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.
June 3, 1884, U.S. Rep. John Lynch (R-MS), a former slave, presides over Republican National Convention.
June 4, 1860, Republican U.S. Senator Charles Sumner (R-MA) delivers his classic address, The Barbarism of Slavery.
June 5, 1956, Republican federal judge Frank Johnson rules in favor of Rosa Parks in decision striking down “blacks in the back of the bus” law.
June 6, 2001, President George W. Bush issues Executive Order enhancing federal employment opportunities for Asian-Americans and Pacific Islanders.
June 7, 1892, In a first for a major U.S. political party, two women – Theresa Jenkins and Cora Carleton – attend Republican National Convention in an official capacity, as alternate delegates.
“Believing that the spirit of our institutions as well as the Constitution of our country, guarantees liberty of conscience and equality of rights among citizens, we oppose all legislation impairing their security.”
1856 Republican Party national platform
Saturday, May 31, 2008
May 31, 1870, President U.S. Grant signs Republicans’ Enforcement Act, providing stiff penalties for depriving any American’s civil rights.
Posted by sookietex at 9:27 PM || ||
Tags: President Bush and White House radio address or Memorial Day
Posted by sookietex at 9:10 PM || ||
|bush radio address 05/31/08 full audio, text transcript. President's Radio Address|
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Next week Congress will return to Washington after its Memorial Day recess. I hope Members of Congress return rested, because they have a lot of work left on important issues and limited time to get it done.
Congress needs to pass a responsible war funding bill that puts the needs of our troops first, without loading it up with unrelated domestic spending. Our troops in Afghanistan are performing with courage and honor, delivering blows to the Taliban and al Qaida. Our troops in Iraq have driven al Qaida and other extremists from sanctuaries they once held across the country and are chasing them from their last remaining strongholds. Our men and women in uniform are risking their lives every day, and they deserve the resources and flexibility they need to complete their mission.
Congress needs to support our military families by passing an expansion of the GI Bill that makes it easier for our troops to transfer unused education benefits to their spouses and children. It is critical for this legislation to support the all-volunteer force and help us recruit and retain the best military in the world.
Congress needs to ensure that our intelligence professionals have the tools to monitor terrorist communications quickly and effectively. Last year, Congress passed temporary legislation that provided these tools. Unfortunately, the law expired more than three months ago. Congress needs to pass long-term legislation that will help our intelligence professionals learn our enemies' plans before they can attack and put an end to abusive lawsuits filed against companies believed to have assisted the government after the attacks of September the 11th. And Congress needs to act soon so we can maintain a vital flow of intelligence.
Congress needs to approve the Colombia free trade agreement so we can open a growing market for American goods, services, and crops. Unfortunately, the House of Representatives is blocking a vote on this vital agreement. Unless this agreement is brought up for a vote, it will die. This will hurt American workers, farmers, and business owners. And it will hurt our Nation's strategic interests in a vital region of the world.
Congress needs to confirm the good men and women who have been nominated to important government positions. There are now more than 350 nominations pending before the Senate. These include highly qualified people I have nominated to fill vacancies on the Federal bench. And they include talented nominees who are needed to help guide our economy during a time of uncertainty. For example, three nominees to the Federal Reserve have been waiting for confirmation for more than a year. And because of Senate inaction, the Council of Economic Advisers is now down to a single member. This confirmation backlog makes it harder for government to meet its responsibilities - and the United States Senate needs to give every nominee an up-or-down vote as soon as possible.
One nominee who needs to be confirmed right away is Steve Preston. A month has passed since I nominated Steve to be the next Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Unfortunately, Senators have stalled this nomination over an issue that has nothing to do with Steve or his qualifications for the job. With all the turbulence in the housing market, this is no time to play politics with such a critical appointment. So I call on the Senate to give Steve Preston a prompt vote and confirm this good man without further delay.
At a time when many Americans are concerned about keeping their homes, Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans. And at a time when Americans are concerned about rising gas prices, Congress needs to pass legislation to expand domestic energy production.
In all these areas, Congress has failed to act. The American people deserve better from their elected leaders. Congress needs to show the American people that Republicans and Democrats can compete for votes and cooperate for results at the same time. You sent your representatives to Washington to do the people's business, and you have a right to expect them to do it - even in an election year.
Thank you for listening.
END For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary May 31, 2008
Tags: President Bush and White House radio address or Memorial Day
Posted by sookietex at 9:00 PM || ||
|forre el audio de la dirección de radio 05/31/08 por completo, transcripción del texto. (nota de los redactores: ninguna lengua española mp3 lanzó esta semana, apesadumbrada) PODCAST|
La próxima semana el Congreso regresará a Washington después del receso por el Día de los Caídos. Espero que los miembros del Congreso hayan descansado, porque tienen muchos asuntos importantes pendientes y tiempo limitado para encargarse de ellos.
El Congreso debe aprobar una medida que financie la guerra de manera responsable, y que dé prioridad a las necesidades de nuestros soldados, sin recargarla con gastos internos ajenos a éstas. Nuestros soldados en Afganistán se están desempeñando con valentía y honor, asestando golpes al Talibán y Al Qaida. Nuestras tropas en Iraq han expulsado a Al Qaida y otros extremistas de los refugios que antes tenían en todo el país y están echándolos de los últimos baluartes que les quedan. Nuestros hombres y mujeres de uniforme arriesgan la vida todos los días y merecen los recursos y la flexibilidad necesarios para cumplir con su misión.
El Congreso debe respaldar a las familias de nuestros militares al aprobar una expansión de la Ley para la Reinserción de Veteranos (GI Bill) que facilite que nuestros soldados transfieran a sus cónyuges o hijos los beneficios educativos que no usen. Es crucial que esta ley también apoye a nuestras fuerzas armadas, compuestas exclusivamente por voluntarios, y que nos ayude a reclutar y retener a la mejor Fuerza Armada del mundo.
El Congreso debe asegurarse de que nuestros profesionales de los servicios de inteligencia tengan herramientas para vigilar las comunicaciones entre terroristas de manera rápida y eficaz. El año pasado, el Congreso aprobó una ley temporal que proporcionaba esas herramientas. Desafortunadamente, la ley caducó hace más de tres meses. El Congreso debe aprobar una ley de largo plazo que ayude a los profesionales de nuestros servicios de inteligencia a enterarse de los planes del enemigo antes de que ataque, y que ponga fin a los juicios abusivos interpuestos en contra de compañías que se cree colaboraron con el gobierno después del 11 de septiembre. Además, el Congreso debe actuar prontamente para que podamos mantener el vital flujo de inteligencia.
El Congreso debe aprobar el Tratado de Libre Comercio con Colombia para que podamos abrir un mercado en crecimiento para los bienes, servicios y productos agrícolas de Estados Unidos. Lamentablemente, la Cámara de Representantes está bloqueando la votación sobre este vital acuerdo. Si este tratado no es llevado a votación, caducará. Esto perjudicará a los trabajadores, agricultores y empresarios estadounidenses. Y afectaría los intereses estratégicos de nuestro país en una región vital del mundo.
El Congreso debe confirmar a los hombres y mujeres cabales que han sido nombrados a importantes puestos gubernamentales. En este momento hay 350 nombramientos pendientes ante el Senado. Éstos incluyen a profesionales altamente calificados que he designado para vacantes judiciales federales. Incluyen, además, a profesionales de mucho talento que necesitamos para ayudar a dirigir la economía en tiempos de incertidumbre. Por ejemplo, los tres nombramientos de la Reserva Federal están esperando confirmación desde hace más de un año. Y debido a la inacción del Senado, el Consejo de Asesores Económicos se ha quedado con un solo miembro. Estas demoras en la confirmación de nombramientos dificulta que el gobierno cumpla con sus responsabilidades y, tan pronto como sea posible, el Senado debe votar para confirmar o no todos esos nombramientos.
