Stephen Hadley, National Intelligence Estimate VIDEO

Press Briefing by Stephen Hadley, White House Conference Center Briefing Room. FULL STREAMING VIDEO, 11:35 A.M. EST. National Intelligence Estimate in PDF Format MR. HADLEY: Good morning. I presume everybody has seen the declassified key judgments for the NIE on prospects for Iraq stability. I just wanted to talk a little bit about that, draw your attention, I think, if I could, to a couple aspects of it that are useful, and then take your questions.

I want to begin by saying that while the NIE, the National Intelligence Estimate, which is an effort to bring together all the elements of the intelligence community and come out with a consolidated set of judgments about the situation in Iraq -- this is a new document, the result of the conclusion of that review, but it's not new intelligence.

That is to say, the substance of the document is intelligence that we have been provided by the intelligence community for several months, and it is this intelligence and the picture it paints that caused the President to conclude and then develop a new strategy or new approach to Iraq.

Secondly, in developing that new strategy or new approach, the intelligence community was a participant, and this intelligence, of course, inputted into that process to help us identify, then, and develop the policy that we did. Put another way, the intelligence assessment that is reflected in this NIE is not at war with this new approach or new strategy the President has developed, but I would say, explains why the President concluded that a new approach, a new strategy was required; explains a number of the elements of that strategy, and generally supports it. That is to say that the policy is designed to deal with the challenges that are reflected in this intelligence.

I think overall it is a fair statement of the challenge we face in Iraq, about the prospects for success, and a good statement about the risks if we do not succeed in Iraq, for Iraqis, for the region, and for Americans here at home.

So, in summary, it's a tough look at Iraq. It makes clear the challenges we face. It does suggest that we can succeed with the right policies, and we think we've developed the right policy, the right strategy, the right approach. And it makes it clear once again, as the President has been saying, that the consequences of failure are grave, indeed.

I'd like to just call your attention to some portions of the NIE that I think are important to get in front of us. The NIE shows, and the President clearly understands that it is clearly a difficult, challenging and complex situation on the ground in Iraq. This is not a simple problem. And we came to -- that is to say, the President came to the same conclusion that unless efforts to reverse these conditions in Iraq show measurable progress in the coming 12 to 18 months, the overall security situation will deteriorate.

That's a conclusion the President reached. To continue doing what we're doing was, as he said, a prescription for slow failure. We needed to do something different, which is why we have a new strategy, and we need to measure our progress in carrying out that strategy -- things that the Iraqis need to do, and things that we need to do.

I think it's important also to focus on the fact that as a follow-on to that statement -- that unless efforts are made to reverse the situation, the situation will deteriorate -- the declassified version says really in its first paragraph something very important -- "If strengthened, Iraqi security forces more loyal to the government and supported by coalition forces are able to reduce levels of violence and establish more effective security for Iraq's population, Iraqi leaders could have an opportunity to begin the process of political compromise necessary for longer-term stability, political progress, and economic recovery." And the comment I would make here is, everyone understands that that greater compromise and working together of Iraq's communities is critical to long-term security and stability in Iraq.

In order to achieve that, the judgment here and the judgment of the President was we need to get control of the violence in Baghdad and return Baghdad to the control of the Iraqi government. Nonetheless, even then it will not be easy. And as the NIE goes on to say, "Nevertheless, even if violence is diminished, given the current winner-take-all attitude and sectarian animosities infecting the political scene, Iraq leaders will be hard pressed to achieve sustained political reconciliation in the time frame of this estimate."

We agree that it is hard. We think that's accurate. We would emphasize the "hard pressed," because we will be pressing them hard, and the Iraqi people will be pressing the government hard, because in the end of the day, we all understand that reconciliation is a key to long-term security and success.

The NIE makes clear the consequences of withdrawal are serious. Again, I'd like to quote from it: "Coalition capabilities, including force levels, resources, and operations, remain an essential stabilizing element in Iraq." And that is why, as part of the President's strategy, while the Iraqis have a plan for bringing security to Baghdad, it is a plan that requires the support of the coalition and the additional forces of reenforcement that they describe.

Let me continue to read: "If coalition forces were withdrawn, if such a rapid withdrawal were to take place, we judge that the Iraqi security forces would be unlikely to survive as a nonsectarian national institution. Neighboring countries, invited by Iraqi factions or unilaterally, might intervene openly in the conflict. Massive civilian casualties and forced population displacement would be probable. AQI, or al Qaeda in Iraq would attempt to use parts of the country, particularly al Anbar Province, to plan increased attacks in and outside of Iraq. And spiraling violence and political disarray in Iraq, along with Kurdish moves to control Kirkuk and strengthen autonomy could prompt Turkey to launch a military incursion.

