruitful and useful. They couldn't possibly have all been fruitful and useful.

MR. CASEY: You forgot productive. (Laughter.)

MR. GEDDA: Productive. What is your response to that?

MR. CASEY: Well, George, I think as a great former spokesman once said on his last day at the podium, all the relationships are special, all the meetings are unique and all our allies are valuable. And I think we'll stick with that. (Laughter.)

Anybody else?

QUESTION: (Inaudible?)

MR. CASEY: There could be. Go ahead, Matt.

QUESTION: I have no questions.

MR. CASEY: You could, you can't.

QUESTION: I have no questions. I would like to say something at the very end about George, though.

MR. CASEY: All right. We may be getting there.

QUESTION: I have a couple of questions.

MR. CASEY: Okay. Arshad, thank you for --

QUESTION: Leave it to Reuters to --

MR. CASEY: -- breaking this, yeah. Well, you know, these guys are always working hard over at Reuters, I don't know.

QUESTION: I've got to do something assuage my grief at George's departure, so I will work instead.

MR. CASEY: We'll help you work through the grieving process, yes.

QUESTION: One -- do you have any more information about the two Iraqi nationals that work at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad who apparently have gone missing? Do you have any idea what has happened to them?

MR. CASEY: Well, nothing that I'm in a position to share with you right now, Arshad. We, again, can confirm that we have two of our local Iraqi national employees in the Embassy in Baghdad that are missing. We do have concerns about their welfare. The Embassy is working along with Iraqi security forces and coalition forces as well to be able to try and determine their whereabouts and be able to figure out exactly what's happened. But because this is an ongoing investigation, I think we'll just have to leave it for that for now.

QUESTION: Then one other one on Iran. Former Congressman Lee Hamilton at a news conference this morning regarding the case of Dr. Haleh Esfandiari said that he hopes the U.S. Government will raise her case in any future discussions that it has with the Iranian Government. Do you plan to do so, and if not, why not?

MR. CASEY: Well, certainly what we do plan on doing is continuing to work through the Swiss to be able to try and get consular access to her. And again, we call on the Iranian Government to let her and the other Americans that they're holding go free. I mean, these are people that don't pose a threat or a challenge to the regime. They're there on family business; they're on personal matters; they're conducting research -- they've been doing so for a long time -- and it's simply absurd to be charging them with espionage or other kinds of activities that are supposedly a threat or a challenge to the Iranian Government.

In terms of how we go about discussing this, again, I think what we've said and where I expect we will continue to be is that we believe the proper channel for this is through our diplomatic representatives in Tehran, meaning the Swiss in this case. I'm not trying to preclude this coming up in other fora, but at least with specific reference to the conversation that Ambassador Crocker had with his Iranian counterpart in Baghdad, those meetings were focused exclusively on Iraqi issues. And we've said that we would expect any kind of follow-on meetings, although there's none planned at this moment, will focus on that as well. But, you know, I'm not trying to preclude that someone might find an opportunity in some other forum to be able to raise these cases. I just can't give you any specifics that would indicate that'll happen at this point.

QUESTION: I understand, but can you, for the benefit or ordinary people, explain why you are -- you do not wish to raise a matter like this in what are your extremely rare direct, bilateral face-to-face contacts with the Iranians? Why would you not raise such a case? I know you have a reason, but what is it?

MR. CASEY: Well, again, in the case of the one instance that we can talk about, we stuck specifically to Iraq because we don't wish this to be a forum for the Iranians, for example, to try and engage in discussions of their nuclear program. We've made it quite clear that the international community has a specific mechanism for that, and that's through the P-5+1, and that those conversations can take place once Iran has met the criteria laid out by the international community.

We have a diplomatic representation in Tehran that's designed to make clear and be able to handle our diplomatic relations such as they are with the Iranian Government. We don't wish to provide the Iranian Government with a forum to be able to bring in extraneous issues or otherwise cloud the waters or make it more difficult for us to deal with the kinds of issues like their nuclear program, like the problems that we have with them related to terrorism, like the issues that stem out of the hostage crisis, which is partly the reason why we don't have diplomatic relations with them in the first place.

I will make it clear though, Arshad, that I don't think there's any doubt in our minds that the Iranian Government has a very clear and direct understanding of what our views are on these cases. We've stated it publicly. We've stated it in formal diplomatic channels through the Swiss. And we will continue to make sure that these issues are known.

What I can tell you though is I expect that a very specific and limited forum focused on Iraq is likely to stay focused on Iraq.

Nina.

QUESTION: Same issue, specifically the bank accounts that were frozen, Esfandiari's bank accounts at Citibank. Apparently, her husband received a letter yesterday saying that they were being frozen because she was no longer considered a resident of the U.S. and she was an Iranian
-- now resident in Iran and she was subject to sanctions. Are you doing anything to help with this issue, to amend this?

MR. CASEY: I really don't have any information I can share with you on it. I'm sure we will do whatever we can to clear up any questions that people have. But she's an American citizen and I'm not aware that there's any sanctions or regulations that would apply to American citizens other than --

QUESTION: Her accounts have been frozen though and her salary --

MR. CASEY: I can't confirm that for you. You'd have to check with banking officials and with Department of Treasury.

QUESTION: The State Department has no -- played no role whatsoever in seeking to unfreeze those accounts?

MR. CASEY: My understanding is we've had some communications about that, but I can't really go any further than that.

QUESTION: Communications with whom?

MR. CASEY: With family members of an American citizen about financial issues.

David.

QUESTION: Do you have any comment on the situation in Thailand, the banning of the (inaudible) party?

MR. CASEY: Yeah, we've looked into this a little bit. Frankly, I think this really is a matter for the constitutional tribunal and the Thai people to work out. I'd note that the leaders of political parties from across the spectrum, including the one affected here, have been calling for calm in wake of the tribunal's decision and asking that it be respected.

The Thai interim authorities, from our point of view, really need to remain focused on the most important task at hand here, which is building consensus on a new constitution and doing that so that we can pave the way for democratic elections before the year's end, which is what they've committed themselves to do. It is essential for the Thai Government to go forward with that and to be able to restore fully civil liberties there.

But in terms of the decision made, this is one that is really for the tribunal to decide and we'll leave it up to them and to the Thai people to make any -- or draw any further conclusions about it.

QUESTION: Why isn't it appropriate to criticize the dissolution of a party that I guess won the last election?

MR. CASEY: Well, this is -- the tribunal and the laws that were governing this decision were established before the interim government came into effect. At this point, our understanding is that the tribunal proceeded in accordance with Thai law and, again, the reaction that we've seen from the Thai political parties themselves is to call on their followers to respect this decision. So at this point, I think we'll leave it with the tribunal and with the legal process in Thailand and Thailand's political leaders.

David.

QUESTION: Could you bring us up to date on the Kosovo goings-on up at the UN? There are reports that there's a new draft resolution which seems to imply that there might be concessions to try to get the Russians on board.

MR. CASEY: Well, I understand -- I'm not sure if it's happened yet, but I understand there was a new draft of a resolution on Kosovo that was going to be circulated today. I think this reflects the consensus that is generally shared that now is the time to move forward with a debate on that resolution, and to ultimately resolve this issue in accordance with the basic outlines of the Ahtisaari plan. We do think that it is time to be able to bring this to a conclusion. Obviously there are a lot of different opinions about this subject, including differences that have been raised by the Russians and by others with this. And so I certainly expect there'll be a healthy debate and discussion on it. But we think we are at a point now where we've got a resolution that reflects the Ahtisaari plan and is something that we are in a position now to be able to put forward, and we'll see how the debate goes. I wouldn't try and predict for you, from the fact that this was being circulated today, a timetable for when a resolution might actually be voted upon. And obviously I'm sure there'll be a number of comments that we'll get on this from different member-states and different Security Council members. So I wouldn't either try and tell you that this is necessarily going to be the version that gets put in the blue.

QUESTION: Well, do you think it is a resolution that will not be vetoed by anybody?

MR. CASEY: Well, what we would like to see is a resolution supported by everyone because we think it is important that we do get a strong resolution that reflects the Ahtisaari plan, that allows for this initially supervised independence for Kosovo as he's called for. It is something that we believe is essential for the stability of the region, and ultimately for the people in Serbia as well as Kosovars as well as others in the region to be able to meet their own objectives for involvement more closely and deeply in Euro-Atlantic institutions, from the EU to NATO to other organizations as well.

Let's go in the back here.

QUESTION: On the issue of American citizens detained in Iran, do you have any exact number that is confirmed? Some reports say there are more than five people.