Uno de los nombramientos que deben ser confirmados inmediatamente es el de Steve Preston. Ha pasado un mes desde que nombré a Steve al cargo de secretario del Departamento de Vivienda y Desarrollo Urbano. Lamentablemente, los senadores han suspendido la confirmación por un asunto que nada tiene que ver con Steve o sus calificaciones para el trabajo. Con toda la turbulencia en el mercado de vivienda, éste no es momento de politiquería cuando se trata de un nombramiento tan importante. Así que hago un llamado al Senado para que vote sobre Steve Preston y confirme a este buen hombre sin más demora.
En momentos en que muchos estadounidenses están preocupados por retener sus casas, el Congreso debe aprobar una ley que modernice la Administración Federal de Vivienda, reformar Fannie Mae y Freddie Mac para asegurar que se concentren en su misión de vivienda y permitir que las agencias estatales de vivienda emitan bonos libres de impuestos para refinanciar préstamos sin tasa preferencial. Y en momentos en que los estadounidenses están preocupados por el aumento en el precio de la gasolina, el Congreso debe aprobar una ley para aumentar la producción nacional de energía.
En todos estos ámbitos el Congreso ha fallado. El pueblo estadounidense merece un trato mejor de los líderes que eligió. El Congreso debe demostrarle al pueblo estadounidense que los republicanos y demócratas pueden simultáneamente competir por votos y cooperar para lograr resultados. Ustedes enviaron a sus representantes a Washington para que se ocupen de los asuntos del pueblo, y ustedes tienen el derecho de esperar que lo hagan, incluso en un año electoral. Gracias por escuchar.
Para su publicación inmediata Oficina del Secretario de Prensa 31 de mayo de 2008
Etiquetas De Technorati: Discurso Radial del Presidente a la Nación, y Presidente Bush
Posted by sookietex at 8:43 PM || ||
Friday, May 30, 2008
|Briefing by Dana Perino FULL STREAMING VIDEO, running time 21:13 min, James S. Brady Press Briefing Room, Dana M. Perino Biography, 12:42 P.M. EDT. PODCAST OF THIS ARTICLE|
He will call on them to pass a war supplemental that focuses on the needs of our military; to support our military families by passing an extension of the GI Bill that makes it easier for our troops to transfer unused education benefits to their spouses and children; ensure that our intelligence professionals have the tools to monitor terrorist communications effectively and quickly -- that's the FISA law; approve the Colombia free trade agreement, which would open a growing market for American goods, services and crops; confirm nominees to important government positions, including Steve Preston, who the President nominated to be the next Secretary of Housing and Urban Development; pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration; reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to ensure they focus on their housing mission; and allow state housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans. And at a time when Americans are concerned about gas prices, Congress needs to pass legislation to expand domestic energy production.
Tomorrow night the President will travel to Greenville, South Carolina to deliver the commencement address at Furman University. It is a speech that calls on students to help build a culture of responsibility. It will reflect on how he went into public service because he was concerned about the culture and how he is heartened by the progress that has been made, especially in the young people who are embracing bedrock values of faith and family. He will talk about the importance of service to others, including volunteering and military service and being a part of the faith-based communities; contributing to the civic and economic life of the country by voting and public engagement and entrepreneurship; and being accountable to your family and to yourself -- parenting, strengthening the family and living lives of integrity.
Q Congressman Wexler has called on Scott McClellan to testify before Congress, and Congressman Conyers says that he has directed his committee staff to reach out to Mr. McClellan to make arrangements for him to talk to the committee. Does the White House have any objection to this kind of conversation?
MS. PERINO: I checked on it for you. The White House Counsel's Office takes these things when we have a formal request. We don't have a formal request yet. When we get one, that's when we look at the request, weigh it fully -- as we do with all the others -- and it's just not a decision that we would make prior to getting a formal request.
Q Could the White House block him from testifying if he wanted to testify? Or how does that work?
MS. PERINO: Conceivably?
MS. PERINO: Hypothetically -- which I'm not supposed to answer hypotheticals -- (laughter) -- yes, I think so. The law would allow for that, but by saying that I'm not suggesting that that's what would happen or not happen.
Q Has President Bush read this -- read McClellan's book or does he have any intention to, to sort of find out what this is all about?
MS. PERINO: Well, he's been regularly briefed. I think he's read a lot of the articles about it, but I don't anticipate -- he may or may not read the book. I don't know, we haven't talked about that.
Q You haven't bought it for him?
MS. PERINO: No.
Q Has he expressed any kind of feeling about it?
MS. PERINO: Sure, as I talked to you about all week long -- I know I haven't been here for you, but we were out on the road -- (laughter.)
Q I'm trying to make a living myself. (Laughter.)
MS. PERINO: We've been out on the road; I've missed the podium greatly. But as I said all along, that the President expressed disappointment and sadness at the situation, surprise by the charges that he has read about that are in the book.
And we've known for a while that this is what the tone of the book would be. Of course last November we knew because of the excerpt that came out, and then more recently, as with all manuscripts, the White House Counsel's Office has an opportunity to look at manuscripts for any possible classified information or any means for executive privilege to be asserted. None of them were in this case. So we've known for a little bit of time that this was coming.
Q This morning you said that this wasn't about the messenger, it was about the message.
MS. PERINO: Sure.
Q But isn't it precisely about the messenger, because those criticisms that Scott raises in his book -- they've been out there -- usually they come out of the mouths of Democrats -- but they've been out there. So isn't it precisely --
MS. PERINO: That doesn't make them true.
Q But what I'm saying, though, isn't it the fact that a former member of the inner circle is saying them that it adds some degree of legitimacy; it's not just dismissible by saying, well, those are Democrats and they're our political opponents?
MS. PERINO: I don't believe -- no, and I don't think that any time that we have argued about this that we've argued just about the messenger when it comes to Democrats either. We argue about it on the merits. And our central objection to the book to the book is that it is not based in fact.
And I think that one of the reasons we are puzzled and surprised and disappointed and saddened by it is because the charge, the loaded charge, in the book is that the President and his senior advisors purposefully misled people into war, and that we sent our young men and women into war, knowing something that we weren't telling the American people.
That is not true. And several independent non-partisan reviews have been done about pre-war intelligence. Is it true that WMD wasn't found? Of course it was. And we admitted that. We have said over and over that the intelligence was wrong. And we have worked very hard at President Bush's direction to change the way the intelligence community works together. But what hurts us is the suggestion that we purposefully sent men and women to war without acknowledging the consequences.
Q But he makes a number of charges, and not all of them are that direct. For instance, he says the President engages in "self-deception." And that's not something that may be willful, but it still has significant consequences.
MS. PERINO: I think it's an outrageous claim. I've been here myself for a long time, almost as long -- I've known the President not as long as Scott has, but quite a long time. This is a President who is -- I've never witnessed any self-deception at all. I think it's an absurd claim. And it's such a loaded charge. And you're right, when it comes from somebody like Scott, who was a close friend of many of us here at the White House, those of us who fully supported him before, during and after he was press secretary are disappointed by this and saddened by it. We certainly wish him well. We harbor no ill feelings towards him. We just are really disappointed, and we're going to combat the central premise of the book.