That's why the President concluded that while the current strategy was not working and it was a prescription for slow failure, an American withdrawal or stepping back now would be a prescription for fast failure and a chaos that would envelop not only Iraq, but also the region, and could potentially, by giving al Qaeda a safe haven in Iraq, result in risk and threats to the United States.

The NIE gives us some evidence of why the President announced a fundamental shift in our strategy in Iraq. The President and the Iraqis have taken steps necessary to address the conditions described in the report. For example, most people agree that we have to focus on fighting al Qaeda. The President's strategy steps up that fight, particularly in Anbar Province, which is the stronghold of the al Qaeda in Iraq, and where al Qaeda seeks a sanctuary.

The administration also agrees that we must accelerate the training of Iraqi security forces. And the President's strategy does this, with benchmarks to track the progress and bolster the size and effectiveness of Iraqi forces. And as we have said, the training and supporting of Iraqi troops will remain our military's essential and primary mission. But again, for the reconciliation to occur, and for that training in the end to be effective, we need to get control of the situation in Baghdad.

I think I will stop at that point -- I'll just say a couple other things I'd like to draw your attention to, in terms of the question I think you're going to have, which is, what is the marrying up or the match up between this intelligence judgments and the President's strategy. And let me just try to direct your attention to a couple things in that regard.

If you go to page three, it talks at the bottom of the page, it talks about a number of identifiable security and political -- what they call political triggering events, things that if they occurred, would severely convulse the Iraqi security environment, and result into a range of bad effects. And the point I would make here -- and they talk about mass sectarian killings, assassination of major religious or political leader, defection of the Sunnis from the government. The point here is, and what the President concluded from this is that the status quo is not stable. With the level of violence we have, particularly in Baghdad, it makes more likely that one of these triggering events that could collapse the government and the Iraqi security forces might occur.

And we had a rather chilling taste of that this week, with the actions and effort by a Shia extremist group to launch what appears to have been an attack in Najaf to kill the key clerical leaders of Shia in Najaf. If that would have occurred, it could have triggered exactly the kind of thing talked about in the NIE. And that's why the priority for the President is to get the level of violence down, to reduce the likelihood that one of these triggering events could actually occur.

So the NIE identifies a problem, derives a policy process which tries to develop a solution to that problem. Let me give you a second one, if I might.

We talked about the security forces and needing the support from the coalition forces and, of course, that is, indeed, the reason why, while the Iraqis are in the lead with the Baghdad security program, they have called for the support of coalition forces -- why the President thinks it's so important for the coalition to support them and give adequate forces in order to do that.

A third -- on page two, it talks about a number of identifiable developments that could help to reverse the negative trends in the current environment. And one of the -- on the list, the third on the list talks about a bottom up approach, "deputizing, resourcing and working more directly with neighborhood watch groups, and establishing grievance committees to mend relations at the local level." That's exactly one of the features that distinguishes the new approach of the President. It is not so Baghdad-centric, there's an effort to get out in the provinces and increase our presence in the provinces.

That's why the President has doubled the number of provincial reconstruction teams, and increased the number of State Department and other civilians who will be in the provinces to do not only local reconstruction, but also provide and provoke reconciliations among the communities at the local level, and to build governmental institutions at the local level. So we're going to try and help Iraqis build this democracy from the top down, and from the bottom up.

And finally, on the top of page three, there is a statement that says, "A key enabler of all these steps would be stronger Iraqi leadership." The President clearly agrees with that, and that's one of the reasons he's been very clear in his comments, both publically and privately to the current unity government that it is time for them to step up; that they need to take the lead on these issues, particularly Baghdad security, and success will depend on them doing so.

So that's by way of introduction, and I would be pleased to take your questions.

Q Mr. Hadley, the report also says, the term "civil war" accurately describes key elements of the Iraqi conflict. Is the President ready to embrace that term, as well?

MR. HADLEY: One of the things that is helpful -- and this is on page two -- is a statement that the intelligence community judges that the term "civil war" does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict in Iraq. And we think that is right. And one of the things that's good about the NIE is it describes the complexity. Iraq right now is a number of different conflicts, and it talks in that paragraph about Shia-on-Shia violence, al Qaeda and Sunni insurgent attacks on coalition forces, criminally motivated violence. I would add one more, and I don't think the analysts would object, and that is efforts by al Qaeda not just to attack coalition forces, but to attack Shia civilians in order to provoke them to attack Sunnis and to encourage the sectarian violence that we've seen.

So I think the thing I would say is, we would agree with the description in that paragraph of the realities on the ground. Now, you get to the issue of labels. Labels are difficult. And of course, everyone is looking at the label of "civil war." Let me read to you what Iraqis say. As we've talked about before, Iraqis do not describe it as a civil war. And it's very interesting -- in a recent interview, the Iraqi Prime Minister* [sic], Abd al Madhi, had the following statement, which I thought was an interesting, different perspective on this issue. He said first, "I don't think we are in a civil war. We are in a war on civilians. That's what Abu Musab al Zarqawi was trying to do. That's what the insurgents are trying to do. Otherwise, what is the meaning of a car bomb in a university or market? You're against a society, against civilians. Or when Sunni militias attack, some Shia militias attack in retaliation. They are not attacking as one army against another, but they are attacking civilians from the other community. That's why I say," and this is Abd al Madhi's comment, "we are in a war against civilians, not a civil war."