MR. CASEY: Well, again, we've talked about that in the past. We have the three citizens that we've publicly talked about. We also have a missing American who is, as far as we know, is still in Iran, which is the case of Mr. Levinson. I have seen, and I think we've seen, some scattered reporting that indicates there may be others that are out there; I'm not ruling that out. But at this point, I'm not aware of any others.

Yes.

QUESTION: On U.S. base realignment in Japan, since the middle of this month, Japanese Government has just started the initial phase of the environmental survey. Are you concerned about the pace of this going on since that was the thing that was agreed on last year's 2+2 agreement?

MR. CASEY: Well, I haven't gotten an update on the progress on that. Certainly we want to see base realignment move forward. We think this is an important issue for us. But I think my friends at the Pentagon would be in a better position to tell you whether the timing of this review has had any impact on their planning for the overall move. Certainly we're committed to working with the Government of Japan to be able to resolve any outstanding issues that are there and be able to allow us to go forward with realignment, which I think is in the best interest of -- and defensive needs of both the United States and Japan and the security of the broader region.

Yeah, Charlie.

QUESTION: Any comments of the -- on the votes pending in Congress next week? The resolution's calling for the embassy to be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

MR. CASEY: I don't have anything -- I wasn't aware that things were pending, but I think our views on that are well known and there is no change in U.S. policy on it.

Charlie.

QUESTION: Oh, just -- I won't say, "Thank you" yet --

MR. CASEY: Not yet.

QUESTION: -- a few other people may have something to say, but as someone who -- preparing to end the briefing, and he usually says "Thank you" first, I'd just like to say thanks to George for being a great mentor to myself and I'm sure many others. I'm not quite sure what we're going to do without the instant memory bank that we've all gotten used to going to.

But, Matt.

QUESTION: Yeah, I just wonder if I can say something as George's AP partner today. Right here is the -- you know, today really is truly the end of an era, not only in the State Department briefing room and in the bullpen, but also for the AP. And for me personally, for the last eight years, with a small interruption there, you've really been a tremendous mentor/friend/competitor and now finally a colleague. You've been really a font of institutional knowledge, as Charlie said, of the Department, of U.S. foreign policy, and I think that you're going to -- your departure will leave a lot of us missing something, not just at the AP but also among the entire press corps. So I'd just like to say, George, thank you, congratulations, enjoy retirement, and Godspeed.

MR. GEDDA: I very much appreciate the kind words from both Matt and Charlie, and I guess there are obviously some things that I will miss and obviously the companionship of colleagues. And the AP has succeeded in keeping me busy enough so that there were not enough conversations with these fine people out here, you know to talk about just how things are going. I have for the most part been stuck at that computer wishing I had more free time to get to know some of these people better. And I also want to say I admire the work of my colleagues. It's a very high-caliber group and I will miss you folks. But on the whole, I am looking forward to a new day and I will be heading out in about a week for other pastures. And I want to thank you, Tom, and Sean for all of your hard work. It's not easy facing this crowd every day and you have shown great patience and wisdom and skill in carrying out your duties. And I want to thank Gonzo and all the folks in the press office for the kindnesses and hard work that they have shown over the years -- more than 30, to be exact.

MR. CASEY: Now, I didn't want to get into specifics, George, because, you know, none of us want to be dated. Well, George, I'm going to raise a glass of water to you here and we'll raise a glass to you later, but thank you. Thank all of you. And, Charlie, can I get a thank you?

QUESTION: Thank you.

(Applause, cheers and a standing ovation.)

(The briefing was concluded at 12:53 p.m.)

DPB # 97 Released on May 31, 2007

Daily Press Briefing, Tom Casey, Deputy Spokesman, Washington, DC. May 31, 2007

Technorati Tags: and or and , or and

Wednesday, May 30, 2007

Extensively Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis (XDR TB) PODCAST

Emergence of Extensively Drug Resistant Tuberculosis - PODCAST. Extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis (XDR TB) outbreaks have been reported in South Africa, and strains have been identified on 6 continents. Dr. Peter Cegielski, team leader for drug-resistant TB with the Division of Tuberculosis Elimination at CDC, comments on a multinational team's report on this emerging global public health threat.

M. tuberculosis bacteria  CDC/Ronald W. SmithwickHere we see Mycobacterium tuberculosis in a sputum smear is stained using fluorescent acid-fast stain.
M. tuberculosis is an acid-fast bacterium (AFB), and is therefore, undetectable when stained using a Gram stain technique.
However, using this method, the M. tuberculosis bacteria glow yellow under ultraviolet light microscopy.
Photomicrograph of a sputum sample containing Mycobacterium tuberculosis. M. tuberculosis bacteria can attack any part of the body, but usually the lungs causing Tuberculosis. It is spread when infected individuals cough or sneeze, releasing microdroplets into the air that contain the bacteria, which others then inhale.M. tuberculosis bacteria. CDC
CDC, A photomicrograph of Mycobacterium tuberculosis bacteria from a sputum specimen, and viewed with Ziehl-Neelsen stain.Extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis (XDR TB) is a relatively rare type of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR TB). It is resistant to almost all drugs used to treat TB, including the two best first-line drugs: isoniazid and rifampin. XDR TB is also resistant to the best second-line medications: fluoroquinolones and at least one of three injectable drugs (i.e., amikacin, kanamycin, or capreomycin).
Because XDR TB is resistant to the most powerful first-line and second-line drugs, patients are left with treatment options that are much less effective and often have worse treatment outcomes.

XDR TB is of special concern for persons with HIV infection or other conditions that can weaken the immune system. These persons are more likely to develop TB disease once they are infected, and also have a higher risk of death once they develop TB disease.

The risk of acquiring XDR TB in the United States appears to be relatively low. However, it is important to acknowledge the ease at which TB can spread. As long as XDR TB exists, the United States is at risk and must address the threat. Morbidity rate 70%

Investigation of U.S. Traveler with Extensively Drug–Resistant Tuberculosis (XDR TB) Fact Sheets Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports (MMWRs) Technorati Tags: and or and and or

Tuesday, May 29, 2007

President Ronald Reagan The Moscow Summit 05/29/88

President Reagan and Soviet General Secretary Gorbachev in Red Square during the Moscow Summit. 5/31/88. Courtesy Ronald Reagan LibraryOn January 15, 1988, President Ronald Reagan directed the Secretary of Defense to establish the On-Site Inspection Agency (OSIA). Its mission was to carry out the on-site inspection and escort responsibilities of the United States under the provisions of the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty.

Signed on December 8, 1987, by President Reagan and Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev, the INF Treaty enjoined the two countries to eliminate all ground-launched missiles (approximately 2,700 missiles) with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers.
National teams of inspectors would monitor and report on the elimination of these missile systems and other significant provisions of the treaty. The INF Treaty was ratified by the U.S. Senate and the USSR's Supreme Soviet in the spring of 1988, and the instruments of ratification were exchanged at the Reagan-Gorbachev Moscow Summit of June 1, 1988.C47449-17, President Reagan and Soviet General Secretary Gorbachev signing the INF treaty ratification at the Grand Kremlin palace during the Moscow Summit. 6/1/88. Courtesy Ronald Reagan Library
C47276-4A, President Reagan and Nancy Reagan greeting Moscow citizens on Arbat Street during the Moscow Summit.5/29/88. Courtesy Ronald Reagan LibraryExactly 30 days later the first phase of the treaty began. On-site inspections were a major component of this and all subsequent phases of the treaty. They had immediate significance, both as a barometer for measuring adherence to the treaty and as a precedent for entering into future arms control treaties and agreements.
In negotiating arms control treaties with the Soviet Union, the United States had proposed on-site inspections as a part of treaty verification for more than 30 years. However, until the late 1980s few treaties or agreements had included the provision.C47450-20, President Reagan and Soviet General Secretary Gorbachev shake hands after signing the INF Treaty ratification in the Grand Kremlin Palace during the Moscow Summit. 6/1/88. Courtesy Ronald Reagan Library
One, the Stockholm Document of September 1986, was a multilateral arms control agreement signed by the United States, the Soviet Union, and 33 European nations.

It went into effect on January 1, 1987, and permitted on-site challenge inspections by small, four-person teams of military officers of large-scale, scheduled military exercises. If a military force of more than 17,000 took part in an exercise, the participating states had to provide notification 42 days in advance and issue an invitation to all of the signatories to send an on-site inspection team to observe the exercise.