And I don't -- again, when you say that it's different because it's coming from him and not the Democrats -- I've always argued about this on the merits, so regardless of where untruths come from, we're going to push back on them.
Q One more. Just in terms of sort of the ongoing battle for public opinion, people who have been in the middle and can dismiss a lot of criticism because they'll say it's politically motivated, they're looking at this and saying, now, hang on a second, this is different because you have a member of the inner circle. So it seems as though this would affect sort of the general sense of the public about the presidency.
MS. PERINO: I think that's giving this book a lot more weight than it actually carries.
Q Can we just talk about what isn't true in the book? I mean, you go to the part about weapons of mass destruction and the big threat wasn't great and gathering as the White House said. And you said that's not true? Was there no exaggeration? Was there no hiding? Was there no spinning about the war?
MS. PERINO: Not that I'm aware of. But did we communicate about the war? Yes. And I would point you to the President's speeches -- all the speeches that the President made leading up to it; he made several comprehensive speeches making the case for why Saddam Hussein was a threat, which was, based on the intelligence that we had -- and not only the United States had, but that's what the world had. And in addition to that he talks about -- in his speech especially on February 26, 2003, when he spoke to AEI; it was before I was a part of the press office, so I would encourage you to go back and look at it, as I've had to do myself -- where he talks about that the benefit to a free Iraq would be to the Iraqi people and also to the region, and establishing a change in the Middle East when it comes to freedom and justice and democracy.
Q But the order of what was talked about at the time in the buildup to the war was largely about weapons of mass destruction.
MS. PERINO: I think that that was -- well, I think you could go back, you could weigh it -- you know, I'm looking at it, what I have seen is a comprehensive case for confronting Saddam Hussein, and that's what the United Nations of course was talking about, specifically weapons of mass destruction. But there was also a gathering threat in terms of the nexus of working -- for example, paying suicide bombers, paying families of suicide bombers.
And you know better than anyone, Martha, about the buildup to this, the reaction to this. The problem that we have is this --
Q There were no suicide bombers in Iraq.
MS. PERINO: But paying them in the Palestinian Territories and in Israel. That's something that Saddam Hussein himself said.
Q Just a general question, then, Dana. I mean, one of the things he talks about is spinning, exaggeration, I mean, what goes on at the podium -- which is an indictment of you, as well. Do you think there's no spinning?
MS. PERINO: You know, it's a term that I don't necessarily use. I come out here, I answer your questions, I answer them to the best of my ability based on the information and the facts that I have.
Q Define your job for me. I know Scott in the book says that his job -- he believed his job was to advance the agenda of the President of the United States.
MS. PERINO: Sure it is. That's part of it. And my job is to be his spokesperson. But I also, as many of you in this room know -- especially you -- that I work very hard on behalf of the press as well. I defend the press, I advocate for the press and I make sure that all of you have answers as quickly as possible to the best of my ability every single day -- Saturdays and Sundays included.
Q In the book it reports that there came a time when the administration ignored contrary evidence and went ahead with the evidence that it did have on weapons of mass destruction. Isn't that demonstrably true now that the -- once the administration said that our intelligence is wrong?
MS. PERINO: No, I don't necessarily think so. Again, I wasn't here, but I would point you to -- at least three that I can think of -- independent reviews of pre-war intelligence and the decision to go to war that all came to the conclusion that nobody purposefully misled anybody in this endeavor.
Q When you say that we've known for a little while that this was coming, was the manuscript well circulated within the --
MS. PERINO: No, it was close -- it was tightly held. And in fact I haven't read the whole thing myself.
Q But when you said "we knew," who was "we"? Was it the Counsel's Office?
MS. PERINO: The Counsel's Office is the recipient of the manuscript.
Q Was the President aware? Was the Chief of Staff --
MS. PERINO: As I said, he was briefed about it by members of senior staff who were aware of it, but it was very tightly held thing. It was not circulated and of course I think you can know that it was pretty tightly held from our end because we didn't get -- we didn't give any reporters or anyone else outside the information or the manuscript.
Q Do you know whether anybody contacted Scott McClellan about the content?
MS. PERINO: I don't know for sure, but I don't believe so.*
Q Dana, you've used words like "sad" and "disgruntled" when talking about Scott and the book. Do you have a sense of his motivation after a few days of this back and forth about --
MS. PERINO: I'm not -- I won't question his motivations. He's free to have his opinions and he's free to have a look back at his period. I think one of the reasons I think it's sad is for those of who worked with him and saw how much he loved being press secretary, and how much he loved being a part of the back and forth in this room, and how much he delved into policy and tried to understand it as best as he possibly could, that to realize now that he looks back and looks so unfavorably upon his time at the White House -- I think that's one of the things that's really sad.
I mean, all of us are moderately talented people made very special because of an opportunity, and, you know, you can choose to use that opportunity in any way that you wish, and he's chosen this path. It's not a path that I will choose, that many others have not chosen. But I think that this is quite a unique circumstance, and I think that's one of the reasons it's sad. He's obviously very displeased and discontented with his time here.
Q How about the idea of somebody from the inner circle writing a book, whether it's a Republican President, a Democratic President -- is this bad for the overall Office of the President if the President has to worry about somebody in his inner circle perhaps using something that is said in a meeting for a book?
MS. PERINO: I think there's something to be said for that. I think that one of the things that you have in any organization -- be it your news organizations when you have editorial meetings or here at the White House, but especially here at the White House -- that you want to have some level of trust that when you speak up, that it's going to be held in confidence; when you push back on something, that that is held as -- in confidence. And if it's not, I do think that that's difficult for people necessarily. But I don't know of anybody at the White House who is sitting around a room thinking, oh my gosh, is he taking notes and going to report on this later? I think that is one of the reasons, when I say we were so surprised -- and not just puzzled, in terms of surprise -- at the tone of this book, of the language that he chooses to use; that's what is so disappointing and surprising to us.
Q Are you surprised he might vote for Obama?
MS. PERINO: I really don't care who he votes for.
Q Sorry you're on the hot seat on this, and excuse me if you've already been asked this at some point, but if you -- have you harbored any doubts about the war, and if you did, would you speak up, and would you resign?
MS. PERINO: Well, frankly, Connie, this isn't about me. Whether or not I -- what I care -- what I think on any issue is of no interest to any of you -- maybe until I leave and write a book -- (laughter.) But my job -- any press secretary's job is to articulate the President's positions and message, and answer your questions. And that's what any press secretary is supposed to do. So I'll continue to do it for the next seven months, or for however long he'll have me here.
Q But if you have a crisis of conscience, what is --
MS. PERINO: Have I had a crisis of conscience?
Q And if so, what is your obligation --
MS. PERINO: No, I have not. But I think that if I feel the need to speak up at any of the number of meetings that I have, or my -- if I need to step through the open door that the President has provided for me, I will do so without any concern about my future. And I have -- you have to be confident in going out -- coming up here every day, and I am. I have no crisis of confidence.
Q Well, let's just broaden it. If a staff member has doubts, do they have an obligation, any staff member, to speak up --
MS. PERINO: They have to all make that decision on their own.
Anybody else on this?
MS. PERINO: I'm going to go here to Jim. You had one this morning.
Q Is there -- has the White House gotten involved in the Fulbright situation with the students in the --
MS. PERINO: In the Palestinian Territories? I saw that report this morning. Obviously we want people in the Middle East, students in the Middle East, to be able to come to America. The President thinks it's critically important to have that type of exchange, cultural exchange, between American students and the Palestinian students or Middle Eastern students. And in fact it's one of the things he talked about in the World Economic Forum speech just a couple of weeks ago when we were in Egypt.