And finally he says, "Secondly, the government is still powerful, still feared by the population. Whenever it issues a curfew it is respected all over Iraq. No country in a civil war respects the decision of a government. We have to go and decrease the sectarian violence; we have to go and protect people from car bombs and from insurgent acts that target civilians and institutions."

So what I would say -- let me just say, the description in the NIE of the situation on the ground and the variety of these challenges is real. And we agree with that. The issue of the level -- the issue of the label is one we're going to go back and forth on. What the President's job is, in view of that situation on the ground, to develop a policy and a strategy that has the prospect of success. That's what the policy challenge is, and that's what we think we've done.

Q Does it mean that the President does accept that civil war accurately describes key elements -- does he accept that?

MR. HADLEY: I think what the President does is he accepts the description of the key elements -- that is that there's a hardening of ethno-sectarian identities, a sea change in the character of the violence, ethno-sectarian mobilization, and population displacements. The facts are not in dispute, and they are what drove the policy. And the policy seeks to try and respond to those facts and come up with a strategy that will succeed. That's what our task is and that's what we've done.

Q About the sea change in the character of the violence that the report describes, all senior administration officials, when they're asked about the deterioration of security in Iraq, point back to the Samarra bombing as a key -- as the sea change, if you will. And they point to this changing nature of the violence, now the Iraqi-on-Iraqi sort of violence, not an insurgency against U.S. forces so much. But correct me if I'm wrong -- did not the administration intercept a letter from Zarqawi in 2005 that laid out his plans to foment this kind of sectarian violence? And if that's the case, why did something like the Samarra bombing, that kind of tactic come as such a surprise to this administration?

MR. HADLEY: I don't think it came as a surprise to us. This has been clear -- Zarqawi's strategy. It's one of the reasons why, for the last three years, a major priority for our forces in Iraq has been to go after al Qaeda and to go after their leadership, and to frustrate the strategy. And that's been a major focus of our activity on the ground, because we saw the danger it posed.

What we saw was a series of incidents of al Qaeda attacks trying to provoke a kind of Shia response. And for over two years plus, it failed, and the Shia community showed great restraint. I think what happened was, with the Samarra bombing, because it was an attack on a religious facility and because it came after that length of time, it caught the Iraqi community, in some sense, it was a trauma for the Iraqi community, in some sense.

And what we watched, in some sense, holding our breath, is what would happen. And in the short run the response was good. After about 24 hours, 48 hours, the Iraqi security forces stepped in and they were able to bring the violence down. And the Iraqi government did not splinter. So the security forces held together, the government held together. And that's why we said at the time, Iraqis have looked into the abyss and they've stepped back.

But what we found was, while the initial response was good, we began to see the kind of mobilization in the Shia community and the beginnings of retaliation of Shia on Sunni, and Sunni on Shia. And that is talked about very clearly in the NIE.

Q And that wasn't anticipated by the administration?

MR. HADLEY: We did, and we had two security plans, efforts -- because, of course, as you know, most of this is focused in Baghdad; about 80 percent of sectarian violence is within 30 miles of Baghdad. And we took two bites at that apple in terms of Iraq security plans, phase one, phase two. And the truth is, as we've said very clearly, they did not work. And it did not bring down the violence.

And what we've done with the Baghdad security plan that is now being -- beginning to be executed by the Iraqi government is a new approach that we believe learns from that prior experience and corrects the defects. It's an Iraqi plan; they're in the lead; different operational concept to bring security to the population of Baghdad, not just simply sweep through looking for bad guys, following on with economic assistance that arrives in time and promptly, and adequate forces -- U.S. and Iraqi -- and having those forces working in a configuration that would be more effective.

So that's the narrative of how we got here.

Q The President asked for patience to see that his plan will work. The NIE says that unless there's measurable progress in 12 to 18 months, then the security situation could deteriorate. Is that the same time frame that you all are looking at to see if this plan is going to work?

MR. HADLEY: Well, we'd obviously like the plan to work sooner, because the sooner we get the violence down, the sooner the Iraqis can move forward more effectively on the reconciliation, the sooner we can proceed in training the Iraqi security forces. So we would like it to occur as soon as we can. Nonetheless, as you've heard from General Petraeus and from General Casey in their testimony, we've got to be patient, it's going to take some time.

Q But are you not going to reassess the new strategy in 12 to 18 months?