There was no right of refusal. However, the agreement limited nations that were not members of the same alliance (i.e., NATO or the Warsaw Pact) to a single challenge inspection each per year. This provision limited the number of inspections. In 1987, the first full year of the Stockholm Document, there were only five on-site challenge inspections. The United States conducted a single on-site inspection under the agreement in l987. On-Site Inspections Under the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty

Speak the Truth about Democratic Erosion in Russia. Just weeks before assuming her responsibilities as National Security Adviser in 2000, Condoleezza Rice wrote about the deleterious consequences of not speaking honestly about Russia’s internal problems: “The United States should not be faulted for trying to help. But, as the Russian reformer Grigori Yavlinsky has said, the United States should have ‘told the truth’ about what was happening [inside his country].”

She then attacked “the ‘happy talk’ in which the Clinton administration engaged.” Dr. Rice’s message is even truer today. The aim of speaking the truth is not to lecture Putin or try to persuade him to change his ways, but rather to demonstrate solidarity with Russian human rights and democracy activists.

Direct personal engagement of Russian democratic activists also matters. When Ronald Reagan traveled to the Soviet Union in May 1988, he discussed arms control and regional conflicts with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. Yet, Reagan did not let his friendship and cooperation with Gorbachev overshadowed his other agenda while in town – human rights. Speaking in Helsinki the day before entering the Soviet Union for the first time, Reagan proclaimed that “There is no true international security without respect for human rights…

The greatest creative and moral force in this world, the greatest hope for survival and success, for peace and happiness, is human freedom.” During his stay in the Soviet capital, Reagan echoed this theme in action and words many times, whether in his speech to students at Moscow State University or in a luncheon with nearly a hundred human rights activists at the American ambassador’s residence. Reagan did not simply show up for a photo op with these enemies of the Soviet dictatorship.

He ordered that the ambassador’s finest silverware and linens be used to accord these human rights activists the same respect that he showed for his Soviet counterpart. American officials must again adopt a similar strategy of using meetings with Russian democratic and human rights activists to help elevate attention to their cause and help prevent these brave people from further harassment from the Russian government. Russia: Rebuilding the Iron Curtain

Text Credits :

house.gov: Generally speaking, works created by U.S. Government employees are not eligible for copyright protection in the United States. See Circular 1 "COPYRIGHT BASICS" from the U.S. Copyright Office.

1. DTRALink is provided as a public service by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, Corporate Communication.

2. Information presented on DTRALink is considered public information and may be distributed or copied. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested.

IMAGES FROM THE REAGAN LIBRARY ARCHIVES (Selected by the Reagan Library Audiovisual Staff)

These photographs were selected through a combination of criteria: popularity, historical significance and composition. No scanned image has been cropped but please note that the on-screen color and quality may vary from an actual print. The over 600 selected images represented here are only a small portion of the over 1.5 million photographs available. All the photographs are in the public domain and may be credited "Courtesy Ronald Reagan Library."

Technorati Tags: and or and and or

Monday, May 28, 2007

2008 GOP Straw Poll Campaign 2008 Zeitgeist

Campaign 2008 Zeitgeist as Posted and un-edited. Updated 24/7. This series will spotlight the republican candidates in real time and we hope with an unbiased view. The parameters are the widest possible to return the most meaningful results. The experiment is ment to capture the Zeitgeist and therefor the true nature of the race. Let the games begin.

John McCain Zeitgeist || Mike Huckabee Zeitgeist || Tom Tancredo Zeitgeist || Rudy Giuliani Zeitgeist || Fred Thompson Zeitgeist || Mitt Romney Zeitgeist || Ron Paul Zeitgeist || Newt Gingrich Zeitgeist

2008 GOP Straw Poll, Campaign 2008 Zeitgeist




Technorati Tags: and or or and or and or and or or and or

Sunday, May 27, 2007

String Theory and Technorati Forum Edicate

Chapter 1 Technorati wacks Blogrolling, the rest of us are just Collateral Damage
Chapter 2 Hey Technorati My Authority is not getting updated! Blogroll
Chapter 3 String Theory and Technorati Forum Edicate

Space Telescope (HST), Spitzer Space Telescope (SST), Spacecraft: Chandra X-ray Telescope, Hubble Space Telescope, Spitzer Space Telescope (SST)
NASA's Hubble, Chandra and Spitzer space telescopes shows a giant jet of particles that has been shot out from the vicinity of a type of supermassive black hole called a quasar. The jet is enormous, stretching across more than 100,000 light-years of space -- a size comparable to our own Milky Way galaxy!
’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
As our journey begins we must abandon all that is known and familiar and used M-theory to explain a number of previously observed dualities. until now The multiverse proposed by Many-worlds interpretation had a shared time parameter. In most formulations, all the constituent universes are structurally identical to each other and though they have the same physical laws and values for the fundamental constants, they may exist in different states.

The constituent universes were furthermore thought to be non-communicating, in the sense that no information could pass between them. The state of the entire multiverse is related to the states of the constituent universes by quantum superposition, and is described by a single universal wavefunction. Lets surf our first 11th dimension wave to the Technorati help forum.

Administrator ryansking asks, Could you please give use some examples of links that aren't showing up? they are adduced and the thread is closed with no futher comment from admin.

Branes have collided much like those that may have been responsible for the Big Bang and are of the whole observable universe being one of many extended 4 dimensional branes in an 11 dimensional spacetime.

Posters are repeatedly told by Admin. "Thanks for using the support forum! Technorati Support" and then when no answer is forthcoming, and the thread grows long, "Please submit a support ticket from our Support Contact Form with your blog URL and a few examples of links that should be showing up in results but aren't. This will help us to research the issue further." So we see that although branes similar to that representing our universe can co-exist in the M-theory, their physical laws could differ from our own, as could their number of dimensions.

We now have observable proof of the hypothetical set of multiple possible universes (including our universe) that together comprise all of physical reality and the different universes within a multiverse are called parallel universes are a reality. We also learn that the structure of the multiverse, the nature of each universe within it and the relationship between the various constituent universes, depend on the specific multiverse hypothesis considered.
He took his vorpal sword in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought—
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.
By Lewis Caroll
Add to Technorati Favorites fav me and leave your fav link or Technorati user name in a comment and i'll fav you back.

Technorati Tags: and or and or and or

Saturday, May 26, 2007

Freedom Calendar 05/26/07 - 06/02/07

May 26, 2001, African-American Claude Allen, nominated by President George W. Bush, is confirmed as U.S. Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services.

May 27, 1987, Vietnamese-American cadet Hoang Nhu Tran, former boat person, graduates as valedictorian from U.S. Air Force Academy; nominated by U.S. Senator Bill Armstrong (R-CO).

May 28, 1930, Birth of U.S. Rep. Patricia Saiki (R-HI), first Asian-American to lead a federal agency; appointed head of U.S. Small Business Administration by President George H. W. Bush.

May 29, 1902, Virginia Democrats implement new state constitution, condemned by Republicans as illegal, reducing African-American voter registration by 86%.

Memorial Day, May 30, 1854, Democrat President Franklin Pierce signs Democrats’ Kansas-Nebraska Act, expanding slavery into U.S. territories; opponents unite to form the Republican Party.

May 31, 1870, President U.S. Grant signs Republicans’ Enforcement Act, providing stiff penalties for depriving any American’s civil rights.

June 1, 1963, Democrat Governor George Wallace announces defiance of court order issued by Republican federal judge Frank Johnson to integrate University of Alabama.

June 2, 1924, Republican President Calvin Coolidge signs bill passed by Republican Congress granting U.S. citizenship to all Native Americans.

"Our nation’s long journey towards civil rights for all our citizens—once a source of discord, now a source of pride—must continue with no backsliding or slowing down. We must and shall see that those basic laws that guarantee equal rights are preserved and, when necessary, strengthened. Our concern for equal rights for women is firm and unshakable.”

Ronald Reagan, 40th President of the United States

Technorati Tags: and or and or and or and or and or or and or or and or

Presidential Podcast 05/26/07

Presidential Podcast 05/26/07
Presidential Podcast 05/26/07 en Español. In Focus: Defense, Subscribe to the Republican National Convention Blog Podcast Subscribe to Our Podcast feed or online Click here to Subscribe to Our Republican National Convention Blog Podcast Channel with Podnova podnova Podcast Channel and receive the weekly Presidential Radio Address in English and Spanish with select State Department Briefings. Featuring full audio and text transcripts, More content Sources added often so stay tuned.