It's something that he has asked Secretary Rice and Secretary Spellings to specifically concentrate on, and Ambassador Hughes when she was here. And we have made strides. But I think Hamas obviously has made it very difficult for students to be able to take advantage of the opportunities that present themselves, like the Fulbright scholarships. I don't specifically have information from the White House, and I'll have to refer you to the State Department for anything more on that.
Q Dana -- and I'm sorry if it was addressed this morning; I apologize --
MS. PERINO: It's okay.
Q -- does the White House have any response or further response to the allegations of the Commerce Department computer being hacked into while in China? Have you talked with any agencies involved, or with China?
MS. PERINO: I would refer you to the Department of Commerce on that. I don't have anything specifically here. I know that they are looking into the matter over there, and for security reasons we don't comment on particular matters that are being investigated.
Q But is it a concern to the White House that something like this --
MS. PERINO: Well, we are continually working to increase our capabilities to make sure that all of our information is safeguarded; that any cyber risk that is out there we take into account, and we are constantly trying to work on it. Other governments are, too, so we take that into account. We're always looking for ways to safeguard our systems and we'll continue to do so.
Q Dana, a question. Is the President satisfied with the response in the private sector to safeguard computer networks?
MS. PERINO: I've not heard him say otherwise. I don't know.
Q Well, certainly this is a major concern, particularly with the utilities.
MS. PERINO: Well, I think that private sector corporations are probably just as concerned about their own information as we are here in the government.
Q But there have been reports that the private sector hasn't done anywhere near as much as the government has to safeguard --
MS. PERINO: I just don't -- I don't know.
Q If it were ever to be shown that a power failure like the one that hit the Northeast in 2003 was the result of a cyber attack, would the President consider that an act of war?
MS. PERINO: Wow, now that's a hypothetical I'm not going to answer.
Q Dana, I have a couple for you. One is do you have a reaction to the cluster bomb vote?
MS. PERINO: The one from yesterday -- or was it two days ago? I can't remember; it's been kind of a long week. Well, we are deeply concerned about the humanitarian impact, not only of just cluster munitions, but really the whole range of munitions that are used at war. It's a moral obligation to clean up, and we do so. You need to try to do everything you can to clean up after a conflict zone to make sure that there aren't innocent victims that are hurt with unexploded weapons that are lying around on the ground.
We've played an important role in it since 1993. We've spent more than $1.2 billion on such cleanup. No other country in the world comes close to that. We are strongly committed to working to address this problem. I would refer you to the State Department because I believe that they will be able to articulate for you some of the disagreements we may have with the tactics or the venue for addressing this problem.
Q And this morning you said you would assume that Prime Minister Olmert would be welcomed here next week. If he shows up at AIPAC at the event --
MS. PERINO: I would expect that if he comes to the AIPAC conference that the President would meet with him.
Q But it's not -- so it's not on his schedule? And would they meet at the White House, would they meet in another setting? What was the --
MS. PERINO: I don't think the President has any plans to be anywhere but the White House next week for any sort of meeting. So if he comes, it would be here at the White House.
Q Okay, but it's not on the schedule then as of right now?
MS. PERINO: Not that I know of.
Q Dana, two quick questions, please. One, as far as Scott is concerned, we all have known him very well and he was very close to the President, and the President is a loyal friend. And also he was like a family to him, and also he was close to everybody in the White House. What do you think have gone wrong? Do you think he was bitter about something, or maybe influenced from his Democratic mother, or something? (Laughter.)
MS. PERINO: I think I'll just leave that one alone. What's your second question?
Q And second one is that, as far as terrorism is concerned in Afghanistan and on the Pakistan border, American NATO commander is now retiring, and what he said that what we expected from Pakistan was not done, and there is a long way to go as far as fighting terrorism. And now Pakistan has a new deal with the terrorists and that means they will withdraw their forces from the border. And here CIA Chief Michael Hayden said that we are defeating terrorism and al Qaeda --
MS. PERINO: What's your question?
Q So where do we stand now? Is President briefed on all this, where we stand now --
MS. PERINO: Yes. You might not have heard, the President this morning spoke to President Musharraf. That was followed on his meeting with Prime Minister Gilani in Sharm el Sheikh, which was just a couple of weeks ago. We are very concerned, but we believe that the Pakistanis are, as well, and that we need to continue to make sure that we can confront the terrorists there on the border.
Q Thank you.
Q Wait a minute, Dana -- Dana.
MS. PERINO: Okay, can we do one? It's decision time. (Laughter.)
Q I have one question that has nothing to do with your -- (laughter.) This morning The Washington Times published a statement by Marine Corps Sergeant Steven Pryor of Bowie, Maryland: "The photographs of unprofessional behavior by newly commissioned Air Force officers and President Bush on the front page of Thursday's edition are incredibly disappointing, clownish, and set a horrible example for everyone in the military." Will this Marine sergeant be punished for this statement, or not?
MS. PERINO: Certainly not. I think it's referring to the U.S. Air Force Academy commencement ceremony, and the President had a wonderful time with 1,012 cadets, personally acknowledging each of them.
Q You saw the pictures on the front --
MS. PERINO: It was a wonderful event.
END 1:03 P.M. EDT
* Scott McClellan submitted a copy of his book to the White House for a review in keeping with his obligations as an official holding a security clearance. Mr. McClellan met with legal staff from the National Security Council and White House Counsel's Office on May 2. The outcome of the review was discussed with the same kind of specificity that is the norm for this kind of material and subject matter. No edits or changes were requested and to the extent that he made any changes after the meeting it was his option and choice as the author.
For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary May 30, 2008
Tags: President Bush and White House or Dana Perino and Scott McClellan
Posted by sookietex at 9:51 PM || ||
Thursday, May 29, 2008
A lifelong Republican, Kahler began her career in politics at the age of four, gathering signatures for her father, former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, in his run for the Massachusetts State House of Representatives. She has also worked on political campaigns at the local, state and federal levels in Massachusetts, Virginia, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and California. In addition, she has spent time on Capitol Hill serving in several roles for former Rep. Peter Blute (R-MA)
MORE INFORMATION: Official Providers || Minneapolis Saint Paul 2008 Host Committee || Republican National Committee
Posted by sookietex at 10:21 PM || ||
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Mr. McClellan graduated from The University of Texas at Austin, where he was president of the Sigma Phi Epsilon Texas Alpha Chapter. He received his bachelor’s degree in government from the University of Texas.
McClellan was the three-time campaign manager for his mother. In addition, he worked on political grassroots efforts and was the Chief of Staff to a Texas State Senator.
Mr. McClellan began working as a gubernatorial spokesman for then-Governor Bush in early 1999 and he served as the traveling press secretary for the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign.
Karen Hughes, Governor Bush's communications director, hired McClellan to be Bush's deputy press secretary. McClellan served as Governor Bush's traveling press secretary during the 2000 Presidential election. McClellan became White House Deputy Press Secretary in 2003. McClellan replaced Ari Fleischer, who stepped down as White House Press Secretary on July 15, 2003.
At a press briefing on October 10, 2003, McClellan asserted that the allegations of Karl Rove's and Scooter Libby's involvement in the leak of CIA Valerie Plame's identity were false. However, in excerpts from his book What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception, published in the spring of 2008 by Public Affairs Books, McClellan alledged that the statements were untrue.
The most powerful leader in the world had called upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility he lost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So I stood at the White house briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby. There was one problem.
It was not true.
I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice President, the President's chief of staff, and the president himself.”