MR. HADLEY: No, no, we're -- one of the advantages about the benchmarks that we have talked about and the President talked about is they are gauges for whether that strategy is succeeding, both narrowly, in terms of the Baghdad security plan, but also more broadly, because, as you know, some of those benchmarks involve the reconciliation effort. So we are going to try and monitor the progress and our response is going to be, if we don't see progress, we're going to be talking to the Iraqis and emphasize the importance that we, and they take the steps that they need to do.

So we're going to be monitoring this along the way. The Congress has made clear that they will be monitoring the situation as we go.

Q Could you clarify the CBO estimate in number of troops, support troops that might be going would be 21,500? Because now there seems to be a suggestion that it's an appreciable number more than 21,500 troops when you factor in support troops.

MR. HADLEY: Well, what the President focused on was what we needed to make the Baghdad security plan work, which was additional Iraqi brigades and additional American brigades. And so if you looked at his speech, what he talks about is, five brigades into Iraq and a 4,000 increase -- net increase in the forces in al Anbar to deal with al Qaeda. You run the numbers on though, it gets you somewhere north of 20,000. He was focusing on the combat element.

I've not seen the CBO study. I know DOD is looking at it. I don't know the assumptions. It's one thing to put combat units into an environment where there is no support, it's another to put them into an environment of 140,000 U.S. troops. So I can't give you a good answer to that question. What the President was focusing on is what we needed in terms of combat power. And I'm sure DOD will figure out what additional support, if any, is required. General Casey gave an initial answer on this yesterday. I'd really stand with his answer.

Q Let me just direct you, then, back to what -- the second graph here under key judgments. Could you clarify what your point was about -- the paragraph that says, "Nevertheless, even if violence is diminished, Iraqi leaders will be hard-pressed to achieve sustained political reconciliation" -- because I heard you as sort of saying this sort of fits in with the general approach of the administration. This seems to be, with the "nevertheless," even if the ISF is successful, there's still a great chance that Iraqi leaders will be unable to achieve sustained political reconciliation.

MR. HADLEY: I agree. I read it the same way you do. And I was doing a bit of a play on words, which probably I shouldn't have done. It makes it clear -- and that's why I wanted to emphasize it for completeness. Even if we get the violence down, the NIE says that the forces are going to be hard pressed to come forward with the reconciliation. We agree with that, but we think there is no alternative but to press them hard to do that reconciliation.

And Maliki agrees. And if you look at the program that the Iraqis are starting to talk about, they're talking about the need for a revision to the de-Baathification law, an oil law, constitutional amendments to address some of the issues that remain unresolved from the constitution.

Q But if you read this paragraph straight, it seems to me what's being suggested is the odds are against success.

MR. HADLEY: It's going to be hard, and the President made it very clear it's going to be hard, and there's no assurance for success. The case the President has made is, he's looked at all the alternatives, and the alternatives have little, if any, prospect for success, whether it's slow failure as I talked about, or fast failure. The President believes his strategy has a prospect for success. It's going to be hard. The NIE says that; the President has said that.

They agree, though, on two things: One, the consequences of failure give us every incentive to try to make this succeed. And secondly, if you look at the end of the key judgments, the last section, which talks about, in some sense, alternatives, what might happen if this fails, they are pretty grim. So I would say, yes, this is no assurance of success, but it is the only path that offers the prospect for success. And because the consequences of failure are so dire, and we all agree with that, we need, together with the Congress, to put every effort in towards achieving success.

Q Mr. Hadley, I want to go back to the term "civil war." The administration has really gone out of its way not to use that term, "civil war," in the same way that Don Rumsfeld wouldn't call it a "guerilla war" when it was, or an "insurgency" when it was. Why do you go out of your way not to use that word? The President goes out of his way, as well. You say labels are difficult, but is it not important -- certainly any military strategist will tell you it's important to know what kind of fight you're in. Can you call it a civil war, and why haven't you?

MR. HADLEY: We know what kind of fight we're in. We know the facts. That is described well in this NIE, and we have a strategy to deal with those facts and to try to succeed.

Q Is it a civil war?

MR. HADLEY: I will tell you what this NIE says.

Q I want to know why you avoid using that term.

MR. HADLEY: Because it's not an adequate description of the situation we find ourselves, as the intelligence community says. Intelligence judges "the term civil war does not adequately capture the complexities of the conflict in Iraq." And what we're doing is saying, if you're going to run policy, and if you're going to explain it to the American people, we need to get across the complexities of the situation we face in Iraq, and what is our strategy to deal with that. And simple labels don't do that. We're going to try and force everybody to get into the facts.

Q Can I do a follow-up on something else? Can you talk about accelerating the training of the Iraqi security forces? That has been done so many times before. How do you plan on accomplishing that, and particularly in 12 to 18 months? And I think the key judgments say they're not going to be able to do significant security for 12 to 18 months, during that period.