Technorati Tags: and or and or and or

Bush radio address 05/26/07 full audio, text transcript

President George W. Bush calls troops from his ranch in Crawford, Texas, Thanksgiving Day, Thursday, Nov. 24, 2005. White House photo by Eric Draper.bush radio address 05/26/07 full audio, text transcript. President's Radio Address en Español. In Focus: Veterans
Subscribe to the Republican National Convention Blog Podcast Subscribe to Our Podcast feed or online Click here to Subscribe to Republican National Convention Blog's PODCAST with podnova podnova Podcast Channel and receive the weekly Presidential Radio Address in English and Spanish with select State Department Briefings. Featuring real audio and full text transcripts, More content Sources added often so stay tuned.

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. This Memorial Day weekend, Americans honor those who have given their lives in service to our Nation. As we pay tribute to the brave men and women who died for our freedom, we also honor those who are defending our liberties around the world today.

On Wednesday, I met with some of the courageous young men and women who will soon take their place in the defense of our Nation: the graduating class of the United States Coast Guard Academy. Since its inception, the Coast Guard has patrolled and protected America's shores. And in this time of war, the Coast Guard has assumed new responsibilities to defend our Nation against terrorist infiltration and help stop new attacks. I was proud to stand with the Class of 2007 and thank them for their bold decision to wear the uniform.

The men and women of the Coast Guard are fighting alongside soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who have also volunteered to protect America. We live in freedom because patriots such as these are willing to serve, and many have given their lives in defense of our Nation. On Monday, I will lay a wreath at Arlington National Cemetery to honor those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in their country's cause.
One of those who gave his life was Sergeant David Christoff, Jr., of Rossford, Ohio. The day after the attacks of September the 11th, David walked into a recruiting station to become a United States Marine. Asked why he made the decision to serve, David said: "I don't want my brother and sister to live in fear." David eventually deployed to Iraq, where he fought street by street in the battle of Fallujah and earned a Purple Heart for wounds suffered in action.

While on leave back home, David learned his company was headed for combat in Afghanistan. But he knew there was also a job to finish in Iraq. So he asked to be reassigned to a unit headed for Iraq, and last May he died in Anbar province where the Marines are taking the fight to al Qaeda. When his family received his belongings, his mother and his father each found a letter from David. He asked that they pray for his fellow Marines and all those still serving overseas.

On Memorial Day, our Nation honors Sergeant Christoff's final request. We pray for our men and women serving in harm's way. We pray for their safe return. And we pray for their families and loved ones, who also serve our country with their support and sacrifice.

On Memorial Day, we rededicate ourselves to freedom's cause. In Iraq and Afghanistan, millions have shown their desire to be free. We are determined to help them secure their liberty. Our troops are helping them build democracies that respect the rights of their people, uphold the rule of law, and fight extremists alongside America in the war on terror. With the valor and determination of our men and women in uniform, I am confident that we will succeed and leave a world that is safer and more peaceful for our children and grandchildren.

On Memorial Day, we also pay tribute to Americans from every generation who have given their lives for our freedom. From Valley Forge to Vietnam, from Kuwait to Kandahar, from Berlin to Baghdad, brave men and women have given up their own futures so that others might have a future of freedom. Because of their sacrifice, millions here and around the world enjoy the blessings of liberty. And wherever these patriots rest, we offer them the respect and gratitude of our Nation.

Thank you for listening.

END For Immediate Release, Office of the Press Secretary, May 26, 2007

Technorati Tags: and or and or and or

Discurso Radial del Presidente a la Nación 05/26/07

Presidente George W. Bush llama a tropas de su rancho en Crawford, Tejas, día de Thanksgiving, jueves, de noviembre el 24 de 2005.  Foto blanca de la casa de Eric Draper.forre el audio de la dirección de radio 05/26/07 por completo, transcripción del texto. (nota de los redactores: ninguna lengua española mp3 lanzó esta semana, apesadumbrada) PODCAST
Chascar aquí para suscribir a nuestro canal republicano de Blog Podcast de la convención nacional con Odeo Suscribir a nuestro canal de Podcast de Odeo o del podnova Chascar aquí para suscribir a nuestro canal republicano de Blog Podcast de la convención nacional con Podnova y recibir la dirección de radio presidencial semanal en inglés y español con informes selectos del departamento del estado. Ofreciendo transcripciones audio y con texto completo verdaderas, más fuentes contentas agregaron a menudo así que la estancia templó.

Buenos Días. Este fin de semana del Día de Conmemoración de los Caídos, los estadounidenses honramos aquellos que dieron sus vidas en el servicio de nuestra Nación. Al rendir tributo a los valientes hombres y mujeres que murieron por nuestra libertad, también honramos aquellos que hoy en día están defendiendo nuestras libertades en todas partes del mundo.

El miércoles estuve con algunos de los valientes hombres y mujeres jóvenes quienes pronto tomarán su lugar en defensa de nuestra Nación - la clase que se graduó de la Academia de Guardacostas de Estados Unidos. Desde su fundación los Guardacostas han patrullado y protegido las costas de Estados Unidos. Y en estos tiempos de guerra, los Guardacostas han asumido nuevas responsabilidades para defender a nuestro país contra la infiltración terrorista y ayudar a detener nuevos ataques. Me sent orgulloso de estar junto a los miembros de la Clase del 2007 y agradecerles por su valiente decisión de llevar el uniforme.

Los hombres y mujeres de los Guardacostas están luchando al lado de soldados, marineros, aviadores e Infantes de Marina quienes también se alistaron como voluntarios para proteger a Estados Unidos. Vivimos con libertad ya que patriotas tales como estos están dispuestos a servir - y muchos han dado la vida en defensa de nuestra Nación. El lunes colocar una corona en el Cementerio Nacional de Arlington para honrar a aquellos que hicieron el sacrificio máximo por la causa de su país.

Uno de aquellos que dio su vida fue el Sargento David Christoff, Jr., de Rossford, Ohio. El día después de los ataques del 11 de septiembre, David entró a una oficina de reclutamiento para convertirse en Infante de Marina. Cuando le preguntaron porqué había tomado la decisión de servir, David dijo: "No quiero que mi hermano y mi hermana vivan con miedo". David eventualmente fue destacado a Irak, donde luchó calle a calle en la batalla de Fallujah y mereció la condecoración "Corazón Púrpura" por las heridas que recibió en acción.

Estando de vacaciones en casa, David supo que su compañía salía para combate en Afganistán. Pero él sabía que quedaba un trabajo por terminar en Irak. Por lo tanto pidió ser reasignado a una unidad con destino a Irak - y en mayo pasado murió en la provincia de Anbar donde los Infantes de Marina están librando la lucha contra al Qaeda. Cuando su familia recibió sus pertenencias, su madre y su padre ambos encontraron una carta de David.

Les pedía que rezaran por sus compañeros Infantes de Marina y por todos que aún están sirviendo en el extranjero.

En el Día de Conmemoración de los Caídos nuestra Nación honra el último pedido del Sargento Christoff. Rezamos por nuestros hombres y mujeres que sirven en situaciones peligrosas. Rezamos por que regresen a salvo. Y rezamos por sus familias y seres queridos - que también sirven a nuestro país con su apoyo y sacrificio.

En el Día de Conmemoración de los Caídos, nos dedicamos una vez más a la causa de la libertad. En Irak y Afganistán, millones han mostrado su deseo de ser libres. Nosotros estamos resueltos a ayudarlos a obtener su libertad. Nuestras tropas los están ayudando a crear democracias que respeten los derechos de sus pueblos, mantengan el imperio de la ley y luchen contra extremistas junto a Estados Unidos en la guerra contra el terror. Con el valor y la resolución de nuestros hombres y mujeres en uniforme, yo confío que lograremos el éxito - y dejaremos un mundo más seguro y más pacífico para nuestros hijos y nuestros nietos.

En el Día de Conmemoración de los Caídos, también rendimos tributo a estadounidenses de todas las generaciones que dieron sus vidas por nuestra libertad. Desde Valley Forge hasta Vietnam, desde Kuwait a Kandahar, desde Berlin a Bagdad, hombres y mujeres valientes han entregado sus propios futuros a fin de que otros pudieran tener un futuro de libertad. Gracias a su sacrificio, millones aquí y en todo el mundo disfrutan de las bendiciones de la libertad - y dondequiera que descansen estos patriotas, les ofrecemos el respeto y la gratitud de nuestra Nación.

Gracias por escuchar.