— Scott McClellan, What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception, 2008.
|McClellan unexpectedly and harshly criticizes the Bush administration in his memoir What Happened. He accuses Bush of "self-deception" and of maintaining a "permanent campaign approach" to governing rather than making the best choices.|
The Bush administration responded through Press Secretary Dana Perino, who said,
"Scott, we now know, is disgruntled about his experience at the White House. We are puzzled. It is sad. This is not the Scott we knew."
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article, Scott McClellan
Posted by sookietex at 9:39 PM || ||
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
2008 Republican National Convention Names Official Innovation Provider
(SAINT PAUL, Minn.) - Embracing technology that will propel the 2008 Republican National Convention to the forefront of the digital age, the GOP today announced that Google Inc. will serve as the Republican National Convention's Official Innovation Provider. Convention President and Chief Executive Officer Maria Cino made the announcement in a unique video posted to the convention's new YouTubeTM channel (www.youtube.com/gopconvention2008). The video is also showcased on the convention's website (www.GOPConvention2008.com), and highlights Google's cutting-edge, computer-generated SketchUpTM graphics of the Xcel Energy Center, where the convention will be held.
As Official Innovation Provider, Google Inc. will enhance the GOP's online presence with new applications, search tools, and interactive video. In addition, Google will help generate buzz and excitement in advance of the convention through its proven online marketing techniques.
"Google and YouTube are synonymous with innovation, and our groundbreaking collaboration will set a new precedent for engaging and involving Americans in the Republican National Convention," said Cino. "We also remain firmly focused on providing the eventual Republican nominee with every tool available to communicate his message to the American people - and this agreement is an important part of our efforts."
The convention's official website, www.GOPConvention2008.com, will eventually feature a full-range of GoogleTM products, including Google Apps, Google MapsTM, SketchUpTM, and customized search tools, which will make navigating the site easier. The convention's YouTube channel will enable visitors to upload, view, and share online videos. These innovative technologies will also help the GOP streamline convention organization and expand its online reach across websites, mobile devices, blogs, and email.
"As more Americans go online to learn about elections, we're pleased to work with the Republican National Convention to give citizens around the world easy access to convention information and new ways to engage in the event," said David Drummond, Google's Senior Vice President of Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer.
"This year, YouTube will bring a new dimension to this landmark event by enabling GOP visitors to share their unique experiences with the world through the power of online video," said Chad Hurley, YouTube co-founder. "We look forward to working with the convention committee and watching the action unfold."
The 2008 Republican National Convention will be held at Saint Paul's Xcel Energy Center from September 1-4, 2008. Approximately 45,000 delegates, alternate delegates, members of the media and other guests are expected to attend the convention. Minneapolis-Saint Paul is expected to receive an estimated $150-$160 million positive economic boost from the event. For more information about the 2008 Republican National Convention, please visit our website at www.GOPConvention2008.com.
Posted by sookietex at 7:24 PM || ||
Monday, May 26, 2008
As Congress debates the best way to expand the existing GI Bill, Secretary Gates has laid out important guidelines to ensure that legislation meets our service members' needs and rewards military service. First, since our servicemen and women have regularly requested the ability to transfer their GI bill benefits to their family members, legislation should include transferability. Second, legislation should provide greater rewards for continued military service in the all volunteer force.
There are several GI bill proposals under consideration in both the House and Senate. The Department of Defense has specific concerns about legislation sponsored by Senator Webb because it lacks transferability and could negatively impact military retention.
The President specifically supports the GI Bill legislation expansion proposed by Senators Graham, Burr, and McCain because it allows for the transferability of education benefits and calibrates an increase in education benefits to time in the service.
Though readers of the New York Times editorial page wouldn't know it, President Bush looks forward to signing a GI bill that supports our troops and their families, and preserves the experience and skill of our forces. # # #
For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary May 26, 2008
The original World War II "GI Bill" exceeded all expectations and had enormous benefits beyond the immediate ones given to deserving war veterans. College enrollment grew dramatically: in 1947, GI Bill enrollees accounted for almost half of the total college population. Following the war, more than 2 million veterans went to college using GI Bill educational benefits. The result was an American workforce enriched by 450,000 engineers, 238,000 teachers, 91,000 scientists, 67,000 doctors, 22,000 dentists and another million college-educated men and women. Since 1944 more than 21 million veterans and dependents have participated in GI Bill education and training programs.
Original GI Bill benefits also included loans for buying a home, farm or business, and job-finding assistance. VA's home loan program, for example, is largely credited with creating the suburbs in America. Since 1944 more than 16 million veterans have purchased homes with help from VA. The Subcommittee has continually authored legislation to refine and update these kinds of benefits for our All-Volunteer Force. Veterans Benefits Home
Tags: President Bush and New York Times or GI+Bill
Posted by sookietex at 8:31 PM || ||
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Fear of this retaliatory “negging” can deter buyers from posting negative comments about their trading experiences. In turn, this threatens to undermine the trust that buyers place in sellers’ ratings.
So severe has the negging problem become that this month eBay was forced to change its rating system, preventing sellers from posting negative comments about bad buyers on the site.
In an online auction site like eBay, your reputation is your livelihood. Economists Daniel Houser of George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, and John Wooders of the University of Arizona, Tucson, have shown that sellers with positive ratings are able to sell items at higher prices, because buyers will willingly shell out greater sums just to be sure they are buying from a trustworthy source. And more people are likely to bid on items offered by those of good standing (Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, vol 15, p 353).
In a study to be published in the Journal of Consumer Research next month, Amar Cheema of Washington University in St Louis also found that when a seller’s reputation is less than squeaky clean, bidders are more likely to scrutinise additional costs such as shipping charges and bail out if they are too high. When the seller’s reputation is good, however, buyers are less interested in such surcharges, and sellers are more likely to secure a deal.
Trading websites are not the only place where nasty comments can have serious financial implications. When someone writes something malicious about you online it can be read by anyone typing your name into a search engine for years to come - including potential employers and university admissions staff. And as the number of websites that people use to buy and sell or make new friends and business contacts increases, so too does the need to guard against such acts of cyber-spite.
So how can you protect your reputation online" Various companies are now offering to help, by managing what is written about you on the web. ClaimID, founded by Terrell Russell and Fred Stutzman, is a free service that allows users to collect, annotate and verify information that is either about them, or written by them, such as blogs, websites or news articles mentioning them. The result is a list of links to websites the users have approved. “You can think of it as an online link resumé,” says Russell.
This means that when people search for your name they will come across your ClaimID profile, which brings together all the online material you want. “The things that are about you online, the people you know, the contacts you make - they all equate to a reputation,” says Stutzman.
Other companies, meanwhile, are offering to generate an online profile that will appear whatever website you use. TrustPlus, for example, allows users to integrate information from sites such as eBay and Facebook to create a public profile. “Your reputation is yours, and should be available and usable wherever you are online,” says TrustPlus’s Shawn Broderick. “Got a great rep on eBay" You should be able to leverage your good name on other sites too.”
TrustPlus provides a piece of code that users can download to their browser, so that when someone next views your profile on Facebook or eBay, a small cross appears next to your details. Moving the cursor over this cross will bring up your profile. This consists of ratings by people who know you personally, or have had dealings with you online, in the form of a series of symbols, ranging from “do not trust”, to “most trustworthy”.
TrustPlus also hopes to prevent people artificially boosting their reputation through collusion. A good reputation can be built on sites such as eBay, for instance, by “trading” with a known partner who uses a dummy account to rate you highly, enabling you to lure in unsuspecting buyers in the future. This works because a user has no idea who is responsible for the ratings when they view a person’s status on eBay.