MR. HADLEY: No, no, that is not what the NIE says. You ought to be very clear about that. The NIE talks about the role of the Iraqi security forces in bringing security to Baghdad. And, indeed, the strategy -- which is the strategy they have developed -- has the Iraqi security forces very much in the lead.

One of the things they've done in the operational concept is to try and make up for some of the weaknesses in the security forces. Everybody knows that the police has been a problem of effectiveness and of infiltration by sectarian groups. So the concept in Baghdad is to have nine districts, to have a military or national police commander head of each district, and within that district the army -- the Iraqi army, the Iraqi national police and the local police are all going to be working together out of various police stations under unity of command. We think that, plus the presence of a U.S. battalion in each of those districts, will stiffen those forces and make them more effective.

We also think that if this succeeds -- and we believe it will, General Petraeus believes it will, General Casey believes it will -- it is the best kind of training for Iraqi security forces. They've had the classroom training, they've been equipped; now this is the on-the-job training phase. And we think if and, we believe, when they succeed in Baghdad, the result will be a more effective Iraqi security force in Baghdad.

Now, separate from that, we will continue to do the training countrywide that we've been doing. The Iraqis have made clear they are going to put greater reliance on the Iraqi army. Prime Minister Maliki has talked about expanding the Iraqi army. There are additional equipment needs they have; we are addressing those. And also, as you know, separate and outside of Baghdad, we will also be embedding our forces, doing more embedding with Iraqi units.

So this is both, if you will, train and fight, recognizing that, in some sense, for security forces, fighting is a good complement to training. That's what we're trying to do. On the acceleration, there is a plan. Prime Minister Maliki has developed and it and shown the benchmarks. That's the essence.

Q If this falls apart, and as you say, these catastrophic events, if they happen --

MR. HADLEY: Can we get on to some other people?

Q Yes, just one last one. If this falls apart -- and they talk about this in the NIE, that there would be mass chaos, there would be sectarian violence -- do we have a plan on how we would operate in there if that happened?

MR. HADLEY: As you would expect, we are developing all kinds of contingency plans. But the best -- one of the things you should conclude from this NIE is the best plan is to have this plan succeed.

Q The report says that outside actors, including Iran, are not likely to be a major driver of violence. Given that, is it possible the President has been overstating the danger posed by Iran in Iraq?

MR. HADLEY: I think it's important, actually, to take a look at that language. It's on page three of the key judgments. And it says, as Steve says, that "Iraq's neighbors influence and are influenced by events within Iraq, but the involvement of those outside actors is not likely to be a major driver of violence or the prospects for stability, in light of the sectarian character of this."

I would point your attention to the sentence that follows -- "Nonetheless, Iranian lethal support for select groups of Iraqi Shia militants clearly intensifies the conflict in Iraq. Syria continues to provide safe haven for expatriate Iraqi Baathists, and to take less than adequate measures to stop the flow of foreign jihadists in Iraq."

The President has talked about the concerns about Iranian activity in Iraq, first and foremost, because it puts our troops at risk and because it's resulting in the death of Iraqis. That is something that we need to address.

The other thing I think that this does not adequately reflect, particularly in the next paragraph, that talks about Sunni concerns with Iran -- there's a suggestion almost that the concern of Sunni nations for Iran's activities comes out of their assessments of what's happening in Iraq. But, of course, if you talk to any of those leaders, their concerns about Iran go much beyond an Iranian role in Iraq. They are concerned about what Iran is doing to destabilize the democratically elected Siniora government in Lebanon. They're concerned about Iranian training and support for Hamas that is making it difficult for President Abbas to move forward with Prime Minister Olmert to try and find a way forward to a peace. And of course, there's concern in the region about a nuclear-armed Iran because of the current Iran can cause this much disruption, the concern is with a nuclear Iran.

So I think if there's one thing in the key judgments, I think that does not adequately put the regional context around Iran. I'm not criticizing the NIE. I'm sure if the analysts were here they would agree with what I'm saying, because I'm getting that from their intelligence. And I think -- I'm quite confident that in the bulk of the document, those issues are adequately addressed.

Q Do you think the threat from Iran is more grave than the report reflects?

MR. HADLEY: No. I think the report -- if you read it in toto, and particularly if you read what I'm sure is in the back elaborating the things I've been saying, is a pretty good judgment. And the other thing is to say we're very much concerned, first and foremost from force protection, the Iraqis have also been talking increasingly about the unconstructive role that Iran has been playing. So it's not just us.

Q Going back to the civil war, the use of that term, is it fair to say, or accurate to say that it is now beyond a civil war, because that would imply that you have the elements of a civil war and yet there is -- there are additional factors?

MR. HADLEY: I think I can't do better than the description of the facts on the ground that is in the NIE with which we agree, and that says this is a complex, difficult situation. And that's what it is.

Q Can I also ask you about -- the report talks about the consequences of rapidly withdrawing coalition forces.

MR. HADLEY: Yes.