### Para su publicación inmediata, Oficina del Secretario de Prensa, 26 de mayo de 2007

Etiquetas De Technorati: , y or and or

Friday, May 25, 2007

Zogby Poll: Partisanship Out, Competence In For Next President VIDEO

Americans now value leadership and unity more than ideology; Poll shows rebirth of the “political center”, FULL STREAMING VIDEO



Technorati Tags: and or and , or and , or , and , or and

Thursday, May 24, 2007

Press Conference by the President 05/24/07 ViDEO PODCAST

Press Conference by the President, FULL STREAMING VIDEO, Rose Garden 11:01 A.M. EDT PODCAST OF THIS ARTICLE

THE PRESIDENT: Please be seated. Thank you, all. Good morning.

President George W. Bush emphasizes a point as he responds to a question Thursday, May 24, 2007, during a press conference in the Rose Garden of the White House. White House photo by Joyce BoghosianToday, Congress will vote on legislation that provides our troops with the funds they need. It makes clear that our Iraqi partners must demonstrate progress on security and reconciliation. My administration and members of Congress from both parties have had many meetings to work out our differences on this legislation.
As a result, we removed the arbitrary timetables for withdrawal and the restrictions on our military commanders that some in Congress have supported.

We were also successful in removing billions in unrelated domestic spending that many of the Democrats were insisting on. I wanted to remove even more; but, still, by voting for this bill members of both parties can show our troops and the Iraqis and the enemy that our country will support our servicemen and women in harm's way.

As it provides vital funds for our troops, this bill also reflects a consensus that the Iraqi government needs to show real progress in return for America's continued support and sacrifice. The Iraqi Study Group -- the Iraq Study Group recommended that we hold the Iraqi government to the series of benchmarks for improved security, political reconciliation and governance that the Iraqis have set for themselves. I agree, so does the Congress, and the bill reflects that recommendation.

These benchmarks provide both the Iraqi government and the American people with a clear road map on the way forward. Meeting these benchmarks will be difficult; it's going to be hard work for this young government. After all, the Iraqis are recovering from decades of brutal dictatorship. Their democratic government is just over a year old. And as they're making tough decisions about their future, they're under relentless attack from extremists and radicals who are trying to bring down the young democracy.
President George W. Bush responds to a reporter's question Thursday, May 24, 2007, during a morning press conference in the Rose Garden of the White House. White House photo by Joyce Boghosian.Our new strategy is designed to help Iraq's leaders provide security for their people and get control of their capital, so they can move forward with reconciliation and reconstruction. Our new strategy is designed to take advantage of new opportunities to partner with local tribes,
to go after al Qaeda in places like Anbar, which has been the home base of al Qaeda in Iraq.

This summer is going to be a critical time for the new strategy. The last of five reinforcement brigades we are sending to Iraq is scheduled to arrive in Baghdad by mid-June. As these reinforcements carry out their missions the enemies of a free Iraq, including al Qaeda and illegal militias, will continue to bomb and murder in an attempt to stop us. We're going to expect heavy fighting in the weeks and months. We can expect more American and Iraqi casualties. We must provide our troops with the funds and resources they need to prevail.

Another important issue before Congress is immigration reform. I want to thank the bipartisan group of senators who produced a bill that will help us secure our borders and reform our immigration system. For decades, the government failed to stop illegal immigration. My administration has stepped up efforts to improve border security, doubling the number of Border Patrol agents. We've effectively ended the policy of catch and release, which allowed some illegal immigrants to be released back into society after they were captured.

Last year alone, we apprehended more than a million people trying to enter this country illegally. This is progress, but it's not enough. Many Americans are rightly skeptical about immigration reform. I strongly believe the bipartisan Senate bill addresses the reasons for past failures, while recognizing the legitimate needs of our economy, and upholding the ideals of our immigrant tradition.
President George W. Bush listens to a question Thursday, May 24, 2007, during a press conference in the Rose Garden. The President said, 'Today, Congress will vote on legislation that provides our troops with the funds they need. It makes clear that our Iraqi partners must demonstrate progress on security and reconciliation. As a result, we removed the arbitrary timetables for withdrawal and the restrictions on our military commanders that some in Congress have supported.' White House photo by Chris GreenburgThis bill does not grant amnesty. Amnesty is forgiveness without a penalty. Instead, this bill requires workers here illegally to acknowledge that they broke the law, pay a fine, pass background checks, remain employed, and maintain a clean record.
This bill provides the best chance to reform our immigration system and help us make certain we know who's in our country and where they are. Our immigration problems cannot be solved piecemeal. They must be all addressed together, and they must be addressed in logical order.

So this legislation requires that border security and worker verification targets are met before other provisions of the bill are triggered. For example, the temporary worker program can begin only after these security measures are fully implemented. Immigration reform is a complex issue; it's a difficult piece of legislation. And those who are looking to find fault with this bill will always be able to find something. If you're serious about securing our borders and bringing millions of illegal immigrants in our country out of the shadows, this bipartisan bill is the best opportunity to move forward. I'm confident with hard work and goodwill, Congress can pass and I can sign a bill that fixes an immigration system we all agree is broken.

The issues of war and immigration are difficult, but that's no excuse in avoiding our responsibility to act. The American people sent us to Washington to take on tough problems, and they expect us to deliver results.

And now I'll be glad to answer some of your questions. Hunt.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. The IAEA says that Iran has significantly accelerated its uranium enrichment program. And today President Ahmadinejad said that he would go ahead, he vowed to go ahead. There also is the detention of three Iranian Americans. Where is this all headed? And do you think it's time for tough U.N. sanctions with real teeth, and are you confident that Russia and China would go ahead?

THE PRESIDENT: As you know, we have been discussing this issue a lot at these press avails. Iran is constantly on the agenda at a press avail like this -- or a press conference like this, and the reason why is because they continue to be defiant as to the demands of the free world. The world has spoken, and said no nuclear weapons programs. And yet they're constantly ignoring the demands.

My view is that we need to strengthen our sanction regime. I just spoke to Condoleezza Rice, and we will work with our European partners to develop further sanctions. And, of course, I will discuss this issue with Vladimir Putin, as well as President Hu Jintao.

The first thing that these leaders have got to understand is that an Iran with a nuclear weapon would be incredibly destabilizing for the world. It's in their interests that we work collaboratively to continue to isolate that regime.

I'm sympathetic for the people of Iran. I'm sorry they live under a government that continues to insist upon a program that the world has condemned, because it is denying the good people of Iran economic opportunities that they would have. This is a country with a great tradition and a great history. There are hard-working people in that country that want to benefit from a society that is more open, and yet the government insists upon measures that will lead to further isolation. And, therefore, to answer one part of your question, we will work with our partners to continue the pressure.

Secondly, obviously, to the extent that these people are picking up innocent Americans is unacceptable. And we've made it very clear to the Iranian government that the detention of good, decent American souls who are there to be beneficial citizens is not acceptable behavior.

Toby.

Q Mr. President, dozens of American troops have been killed this month, and sectarian violence appears to be rising again in Iraq. You, yourself, just said that you're expecting more casualties in the weeks and months ahead. How much longer do you believe you can sustain your current policy in Iraq without significant progress on the ground? And how confident are you about finding those missing soldiers?

THE PRESIDENT: I'm confident that the military is doing everything it can to find the missing soldiers. I talked to General Petraeus about this subject and Secretary Gates, and General Petraeus informs him that we're using all the intelligence and all the troops we can to find them. It's a top priority of our people there in Iraq.

Obviously, the loss of life is devastating to families. I fully understand that. But I want to remind you as to why I sent more troops in. It was to help stabilize the capital. You're asking me how much longer; we have yet to even get all our troops in place. General David Petraeus laid out a plan for the Congress, he talked about a strategy all aiming -- all aimed at helping this Iraqi government secure its capital so that they can do the -- some of the political work necessary, the hard work necessary to reconcile.

And as I explained in my opening remarks, all the troops won't be there until mid-June. And one reason you're seeing more fighting is because our troops are going into new areas, along with the Iraqis. And so General Petraeus has said, why don't you give us until September and let me report back, to not only me, but to the United States Congress, about progress.

I would like to see us in a different configuration at some point in time in Iraq. However, it's going to require taking control of the capital. And the best way to do that was to follow the recommendations of General Petraeus. As I have constantly made clear, the recommendations of Baker-Hamilton appeal to me, and that is to be embedded and to train and to guard the territorial integrity of the country, and to have Special Forces to chase down al Qaeda. But I didn't think we could get there unless we increased the troop levels to secure the capital. I was fearful that violence would spiral out of control in Iraq, and that this experience of trying to help this democracy would -- couldn't succeed.

And so, therefore, the decisions I made are all aimed at getting us to a different position, and the timing of which will be decided by the commanders on the ground, not politicians here in Washington.