TrustPlus, on the other hand, lists the usernames of everyone who has rated you, and users can click through to view each of your profiles in turn, to find out how these people know you. TrustPlus also allows users to build a three-tier “trust circle” of family and close friends, people you know well, and people you’re merely acquainted with.
The idea is that the more people who sign up and build their own trust circles, the greater the chance that a stranger you meet online will be familiar to one of your friends, or at least a friend of a friend. This allows you to view the reputations of strangers through the lens of people you know and trust. “When I run into Jane online, I get her reputation filtered through you as a lens, and if I think highly of you, then your opinion of Jane matters,” says Broderick.
“If my network of trusted folk don’t think highly of you, then your opinion of Jane won’t matter as much.”
But even if you trade honestly on auction sites, and your Facebook page contains nothing but a glowing profile from friends and family, your reputation could still be marred by disparaging comments about you on blogs or chatrooms, or embarrassing pictures someone has dug up of you rolling around drunk while at college. You are probably not going to get that job or university place if a prospective employer stumbles across such stuff while running a background search on you - as recruiters and university admissions staff frequently do.
To help, Reputation Defender, based in Menlo Park, California, monitors what is being said about its clients online for a monthly fee, and attempts to clean up any bad-mouthing it finds. The company uses search engine optimisation techniques to push negative information about clients down search engine results pages, and raise anything positive. It also contacts sites hosting damaging material and asks them to take it down.
While many of us are becoming more savvy about what we chose to reveal about ourselves, and the type of pictures and videos we post, we may all do things we later come to regret. We can also find ourselves the unwitting target of online abuse. At least now there are ways to fight back, and to undo some of the damage caused by our own carelessness, or the malicious attacks of others. ###
Contact: Claire Bowles email@example.com 44-207-611-1274 New Scientist US CONTACT – New Scientist Boston office: Tel: +1 617 386 2190 or email firstname.lastname@example.org. IF REPORTING ON THIS STORY, PLEASE MENTION NEW SCIENTIST AS THE SOURCE AND, IF REPORTING ONLINE, PLEASE CARRY A LINK TO: http://www.newscientist.com
Tags: cyberspite and eBay or New Scientist
Posted by sookietex at 3:56 PM || ||
The privacy of our visitors to rncnyc2004.blogspot.com is important to us.
At rncnyc2004.blogspot.com, we recognize that privacy of your personal information is important. Here is information on what types of personal information we receive and collect when you use and visit rncnyc2004.blogspot.com, and how we safeguard your information. We never sell your personal information to third parties.
As with most other websites, we collect and use the data contained in log files. The information in the log files include your IP (internet protocol) address, your ISP (internet service provider, such as AOL or Shaw Cable), the browser you used to visit our site (such as Internet Explorer or Firefox), the time you visited our site and which pages you visited throughout our site.
Cookies and Web Beacons
We also use third party advertisements on rncnyc2004.blogspot.com to support our site. Some of these advertisers may use technology such as cookies and web beacons when they advertise on our site, which will also send these advertisers (such as Google through the Google AdSense program) information including your IP address, your ISP , the browser you used to visit our site, and in some cases, whether you have Flash installed. This is generally used for geotargeting purposes (showing New York real estate ads to someone in New York, for example) or showing certain ads based on specific sites visited (such as showing cooking ads to someone who frequents cooking sites).
DoubleClick DART cookies
We also may use DART cookies for ad serving through Google’s DoubleClick, which places a cookie on your computer when you are browsing the web and visit a site using DoubleClick advertising (including some Google AdSense advertisements). This cookie is used to serve ads specific to you and your interests (”interest based targeting”). The ads served will be targeted based on your previous browsing history (For example, if you have been viewing sites about visiting Las Vegas, you may see Las Vegas hotel advertisements when viewing a non-related site, such as on a site about hockey). DART uses “non personally identifiable information”. It does NOT track personal information about you, such as your name, email address, physical address, telephone number, social security numbers, bank account numbers or credit card numbers. You can opt-out of this ad serving on all sites using this advertising by visiting http://www.doubleclick.com/privacy/dart_adserving.aspx
You can choose to disable or selectively turn off our cookies or third-party cookies in your browser settings, or by managing preferences in programs such as Norton Internet Security. However, this can affect how you are able to interact with our site as well as other websites. This could include the inability to login to services or programs, such as logging into forums or accounts.
Deleting cookies does not mean you are permanently opted out of any advertising program. Unless you have settings that disallow cookies, the next time you visit a site running the advertisements, a new cookie will be added.
Posted by sookietex at 3:46 PM || ||
Saturday, May 24, 2008
May 24, 1900, Republicans vote no in referendum for constitutional convention in Virginia, designed to create a new state constitution disenfranchising African-Americans.
May 25, 1928, Republican Genevieve Cline becomes first woman in nation to serve as federal judge; appointed to U.S. Customs Court by President Calvin Coolidge.
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.
"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: President Bush and Freedom Calendar or NAACP and Republicans or African-Americans and 13th Amendment or right to vote and Civil Rights or Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass or 40 acres and a mule or Brown v. Board of Education and Martin Luther King or Dred Scott or Public Domain Clip Art and Nanotechnology Today or Republican National Convention Blog
Posted by sookietex at 9:08 PM || ||
Tags: President Bush and White House radio address or Memorial Day
Posted by sookietex at 8:57 PM || ||
|bush radio address 05/24/08 full audio, text transcript. President's Radio Address|
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. This Memorial Day weekend, kids will be out of school, moms and dads will be firing up the grill, and families across our country will mark the unofficial beginning of summer. But as we do, we should all remember the true purpose of this holiday -- to honor the sacrifices that make our freedom possible.
On Monday, I will commemorate Memorial Day by visiting Arlington National Cemetery, where I will lay a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknowns. The tomb is the final resting place of three brave American soldiers who lost their lives in combat. The names of these veterans of World War I, World War II, and the Korean War are known only to God. But their valor is known to us all.
Throughout American history, this valor has preserved our way of life and our sacred freedoms. It was this valor that won our independence. It was this valor that removed the stain of slavery from our Nation. And it was this valor that defeated the great totalitarian threats of the last century.
Today, the men and women of our military are facing a new totalitarian threat to our freedom. In Iraq, Afghanistan, and other fronts around the world, they continue the proud legacy of those who came before them. They bear their responsibilities with quiet dignity and honor. And some have made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of their country.
One such hero was Sergeant First Class Benjamin Sebban of the Army's 82nd Airborne Division. As the senior medic in his squadron, Ben made sacrifice a way of life. When younger medics were learning how to insert IVs, he would offer his own arm for practice. And when the time came, Ben did not hesitate to offer his fellow soldiers far more.
On March 17, 2007, in Iraq's Diyala province, Ben saw a truck filled with explosives racing toward his team of paratroopers. He ran into the open to warn them, exposing himself to the blast. Ben received severe wounds, but this good medic never bothered to check his own injuries. Instead, he devoted his final moments on this earth to treating others. Earlier this week, in a ceremony at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, I had the honor of presenting Sergeant Sebban's mom with the Silver Star that he earned.
No words are adequate to console those who have lost a loved one serving our Nation. We can only offer our prayers and join in their grief. We grieve for the mother who hears the sound of her child's 21-gun salute. We grieve for the husband or wife who receives a folded flag. We grieve for a young son or daughter who only knows dad from a photograph.