Q But what about the option of adding forces, as the President has now chosen to do? Was that part of their examination of the situation on the ground, the possibility of the consequences of adding forces?

MR. HADLEY: We certainly talked about that in the review that was developed -- that produced this strategy that the President adopted, and of course, as I said, the intelligence community participated in that review. I thought it's interesting -- in the earlier portion of it, they do talk about the need for continuing involvement of coalition forces if this is going to succeed. The NIE key judgments is very clear about that. And as they talk about the need to get control of security situations, they talk about strengthen Iraqi security forces, which we're trying to do, and supported by coalition forces. So I think the intelligence community recognizes that for this to succeed, it is going to require those two things -- more effective Iraqi security forces and coalition support.

Yes, sir.

Q But it doesn't talk about level, the number of forces.

MR. HADLEY: No, the President has talked about the number in the speeches that he's given.

Q Steve, in 2002 and 2003, in the run-up to the Iraq war, the administration made statements that were obviously not borne by facts subsequently. And it later came out that caveats from the intelligence community, caveats from Energy Department analysts, those were left out of public statements of Vice President Cheney, the President, others in the administration. Now when it comes to Iran, you've been saying for months that Iran is a key driver of violence in Iraq. You've said there is evidence tying Iran to attacks in Iraq. You've said that you'd make that evidence public. That supposed to be made public on the 31st.

MR. HADLEY: Right.

Q It wasn't.

MR. HADLEY: That's correct.

Q Now you have this report saying it contributes in some way, so does Syria, so do other factors, but it is not, in and of itself, causing the violence, nor would the violence stop if Iranian influence stopped.

MR. HADLEY: I didn't read it that way.

Q You see it on the second --

MR. HADLEY: "Iraq's neighbors influence and are influenced by events within Iraq. But the involvement of these outside -- is not likely to be a major driver of violence or the prospect for stability because of the self-sustaining character of Iraq's internal sectarian dynamics."

We need to get control of that. Now, to the extent Iraqi support -- sorry, Iranian support is going to extremist groups that are participating in that sectarian violence, it is obviously a factor. And as we talked about it more broadly, they are, of course, a disruptive factor in the region.

The reason we put the intelligence briefing on hold was really two reasons. One, we thought we'd better get the NIE out so people could see the full context, which you now can. And secondly, quite frankly, we want to make sure that if we put out intelligence, the intelligence community and MNFI can stand behind it, because we are sensitive to try and put out the facts as accurately as we can.

Q When will that be, that briefing?

MR. HADLEY: When this process gets done, the briefing will be -- will come out. I don't think there's a timetable on this point since it's slipped a couple times. We want to get the work done so that we can get people a firm date and that we won't have to change.

Q Even though it was already scheduled and officials in Baghdad gave a date, they gave a time, and in some cases, they gave a place?

MR. HADLEY: Correct.

Q And now it's been pushed back. Can we conclude anything from that other than people looked at the intelligence that was set to offered and said, this is not good enough?

MR. HADLEY: No, I wouldn't --

Q Does that mean there was a willingness to overstate it?

MR. HADLEY: The truth is, quite frankly, we thought the briefing overstated. And we sent it back to get it narrowed and focused on the facts. And that's not a criticism of anybody. It was, in some sense, an attempt to do and address some of the issues in the NIE in a briefing on intelligence of Iranian activity in Iraq. And we thought, hey, why are we doing this? Let's get the NIE out, the coordinated intelligence judgment of the intelligence community. And then with that as context, get a briefing that is focused on and one that we're confident everyone can stand behind.

Q Mr. Hadley, given the track record on weapons of mass destruction, and recent events that have alleged that intelligence has been cherry-picked and pulled selectively, how can the public be assured that intelligence is driving the policy and not the other way around, that it's being tailored to what the President and the Vice President want the policy to be?

MR. HADLEY: By putting out things like this, the coordinated judgment of the intelligence community, so you can see the intelligence on which the policy was based.

Q How can we be assured that this wasn't written for that purpose?

MR. HADLEY: Well, you can talk to the intelligence community. This came from the NIC -- the National Intelligence Council. And it came out of that process. It was not a result of a policy process. It was a result of the intelligence process. And there was no effort to put a policy spin on that by the White House. This is a thing we got roughly a day or two before you.

One last question, ma'am.

Q Can I clarify the use in this document of the words Iraqi leaders and leadership? There's the sentence here, "Iraqi leaders will be hard pressed to achieve sustained political reconciliation . . . the absence of unifying leaders limits prospects for reconciliation." The President has made a bet that Prime Minister Maliki is a leader who can act more strongly. Does the full document from the intelligence community agree with him on that? Or do they believe that in the 12 to 18 months that they're assessing that Prime Minister Maliki will not be a unifying leader?