Chen. Ed, excuse me. That's Henry. Chen. You're coming down -- no, sorry. Work the print people a little bit, see. I've got the strategy -- print. Ed, sorry.

Q Good morning, Mr. President. A lot of lawmakers in Congress are saying that China has not done enough to allow its currency to appreciate, and they're talking about things like duties. What is your view about that, and are you prepared to do more to encourage the appreciation of the yuan?

THE PRESIDENT: Thanks, Ed. I spoke to Madam Wu Yi today, as a matter of fact, had her into the Oval Office; wanted to thank her for bringing her delegation in, and also to ask her to pass on a message to Hu Jintao that I appreciate his willingness to work in a strategic -- with strategic dialogues in order to put in place the type of measures that reflect a complex relationship -- in other words, the ability to discuss issues such as beef, or intellectual property rights.

And one of the issues that I emphasized to Madam Wu Yi, as well as the delegation, was that we're watching very carefully as to whether or not they will appreciate their currency. And that's all in the context of making it clear to China that we value our relationship, but the $233 billion trade deficit must be addressed. And one way to address it is through currency evaluations.

Another way to address it is for them to help convert their economy from one of savers to consumers. And that's why Secretary Paulson worked very assiduously with this strategic dialogue group to encourage openness for capital markets; that China must open its capital markets to allow for different financial institutions from around the world to go into the country. It not only will be beneficial to the United States, but we happen to think it will be beneficial to the Chinese economy, for the consumers to have different options when it comes to savings and purchases.

And so this is important dialogue, and it's one that I thank the Chinese government for engaging in. And there's been some progress. Yesterday they opened new air routes. That's beneficial for U.S. airlines. It also happens to be beneficial for China, as far I am concerned. It's beneficial for that country to open up its access to more travelers, whether they be business or tourists.

Anyway, this is a complex relationship. There's a lot of areas we're working together, and there's areas where there's friction. And we've just got to work through the friction. One area where I've been disappointed is beef. They need to be eating U.S. beef. It's good for them. They'll like it. And so we're working hard to get that beef market opened up.

Ed.

Q Mr. President, a new Senate report this morning contends that your administration was warned before the war that by invading Iraq you would actually give Iran and al Qaeda a golden opportunity to expand their influence, the kind of influence you were talking about with al Qaeda yesterday, and with Iran this morning. Why did you ignore those warnings, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: Ed, going into Iraq we were warned about a lot of things, some of which happened, some of which didn't happen. And, obviously, as I made a decision as consequential as that, I weighed the risks and rewards of any decision. I firmly believe the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power. I know the Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein in power. I think America is safer without Saddam Hussein in power.

As to al Qaeda in Iraq, al Qaeda is going to fight us wherever we are. That's their strategy. Their strategy is to drive us out of the Middle East. They have made it abundantly clear what they want. They want to establish a caliphate. They want to spread their ideology. They want safe haven from which to launch attacks. They're willing to kill the innocent to achieve their objectives, and they will fight us. And the fundamental question is, will we fight them? I have made the decision to do so. I believe that the best way to protect us in this war on terror is to fight them.

And so we're fighting them in Iraq, we're fighting them in Afghanistan, we've helped the Philippines -- Philippine government fight them. We're fighting them. And this notion about how this isn't a war on terror, in my view, is naive. It doesn't -- it doesn't reflect the true nature of the world in which we live.

You know, the lessons of September the 11th are these: we've got to stay on the offense; we've got to bring these people to justice before they hurt again; and at the same time, defeat their ideology with the ideology based upon liberty. And that's what you're seeing, and they're resisting it.

I think it ought to be illustrative to the American people that al Qaeda is trying to stop new democracies from evolving. And what should that tell you? That ought to tell you that we're dealing with people that have an ideology that's opposite of liberty and will take whatever measures are necessary to prevent this young democracy from succeeding.

The danger in this particular theater in the war on terror is that if we were to fail, they'd come and get us. You know, I look at these reports right here in the Oval Office. For people who say that we're not under threat, they simply do not know the world. We are under threat. And it's in our interest to pursue this enemy.

Martha.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. You say you want nothing short of victory, that leaving Iraq would be catastrophic; you once again mentioned al Qaeda. Does that mean that you are willing to leave American troops there, no matter what the Iraqi government does? I know this is a question we've asked before, but you can begin it with a "yes" or "no."

THE PRESIDENT: We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. This is a sovereign nation. Twelve million people went to the polls to approve a constitution. It's their government's choice. If they were to say, leave, we would leave.

Q -- catastrophic, as you've said over and over again?

THE PRESIDENT: I would hope that they would recognize that the results would be catastrophic. This is a sovereign nation, Martha. We are there at their request. And hopefully the Iraqi government would be wise enough to recognize that without coalition troops, the U.S. troops, that they would endanger their very existence. And it's why we work very closely with them, to make sure that the realities are such that they wouldn't make that request -- but if they were to make the request, we wouldn't be there.

David.

Q Mr. President, after the mistakes that have been made in this war, when you do as you did yesterday, where you raised two-year-old intelligence, talking about the threat posed by al Qaeda, it's met with increasing skepticism. The majority in the public, a growing number of Republicans, appear not to trust you any longer to be able to carry out this policy successfully. Can you explain why you believe you're still a credible messenger on the war?

THE PRESIDENT: I'm credible because I read the intelligence, David, and make it abundantly clear in plain terms that if we let up, we'll be attacked. And I firmly believe that.

Look, this has been a long, difficult experience for the American people. I can assure you al Qaeda, who would like to attack us again, have got plenty of patience and persistence. And the question is, will we?

Yes, I talked about intelligence yesterday. I wanted to make sure the intelligence I laid out was credible, so we took our time. Somebody said, well, he's trying to politicize the thing. If I was trying to politicize it, I'd have dropped it out before the 2006 elections. I believe I have an obligation to tell the truth to the American people as to the nature of the enemy. And it's unpleasant for some. I fully recognize that after 9/11, in the calm here at home, relatively speaking, caused some to say, well, maybe we're not at war. I know that's a comfortable position to be in, but that's not the truth.

Failure in Iraq will cause generations to suffer, in my judgment. Al Qaeda will be emboldened. They will say, yes, once again, we've driven the great soft America out of a part of the region. It will cause them to be able to recruit more. It will give them safe haven. They are a direct threat to the United States.

And I'm going to keep talking about it. That's my job as the President, is to tell people the threats we face and what we're doing about it. And what we've done about it is we've strengthened our homeland defenses, we've got new techniques that we use that enable us to better determine their motives and their plans and plots. We're working with nations around the world to deal with these radicals and extremists. But they're dangerous, and I can't put it any more plainly they're dangerous. And I can't put it any more plainly to the American people and to them, we will stay on the offense.

It's better to fight them there than here. And this concept about, well, maybe let's just kind of just leave them alone and maybe they'll be all right is naive. These people attacked us before we were in Iraq. They viciously attacked us before we were in Iraq, and they've been attacking ever since. They are a threat to your children, David, and whoever is in that Oval Office better understand it and take measures necessary to protect the American people.

Axelrod.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to ask you about the Petraeus report, which as you say, will be in September, and report on the progress. Doesn't setting up the September date give the enemy exactly what you've said you don't want them to have, which is a date to focus on, and doesn't it guarantee a bloody August?

And while I have you, sir, the phrase you just used, "a different configuration in Iraq" that you'd like to see, is that a plan B?

THE PRESIDENT: Actually I would call that a plan recommended by Baker-Hamilton, so that would be a plan BH. I stated -- you didn't like it? (Laughter.)

I've stated this is an idea that I like the concept. The question is, could we get there given the violence last fall, and the answer, in my judgment, was, no, we would never be able to configure our troops that way, in that configuration -- place our troops in that configuration given the violence inside the capital city.

David Petraeus felt like that it was important to tell the White House and tell the Congress that he would come back with an assessment in September. It's his decision to give the assessment, and I respect him and I support him.

Q Do you think --

THE PRESIDENT: It does, precisely. It's going to make -- it could make August a tough month, because you see, what they're going to try to do is kill as many innocent people as they can to try to influence the debate here at home. Don't you find that interesting? I do -- that they recognize that the death of innocent people could shake our will, could undermine David Petraeus's attempt to create a more stable government. They will do anything they can to prevent success. And the reason why is al Qaeda fully understands that if we retreat they, then, are able to have another safe haven, in their mind.

Yesterday, in my speech, I quoted quotes from Osama bin Laden. And the reason I did was, is that I want the American people to hear what he has to say -- not what I say, what he says. And in my judgment, we ought to be taking the words of the enemy seriously.