One holiday is not enough to commemorate all of the sacrifices that have been made by America's men and women in uniform. No group has ever done more to defend liberty than the men and women of the United States Armed Forces. Their bravery has done more than simply win battles. It has done more than win wars. It has secured a way of life for our entire country. These heroes and their families should be in our thoughts and prayers on a daily basis, and they should receive our loving thanks at every possible opportunity.
This Memorial Day, I ask all Americans to honor the sacrifices of those who have served you and our country. One way to do so is by joining in a moment of remembrance that will be marked across our country at 3:00 p.m. local time. At that moment, Major League Baseball games will pause, the National Memorial Day parade will halt, Amtrak trains will blow their whistles, and buglers in military cemeteries will play Taps. You can participate by placing a flag at a veteran's grave, taking your family to the battlefields where freedom was defended, or saying a silent prayer for all the Americans who were delivered out of the agony of war to meet their Creator. Their bravery has preserved the country we love so dearly.
Thank you for listening.
Tags: President Bush and White House radio address or Memorial Day
Posted by sookietex at 8:44 PM || ||
|forre el audio de la dirección de radio 05/24/08 por completo, transcripción del texto. (nota de los redactores: ninguna lengua española mp3 lanzó esta semana, apesadumbrada) PODCAST|
Este fin de semana del Día de Conmemoración a los Caídos, los niños no tendrán escuela, los papás estarán encendiendo las parrillas, y las familias en todo el país marcarán el comienzo no-oficial del verano. Pero al hacerlo, debemos todos recordar el verdadero propósito de este día feriado - el de honrar los sacrificios que hacen posible nuestra libertad.
El lunes yo marcaré el Día de Conmemoración a los Caídos colocando una corona en la Tumba de los Desconocidos. La tumba es el lugar final de descanso de tres valientes soldados estadounidenses que perdieron sus vidas en combate. Los nombres de estos veteranos de la Primera Guerra Mundial, la Segunda Guerra Mundial, y la Guerra de Corea, los conoce sólo Dios. Pero su valentía la conocemos todos nosotros.
A través de la historia estadounidense, esta valentía ha conservado nuestra forma de vida y nuestras libertades sagradas. Fue esta valentía que ganó nuestra independencia. Fue esta valentía que abolió la mancha de la esclavitud de nuestra Nación. Y fue esta valentía que derrotó las grandes amenazas totalitarias del siglo pasado.
Hoy los hombres y mujeres de nuestras fuerzas armadas enfrentan una nueva amenaza totalitaria a nuestra libertad. En Irak, Afganistán y otros frentes alrededor del mundo, continúan el legado orgulloso de quienes vinieron antes de ellos. Aceptan sus responsabilidades con dignidad tranquila y honor. Y algunos han hecho el sacrificio máximo en defensa de su país.
Un tal héroe fue el Sargento de Primera Clase Benjamín Sebban de la División Aérea No. 82 del Ejército. Como médico principal de su escuadrón, Ben hizo del sacrificio una forma de vida. Cuando los médicos más jóvenes aprendían cómo introducir agujas intravenosas, él ofrecía su propio brazo para práctica. Y cuando llegó el momento, Ben no hesitó en ofrecer a sus soldados colegas mucho más.
El 17 de marzo 2007 en la provincia de Diyala de Irak, Ben vio un camión lleno de explosivos precipitarse hacia su equipo de paracaidistas. Corrió a un espacio abierto para alertarlos - exponiéndose él mismo a la explosión. Ben recibió heridas graves - pero este buen médico no se preocupó por revisar sus propias lesiones. Al contrario, dedicó sus últimos momentos en esta tierra a atender y tratar a los demás. A principios de esta semana, en una ceremonia en el Fuerte Bragg, Carolina del Norte, tuve el honor de presentarle a la mamá del Sargento Sebban la Estrella de Plata que había merecido.
No hay palabras que puedan consolar a quienes han perdido un ser querido al servicio de nuestra Nación. Sólo podemos ofrecer nuestras oraciones y acompañarlos en su dolor. Lloramos por la madre que escucha la salva de 21 disparos por su hijo. Lloramos por el esposo o la esposa que recibe una bandera doblada. Lloramos por un hijo o hija pequeño(a) que sólo conoce a su papá a través de una fotografía.
Un día feriado no basta para conmemorar todos los sacrificios hechos por los hombres y mujeres estadounidenses en uniforme. Ningún grupo jamás ha hecho más para defender la libertad que los hombres y mujeres de las Fuerzas Armadas de Estados Unidos. Su valentía ha hecho más que simplemente ganar batallas. Ha hecho más que ganar guerras. Ha asegurado una forma de vida para nuestro país entero. Estos héroes y sus familias deben estar en nuestros pensamientos y nuestras oraciones todos los días. Y deben recibir nuestro agradecimiento cariñoso en toda oportunidad posible.
Este Día de Conmemoración a los Caídos, les pido a todos los estadounidenses que honren los sacrificios de aquellos que les han servido a ustedes y a nuestro país. Una manera de hacerlo es uniéndose en un momento de recuerdo que será marcado en todo nuestro país a las 3:00 pm hora local. En ese momento, los juegos de béisbol de las grandes ligas tomarán una pausa. el Desfile Nacional del Día de Conmemoración a los Caídos se detendrá. los trenes Amtrak pitarán. y los cornetas en los cementerios militares tocarán la melodía "Taps" (o Toque de Queda). Usted puede participar colocando una bandera en la tumba de un veterano. llevando a su familia a los campos de batalla donde se defendió la libertad. o rezando en silencio por todos los estadounidenses que fueron librados de la agonía de la guerra para encontrarse con su Creador. Su valentía ha conservado el país que tanto amamos.
Gracias por escuchar.
Para su publicación inmediata Oficina del Secretario de Prensa 24 de mayo de 2008
Etiquetas De Technorati: Discurso Radial del Presidente a la Nación, y Presidente Bush
Posted by sookietex at 8:23 PM || ||
Friday, May 23, 2008
Remarks With Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom, David Miliband
Secretary Condoleezza Rice Remarks following a Question-and-Answer Session at Google Headquarters Mountain View, California May 22, 2008
SECRETARY RICE: I’d very much like to welcome David Miliband to this wonderful slice of the world, to Northern California, and to the Silicon Valley. We’ve had, so far, a really excellent day. We’ve been looking at places where they’re looking at ways to make energy efficiency possible. We have been here at Google, which is an extraordinary place, and both the people that we met when we were at Bloom Energy and the people that we’ve met here, I think get right to the core of why this is such an extraordinary place. It attracts the best and – best minds and the most innovative minds from all over the world, not just from all over the country. And they work here together in harmony and in beautiful circumstances and surroundings and it’s been a real joy to be here. So, David, welcome and I look forward to the rest of our program.
FOREIGN SECRETARY MILIBAND: Yeah, I’m really pleased to have the chance to say publicly, my immense gratitude to Condi Rice for sparing me the British spring and bringing me to the sunshine of Southern California for a very –
SECRETARY RICE: Northern, Northern, Northern.
FOREIGN SECRETARY MILIBAND: Northern California. I’m in Northern California, sorry. It’s Northern California for a couple of days of very hard work. We’re working extremely hard. It’s great to be here and to be able to see how the people make this part of the world so special. And we’ve had a very good session with the staff at Google, asked very, very penetrating and good questions, and it’s great to be here and great to get a chance to share some time and to understand that the motivation and the drive that does make this, as I said in here, the least cynical nation in the world.
SECRETARY RICE: Sean.
MR. MCCORMACK: We’ll take a couple questions, (inaudible). Right behind here, Sue. Thank you.