MR. HADLEY: I think what I read from the key judgments -- and you'll have -- in some sense, you have to ask the analysts. What I would say is it's a recognition that, one, we have to start from the proposition it is a unity government. Prime Minister Maliki is there, but he has in his government representatives of the Kurdish community, the Shia community, the Sunni community, and other communities in Iraq. And the President, while he has good conversations with Prime Minister Maliki, he's also talking about -- with Vice President Hashimi, he's talking with President Talabani, he's talking with Abdul Aziz al Hakim, one of the leaders of the Shia community.

So he is basically calling on this unity government that was the creation of Iraqis, that now is the time to step forward. That's what the NIE says, that's what the President believes, and that's what he's been telling the Iraqis.

Q Does the complete document assess Prime Minister Maliki's activities and performance?

MR. HADLEY: You've got me in a problem, because the complete document is classified, so I can't talk to you about it. What I can talk to you about is the unclassified document that we released today.

Q Does it address it? That's all we want to know.

MR. HADLEY: The document is a long document, 90 pages. It addresses a whole bunch of things.

Q Is that a "yes"?

MR. HADLEY: No, I didn't say, yes. I'm saying, really, you've got me in a difficult situation. You're asking me to talk about a classified document which is now classified.

Q -- because you, yourself, assessed that in your memo to the President.

MR. HADLEY: Right.

Q You did it personally, so I can only assume that they would have followed up in the same way you did.

MR. HADLEY: And I think what you get from the NIE here, clearly, is this government needs to step up. That's the conclusion of the memo, that's the conclusion of the President in his strategy, and that is, I think, supported by this NIE, which says that is going to be a crucial aspect of success.

Thanks very much.

END 12:23 P.M. EST

* Deputy President

For Immediate Release, Office of the Press Secretary, February 2, 2007

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House radio or Stephen Hadley and National Intelligence Estimate or VIDEO and intelligence community or NIE and Iraqi security forces or National Security Advisor and PODCAST

American Heart Month, 2007

American Heart Month, 2007, A Proclamation By the President of the United States of America

Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the United States, claiming hundreds of thousands of lives each year. During American Heart Month, we renew our commitment to fighting cardiovascular disease by increasing public awareness of this deadly disease and understanding of how it can be prevented.

Today, millions of Americans live with some form of cardiovascular disease, including congenital heart disease, coronary heart disease, and high blood pressure. Individuals can reduce their chance of developing these and other types of heart disease by exercising regularly, maintaining healthy eating habits and weight, avoiding tobacco use,

and monitoring cholesterol and blood pressure levels. All Americans should speak with their doctors about the dangers of this disease and get regular preventive screenings.

My Administration continues to help raise awareness of heart disease through initiatives such as "The Heart Truth" campaign, sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. First Lady Laura Bush serves as the National Ambassador of "The Heart Truth" campaign and works with partner organizations as part of her Women's Health and Wellness Initiative. The campaign informs women about the dangers of this deadly illness and encourages them to make cardiovascular health a priority. This year marks the fifth anniversary of the campaign, which uses the red dress as a symbol to remind women to protect their heart health and inspire them to take action. New data shows that fewer women are dying from heart disease, and more women are aware heart disease is the number one killer.

During American Heart Month, we honor the medical professionals, researchers, and all those whose tireless efforts are making a positive difference in the lives of those battling heart disease. By working together, we can continue to help the American people live longer and healthier lives.

In acknowledgement of the importance of the ongoing fight against cardiovascular disease, the Congress, by Joint Resolution approved December 30, 1963, as amended (77 Stat. 843; 36 U.S.C. 101), has requested that the President issue an annual proclamation designating February as "American Heart Month."

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim February 2007 as American Heart Month, and I invite all Americans to participate in National Wear Red Day on February 2, 2007. I also invite the Governors of the States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, officials of other areas subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and the American people to join me in recognizing and reaffirming our commitment to fighting cardiovascular disease.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this first day of February, in the year of our Lord two thousand seven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-first.

GEORGE W. BUSH

# # #, For Immediate Release, Office of the Press Secretary, February 1, 2007

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House radio or American Heart Month and Laura bush or cardiovascular disease and National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute or Women's Health and Wellness Initiative and cardiovascular health or Go Red For Women and PODCAST

President, National Prayer Breakfast

President Bush Attends National Prayer Breakfast, FULL STREAMING VIDEO, Hilton Washington Hotel, Washington, D.C. 8:45 A.M. EST. PODCAST OF ARTICLE

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Now will you please join me in singing The Eyes of Texas. (Laughter.)

Good morning. Laura and I are honored to join you here at the 55th National Prayer Breakfast. You know, it's is an amazing country, isn't it, when people from all walks of life gather to recognize our dependence on an Almighty God,

and to ask him for blessings in our life. I think a breakfast such as this speaks to the true strength of the United States of America. (Applause.)