And so, yes, it could be a bloody -- it could be a very difficult August, and I fully understand --

Q -- Democrats on that in the Senate about --

THE PRESIDENT: David Petraeus, the commander -- look, you want politicians making those decisions, or do you want commanders on the ground making the decisions? My point is, is that I would trust David Petraeus to make an assessment and a recommendation a lot better than people in the United States Congress. And that's precisely the difference.

Michael.

Q Good morning, Mr. President. I'd like to ask you about the Justice Department. In the last couple months, we have heard disturbing evidence about senior officials of the Justice Department misleading Congress. We heard disturbing evidence yesterday that a senior official at the Justice Department improperly took, by her own admission, political considerations into effect in evaluating career employees of the Justice Department.

We've also had evidence from the former Deputy Attorney General of the White House strong-arming a sick man into trying to approve an illegal spying program. I'm curious, Mr. President, if you are concerned about the cumulative picture that's being drawn about your Justice Department? And what assurances can you give the American people that the department is delivering impartial justice to the American people?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you, Michael. There is a -- an internal investigation taking place at the Justice Department. And this will be an exhaustive investigation. And if there's wrongdoing, it will be taken care of.

I thought it was interesting how you started your question, "over the months," I think you said, "over the last months." This investigation is taking a long time, kind of being drug out, I suspect for political question -- for political reasons. In other words, as I mentioned the other day, it's just grand political theater.

Attorney General Gonzales has testified, he's produced documents. And I would hope the Senate and the Congress would move expeditiously to finish their hearings and get on to the business of passing legislation that is meaningful for the country. But if there had been wrongdoing, that will be addressed, the way we'd hope it would be.

Q (Inaudible) -- confidence. Are you --

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I've got confidence in Al Gonzales doing the job.

Q Mr. President, are you surprised by reports today from the Iraqis that sectarian killings are actually on the rise to pre-troop surge levels? And, if I may, yesterday after your speech, Senator Joe Biden said al Qaeda in Iraq is a "Bush-fulfilling prophecy." They weren't there before, now they're there. He said U.S. troops should get out of the middle of a civil war and fight al Qaeda. Can you respond to that?

THE PRESIDENT: We are fighting al Qaeda in Iraq. A lot of the spectaculars you're seeing are caused by al Qaeda. Al Qaeda will fight us wherever we are. That's what they do, that's what they've said they want to do. They have objectives. These are ideologues driven by a vision of the world that we must defeat. And you defeat them on the one hand by hunting them down and bringing them to justice, and you defeat them on the other hand by offering a different alternative form of government.

The Middle East looked nice and cozy for awhile. Everything looked fine on the surface, but beneath the surface, there was a lot of resentment, there was a lot of frustration, such that 19 kids got on airplanes and killed 3,000 Americans. It's in the long-term interest of this country to address the root causes of these extremists and radicals exploiting people that cause them to kill themselves and kill Americans and others.

I happen to believe one way to do that is to address the forms of government under which people live. Democracy is really difficult work, but democracy has proven to help change parts of the world from cauldrons of frustration to areas of hope. And we will continue to pursue this form of policy; it's in our national interest we do so.

What other aspect of the question?

Q (Inaudible.)

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I'm -- there's -- certainly, there's been an uptick in violence. It's a snapshot, it's a moment. And David Petraeus will come back with his assessment after his plan has been fully implemented, and give us a report as to what he recommends -- what he sees, and what he recommends, which is, I think, a lot more credible than what members of Congress recommend. We want our commanders making the recommendations, and -- along with Ryan Crocker, our Ambassador there -- I don't want to leave Ryan out.

And so it's a -- you know, to Axelrod's point, it's a -- no question it's the kind of report that the enemy would like to affect because they want us to leave, they want us out of there. And the reason they want us to leave is because they have objectives that they want to accomplish. Al Qaeda -- David Petraeus called al Qaeda public enemy number one in Iraq. I agree with him. And al Qaeda is public enemy number one in America. It seems like to me that if they're public enemy number one here, we want to help defeat them in Iraq.

This is a tough fight, you know? And it's, obviously, it's had an effect on the American people. Americans -- a lot of Americans want to know win -- when are you going to win? Victory is -- victory will come when that country is stable enough to be able to be an ally in the war on terror and to govern itself and defend itself.

One of the things that appealed to me about the Baker-Hamilton is that it will provide a -- kind of a long-term basis for that likely to happen, assuming the Iraqi government invites us to stay there. I believe this is an area where we can find common ground with Democrats and Republicans, by the way. I fully recognize there are a group of Democrats who say, get out of the deal now; it's just not worth it.

One of the areas where I really believe we need more of a national discussion, however, is, what would be the consequences of failure in Iraq? See, people have got to understand that if that government were to fall, the people would tend to divide into kind of sectarian enclaves, much more so than today, that would invite Iranian influence and would invite al Qaeda influence, much more so than in Iraq today. That would then create enormous turmoil, or could end up creating enormous turmoil in the Middle East, which would have a direct effect on the security of the United States.

Failure in Iraq affects the security of this country. It's hard for some Americans to see that, I fully understand it. I see it clearly. I believe this is the great challenge of the beginning of the 21st century -- not just Iraq, but dealing with this radical, ideological movement in a way that secures us in the short term and more likely secures us in the long term.

Jim. You didn't nod off there, did you? (Laughter.) A little hot out here in the Rose Garden for you? (Laughter.)

Q Thank you, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, well, go ahead and take the tie off. I'm halfway done anyway. (Laughter.)

Q Mr. President, yesterday you discussed Osama bin Laden's plans to turn Iraq into a terrorist sanctuary. What do you think your own reaction would have been five years ago had you been told that towards the end of your term he would still be at large with that kind of capability, from Iraq, no less, and why -- can you tell the American people -- is he still on the run? Why is he so hard to catch?

THE PRESIDENT: I would say that five years ago, like I said, we're going to pursue him, and we are pursuing him. And he's hiding. He is in a remote region of the world. If I knew precisely where he is, we would take the appropriate action to bring him to justice. He is attempting to establish a base of operations in Iraq. He hasn't established a base in operations. My points yesterday were, here was his intentions, but thankfully, of the three people I named, all of them no longer are a part of his operation.

My point is, is that -- I was making the point, Jim, as I'm sure you recognized, that if we leave, they follow us. And my point was, was that Osama bin Laden was establishing an external cell there, or trying to, and he's been unable to do it. Precisely my point. That's why we've got to stay engaged. Had he been able to establish an internal cell that had safe haven, we would be a lot more in danger today than we are. His organization is a risk. We will continue to pursue as hard as we possibly can. We will do everything we can to bring him and others to justice.

We have had good success in the chief operating officer position of al Qaeda. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ramzi al Rabium -- there's a lot of names, some of whom I mentioned yesterday, that are no longer a threat to the United States. We will continue to work to bring him to justice -- that's exactly what the American people expect us to do -- and in the meantime, use the tools we put in place to protect this homeland.

We are under threat. Some may say, well, he's just saying that to get people to pay attention to him, or try to scare them into -- for some reason -- I would hope our world hadn't become so cynical that they don't take the threats of al Qaeda seriously, because they're real. And it's a danger to the American people. It's a danger to your children, Jim. And it's really important that we do all we can do to bring them to justice.

Q Mr. President, why is he still at large?

THE PRESIDENT: Why is he at large? Because we haven't got him yet, Jim. That's why. And he's hiding, and we're looking, and we will continue to look until we bring him to justice. We've brought a lot of his buddies to justice, but not him. That's why he's still at large. He's not out there traipsing around, he's not leading many parades, however. He's not out feeding the hungry. He's isolated, trying to kill people to achieve his objective.

Those are his words -- his objectives are his words, not mine. He has made it clear -- he and Zawahiri, their number two, have made it clear what they want. And in a war against extremists and radicals like these, we ought to be listening carefully to what they say. We ought to take their words seriously. There have been moments in history where others haven't taken the words of people seriously and they suffered. So I'm taking them seriously.

Yes, Jim.

Q Mr. President, moments ago you said that al Qaeda attacked us before we were in Iraq. Since then Iraq has become much less stable; al Qaeda has used it as a recruiting tool, apparently with some success. So what would you say to those who would argue that what we've done in Iraq has simply enhanced al Qaeda and made the situation worse?