QUESTION: Madame Secretary, you were asked by a Googler, I believe they’re called – you were asked about Guantanamo Bay. When does the United States plan to close Guantanamo Bay? Defense Secretary Gates said the other day that there were some legal and other problems preventing this from happening. I mean, what is the delay? Wouldn’t this help in improving your image abroad and improving the U.S. human rights record?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, the first thing – well, certainly, I think in terms of human rights, we’ve done everything that we can to make Guantanamo a place that human rights are respected. It’s visited fairly frequently. So that, to me, is not really the issue. But the issue of Guantanamo and when it might close, the President has said he would very much like to do that. It’s a complicated matter because we have to have some way and some place to transfer people who, if let out on an unsuspecting population, might indeed commit crimes again. And we simply can’t afford that.
And so our first obligation has to be to protect the American people and, indeed, people beyond our shores from terrorists who would kill again, many of them, if they were let out without proper supervision. We were able to get British citizens back because Britain was able to take certain responsibilities about how their post release would be handled. But we’d like nothing better than to close Guantanamo. We look all the time at whether it’s possible. And when and if it’s possible, we’d like to do it.
I should mention that we’ve transferred a lot of people back to their homes and released a fair number as well.
QUESTION: And Foreign Secretary, (inaudible) Guantanamo (inaudible)? What do you (inaudible)?
FOREIGN SECRETARY MILIBAND: Well, the -- I think the position of both the British and the American governments is to close Guantanamo. We’ve made our contribution by bringing back all of the British citizens that were there, and that’s an important thing to do. And the American Government has taken that forward with other countries as well.
MR. MCCORMACK: (Inaudible), right here.
QUESTION: David (inaudible) with ABC (inaudible).
SECRETARY RICE: Yeah, hi, David. How are you?
QUESTION: Good to see you.
SECRETARY RICE: Yeah.
QUESTION: Madame Secretary, what about the situation with – in Iran right now? Are you going to be working collaboratively to try to get more surveillance and more intelligence information as to what they’re doing there?
SECRETARY RICE: Yes, thank you for the question, David. As a matter of fact, Secretary Miliband and I are a part of what we call the P-5+1, or the – Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China, and the United States – that forms, really, the kind of lead international coalition on trying to get Iran to stop enriching and reprocessing so that it can’t develop a nuclear weapon. These are technologies that could lead to the development of a nuclear weapon. We’ve passed three successful Security Council resolutions. The collateral effects of those Security Council resolutions include that Iran’s having more and more difficulty accessing the financial – the international financial system. Investment in Iran’s oil and gas infrastructure has gone down. Iran is paying a cost.
But of course, one of the lead elements of how we keep track on what is going on in Iran is the International Atomic Energy Agency. And one of the strongest parts of our policy has been to require Iran to be fully transparent with the IAEA, which should have the right to the full range of inspections in Iran. Because when Iran – if Iran has peaceful intent, as they say, then they should have no problem with the International Atomic Energy Agency having complete and absolute and total access. And the word that is coming out is that that is not being provided to the IAEA. So that’s really our best tool in many ways, David, for an international set of eyes on what the Iranians are doing.
FOREIGN SECRETARY MILIBAND: I think it’s important to say that the leading countries of the world are working very closely together on this. It’s a good example of Europe, the United States, but also China and Russia forging a common alliance and making very clear to the world that this is a choice for Iran. That Iran can see the outstretched hand from the wider world ready to cooperate economically and technologically and scientifically, but only if Iran plays and respects its responsibilities in the international community. And while the Iranians would like to present this as a denial of their rights, it’s no such thing. It’s an assertion that with rights come with responsibilities and that’s important for all countries.
MR. MCCORMACK: Matt, then you.
QUESTION: Madame Secretary, in response to another question that you got inside, you seemed to suggest that in the early days – in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and the anthrax attacks that the President’s national security team did, in fact, sign off on interrogation techniques that would – could be – on certain interrogation techniques that you later decided should be less harsh after you had discussed it and looked at – while remaining committed to – obviously, to U.S. obligations or international law, as you said, but that those techniques then became less harsh as time went on. You talked about how the early – the answers to questions you got from interrogations of the early detainees were quite productive. Is that – am I correct in that?
SECRETARY RICE: Matt, first of all, I think you know that I’m not going to talk about internal deliberations at the time, only to say that a lot has happened and a lot has evolved in these years. I think Mike Hayden has spoken to this question of the evolution of their program. And I want to repeat that we do have a law now that – the Detainee Treatment Act, which, in fact, gives greater definition to the way that we should think about issues of interrogation. And as the United States did before, it’s going to continue to live up to its laws domestically, as well to its international obligations. And I think that Americans expect the President to do whatever he can within the law to protect Americans, and that’s a key obligation of the presidency.
MR. MCCORMACK: One final question.
QUESTION: Kara Tsuboi, CNETnews.com technology reporter. I want to know about your visit to Google.
SECRETARY RICE: Yeah.
QUESTION: And as a Republican, were you surprised to get an invitation to a well-known liberal camp?
SECRETARY RICE: (Laughter.) Sergey Brin –
SECRETARY RICE: Sergery Brin was one of my students, you know. I’m from this area. I’m a Stanford faculty member on leave. So I think Google is not about politics. Google is about innovation and technology and about creativity of people and about what freedom permits in this great environment. And I feel very much a part of the Silicon Valley. I’ve been here – I joined the Stanford faculty in 1981, so I have been –
FOREIGN SECRETARY MILIBAND: Before you were born. (Laughter.)
SECRETARY RICE: Yeah, I didn’t want to say that, David, but – (Laughter.) So, for a lot of years this has been my natural habitat, and it’s really, truly, a remarkable place. And so it’s been great to be here at Google. It was great earlier to be at Bloom Energy. And I look forward to the day when I can be here on a more regular basis.
MR. MCCORMACK: Madame Secretary, The Stanford Daily.
SECRETARY RICE: Oh, Stanford Daily, okay, all right.
QUESTION: Theo Milonopoulos, Stanford Daily. What do you hope to do when you – you’ve said that you’re going to come back to campus, and what do you hope to do there? And also, considerable controversy erupted on campus when former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was appointed a distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution because several students and faculty objected to many of the decisions he made while serving in the Administration. How do you expect you’ll be received and how would you respond to critics that say that they may not necessarily want you back?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, first of all, I – we’ll see if people want me back. I think so. And I want to repeat, I’ve been at Stanford since 1981. I had a life before being National Security Advisor and being Secretary of State and I expect to have a life after.
But universities ought to be places in which all points of view are both represented and welcomed, because if universities are not open to views, no matter how controversial, I don’t know where the practices of the freedom of ideas will be carried out. I look forward to having an opportunity in the classroom again to discuss the dilemmas that we’ve faced, particularly since September 11th. I look forward again to doing what I used to do, which was to have decision simulations in which students get to play the roles of Secretary of State, President, National Security Advisor, and maybe get a little taste of how it’s actually not so easy to make those decisions because you’re facing a lot of dilemmas. And I look forward to doing some writing and some effort to – an opportunity to step back and reflect on what we’ve gone through.
This has been a fundamentally different period in American history and a period of great consequence. And it’s not something that you can reflect on from within it. You really have to get out of it and do so. But I was Provost at Stanford, and if there’s one thing that I defended and defended unconditionally, it was the right of the faculty to hold whatever view they had and to express it freely.
2008/T15-2 Released on May 23, 2008
Tags: Condoleezza Rice and David Miliband or Policy Talks@Google
Posted by sookietex at 8:51 PM || ||