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, so, in other words, the option would have been just let Saddam Hussein stay there? Your question is, should we not have left Saddam Hussein in power? And the answer is, absolutely not. Saddam Hussein was an enemy of the United States. He'd attacked his neighbors. He was paying Palestinian suicide bombers. He would have been -- if he were to defy -- and by the way, cheating on the U.N. oil for sanctions program -- oil-for-food program. No, I don't buy it. I don't buy that this world would be a better place with Saddam Hussein in power, and particularly if -- and I'm sure the Iraqis would agree with that.

See, that's the kind of attitude -- he says, okay, let's let them live under a tyrant, and I just don't agree. I obviously thought he had weapons, he didn't have weapons; the world thought he had weapons. It was a surprise to me that he didn't have the weapons of mass destruction everybody thought he had, but he had the capacity at some point in time to make weapons. It would have been a really dangerous world if we had the Iranians trying to develop a nuclear weapon, and Saddam Hussein competing for a nuclear weapon. You can imagine what the mentality of the Middle East would have been like.

So the heart of your question is, shouldn't you have left Saddam Hussein in power? And the answer is, no. And now that we've --

Q (Inaudible.)

THE PRESIDENT: -- that's really the crux of it. And -- let me finish, please, here. I'm on a roll here. And so now that we have, does it make sense to help this young democracy survive? And the answer is, yes, for a variety of reasons.

One, we want to make sure that this enemy that did attack us doesn't establish a safe haven from which to attack again. Two, the ultimate success in a war against ideologues is to offer a different ideology, one based upon liberty -- by the way, embraced by 12 million people when given the chance. Thirdly, our credibility is at stake in the Middle East. There's a lot of Middle Eastern nations wondering whether the United States of America is willing to push back against radicals and extremists, no matter what their religion base -- religious bases may be.

And so the stakes are high in Iraq. I believe they're absolutely necessary for the security of this country. The consequences of failure are immense.

Yes.

Q So there was no choice -- so there was no choice between the course we took and leaving Saddam Hussein in power? Nothing else that might have worked?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we tried other things. As you might remember back then, we tried the diplomatic route: 1441 was a unanimous vote in the Security Council that said disclose, disarm or face serious consequences. So the choice was his to make. And he made -- he made a choice that has subsequently left -- subsequently caused him to lose his life under a system that he wouldn't have given his own citizens. We tried diplomacy. As a matter of fact, not only did I try diplomacy; other Presidents tried diplomacy.

Let's see here. John.

Q Thanks, Mr. President. You've said many times that you plan to sprint to the finish of your presidency. At this point in the home stretch, what can you say you're still expecting to accomplish? And how concerned are you that the immigration bill in particular is going to get caught up in electoral politics?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, thanks. Well, we need to pass additional energy legislation, we need to renew No Child Left Behind, get these trade bills out of Congress -- the trade bills on Panama and Peru and Colombia, hopefully work toward a free trade -- further the work we've done on the Korean free trade agreement. Hopefully I'll be able to bring back successful negotiations on Doha for a congressional vote which will require a TPA extension and/or -- a TPA extension, there's no "and/or" to it. Making sure that this progress on balancing the budget continues. The deficit is -- I know you're following the numbers, John -- the deficit is reduced more than anticipated as a result of increased tax revenues coming in and the fiscal measures that we took. And now we're going to have to work with Congress to make sure they don't overspend and make sure they don't raise the taxes on the people, as well.

Running up the taxes will hurt this economy, which would hurt the revenues to the Treasury. I'm deeply concerned about the Democratic budget that is classic tax and spend. I'm looking forward to seeing how they intend to keep their promise of balancing this budget in five years.

A big -- and of course, fighting this war on terror is a huge issue. I obviously would like to find common ground on how to proceed in Iraq with Democrats and Republicans. I recognize there are a handful there or some who just say, get out, it's just not worth it, let's just leave. I strongly disagree with that attitude. Most Americans do, as well. And the vote showed that what's possible when we work together, the vote -- the pending vote today showed what's possible when we work together, when Republicans and Democrats work together. There's a good group of Republicans that want to work with Democrats. They just don't want to accept something that they don't agree with.

Immigration: This is a tough issue. This is a very emotional, hard issue for members of both parties. I've always been a believer that comprehensive immigration reform is the best way to secure our border. I campaigned on that for President twice. I believed it when I was the governor of Texas. I understand this issue very well. I also understand the frustrations of many citizens in that they believe the government hasn't done its job of stopping illegal migrants from coming into the country.

And that's why over the past couple of years there's been a significant effort to secure the border. There's going to be a doubling of the Border Patrol agents; there's going to be fencing and berms and different types of equipment to help the Border Patrol do its job in a better way. As a matter of fact, I was concerned about it enough to ask the National Guard to go down there for a while.

But, John, I don't see -- and so those concerns, by the way, are addressed in this bill. The bill essentially says that before any other reforms take place, certain benchmarks will be met when it comes to securing the border. Last year, during the debate, people said, well, let's have security first. That's exactly what the bill does.

However, I don't see how you can have the border security the American people expect unless you have a temporary worker program, with a verifiable work card. People will come here to do work to feed their families, and they'll figure out ways to do so. As a result of people wanting to come here to do work to feed their families, there is an underground industry that has sprung up that I think is essentially anti-humanitarian. It is an industry based upon coyotes -- those are smugglers. Good, hardworking, decent people pay pretty good size money to be smuggled into the United States of America.

There is a document forgery industry in America. There are people who are willing to stuff people inside temporary shelter in order for them to evade the law. I don't think this is American. I think the whole industry that exploits the human being is not in our nation's interests. And the best way to deal with this problem is to say, if you're going to come and do jobs Americans aren't doing, here is a opportunity to do so, on a temporary basis.

I would much rather have people crossing the border with a legitimate card, coming to work on a temporary basis, than being stuffed in back of an 18-wheeler. And I would hope most Americans feel that, as well.

Secondly, in order for there to be good employer verification -- it's against the law to hire somebody who is here illegally, but many times small businesses or large are presented with documents and they don't know whether they're real or not. And so, therefore, we must have a tamper-proof identification card, which is a part of this bill.

A tough issue, of course, is what do you do with the people already here? Anything short of kicking them out, as far as some people are concerned, is called amnesty. You can't kick them out. Anybody who advocates trying to dig out 12 million people who have been in our society for a while is sending a signal to the American people that's just not real. It's an impractical solution. Nor do I think they ought to be given automatic citizenship -- that is amnesty: Okay, you're here illegally, therefore you're automatically a citizen.

And so, therefore, we proposed and worked with the Senate to devise a plan that said, if you're here already before a certain date, that there are certain hurdles you must cross in order to receive what's called a Z visa, in order to be able to work here. You've got to go through a background check, you've got to pay a fine at some point in time, there's a probationary period, and there's a series of steps that people have to go through. And then people get at the back of the line, the citizenship line, not the beginning of the citizenship line.

If you're for the bill, I thank you. If you're against it -- you can find every reason in the world to be against a comprehensive bill. It's easy to find something to be against in this bill. All it takes is to take one little aspect of it and ignore the comprehensive nature and how good it is.

I knew this was going to be an explosive issue. It's easy to hold up somebody who is here and working hard as a political target. I would like to get this bill done for a lot of reasons. I'd like to get it done because it's the right thing to do. I'd like to get it done because I happen to believe the approach that is now being discussed in the Senate is an approach that will actually solve the problem. I'd like to get it out of politics. I don't think it's good to be, you know, holding people up. We've been through immigration debates in this country, and they can bring out the worst, sometimes, in people. We're a land of immigrants.

I was touched yesterday when the kid from the Coast Guard Academy, ensign -- now ensign talked about his migrant grandfather from Mexico. And here's this guy, this man standing up in front of the President of the United States and his class, talking about serving America. He wasn't -- you know, his grandfather wasn't born here. I don't know what job he did -- I suspect it was probably manual labor. I don't know, I didn't ask him.

But I do know he spoke with pride. I do know he represents the best about what immigration can mean for America. You know, welcoming people here who want to work and realize the American Dream renews our spirit and soul. It's been the case throughout generations. And we have an opportunity to put a good law in place now -- right now. And it's going to be hard work. And sure politics will get involved. But the question is, will members of Congress rise above politics? I will. It's the right thing to have a comprehensive bill.

And so I'm going to continue to reach out to members of Congress from both parties, and call upon them to take the lead and show the political courage necessary to get the bill to my desk as quickly as possible.

I want to thank you for your interest.

END 11:51 A.M. EDT. For Immediate Release, Office of the Press Secretary, May 24, 2007

Technorati Tags: and or and , or and , or , and , or and or and or and or or and