We come from many different faiths, yet we share this profound conviction: We believe that God listens to the voice of His children, and pours His grace upon those who seek Him in prayer. I appreciate, Mr. Congressman, you and Jo Ann Davis, for leading this prayer breakfast. And thanks for paying tribute to my wife. (Applause.)

I appreciate the Speaker's presence, Congressman Hoyer's presence, Congressman Blunt's presence. I want to thank all the members of the Senate and the House of Representatives who have joined us. I appreciate the fact that we've got governors here, local officials and state officials. I thank the members of my Cabinet for joining us. Don't linger; you've got a job to do.

(Laughter.) I thank the military officials who have joined us, distinguished dignitaries. Mr. Prime Minister, we are glad you're here. Thank you for joining us.

I appreciate Dr. Collins. I want to thank Reverend Mucci, and his wife, Kathy. I appreciate Nicole Mullen. But most of all, thank you all.

We are a nation of prayer. America prays. (Applause.) Each day millions of our citizens bow their heads in silence and solitude, or they offer up prayers in fellowship with others. They pray for themselves; they pray for their families; they pray for their neighbors and their communities. In many congregations and homes across this great land, people also set a time -- set aside time to pray for our nation and those entrusted with authority, including our elected leaders.

In my travels, I often see hand-printed signs and personal messages from citizens that carry words of prayer. Sometimes it's a single little girl holding up a placard that reads: Mr. President, be encouraged, you are prayed for. Sometimes it's a banner held by a group of young people that says, "We are praying for you, Mr. President." I often hear similar words when I meet people on a rope line. Isn't that interesting -- you're working a rope line and people come up and say, Mr. President, I am praying for you and your family.

The greatest gift a citizen of this country can give those of us entrusted with political office is to pray for us. And I thank those in our nation who lift all of us up in prayer. (Applause.)

Our troops must understand that every day -- every day -- millions of our citizens lift them up in prayer. (Applause.) We pray for their safety; we pray for their families they have left at home; we pray for those who have been wounded for their comfort and recovery. We remember those who have been lost, and we pray that their loved ones feel the healing touch of the Almighty. During this time of war, we thank God that we are part of a nation that produces courageous men and women who volunteer to defend us.

Many in our country know the power of prayer. Prayer changes hearts. Prayer changes lives. And prayer makes us a more compassionate and giving people. When we pray we surrender our will to the Almighty, and open ourselves up to His priorities and His touch. His call to love our neighbors as we would like to be loved ourselves is something that we hear when we pray. And we answer that call by reaching out to feed the hungry and clothe the poor and aid the widow and the orphan. By helping our brothers and sisters in need, we find our own faith strengthened, and we receive the grace to lead lives of dignity and purpose.

We see this grace in the life of a young American named Shannon Hickey. Shannon was one of Laura's guests at the State of the Union. When Shannon was growing up, her favorite priest was Father Mychal Judge, a chaplain with the New York City Fire Department. Father Mychal helped Shannon and her family through Shannon's struggle with liver disease. On September the 11th, 2001, Father Mychal lost his life in the World Trade Center. In memory of her friend, Shannon founded Mychal's Message, a non-profit organization dedicated to sharing Father Mychal's loving spirit. Over the last five years, Mychal's Message has collected and distributed more than 100,000 needed items to the poor and the homeless. With each gift to the needy, Shannon encloses a card with Father Mychal's personal prayer. It reads: "Lord, take me where you want me to go, let me meet who you want me to meet, tell me what you want me to say, and keep me out of your way."

Father Mychal's humble prayer reminds us of an eternal truth: In the quiet of prayer, we leave behind our own cares and we take up the cares of the Almighty. And in answering His call to service we find that, in the words of Isaiah, "We will gain new strength. We will run and not get tired. We will walk and not become weary."

And so I thank you for joining us on this day of prayer. I thank you for the tradition you continue here today. And I ask for God's blessings on the United States of America. (Applause.)

END 8:53 A.M. EST. For Immediate Release, Office of the Press Secretary, February 1, 2007

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House radio or National Prayer Breakfast and Laura bush or Dr. Collins and Reverend Mucci or Shannon Hickey and Father Mychal Judge or Almighty God and PODCAST

State Department Daily Press Briefing, 01/31/07 (VIDEO, PODCAST)

Daily Press Briefing, Spokesman Sean McCormack, FULL STREAMING VIDEO, file is windows media format, running time is 45:28, PODCAST of Briefing mp3 format for download. Streaming Audio of briefing mp3 in m3u format for online listening.

Department Spokesman Sean McCormack (shown during the Daily Press Briefing) was sworn in as Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs and Department Spokesman on June 2, 2005.

Immediately prior to returning to the State Department, Mr. McCormack served as Special Assistant to the President, Spokesman for the National Security Council, and Deputy White House Press Secretary for Foreign Policy. State Department Photo by Michael Gross. FULL TEXT TRANSCRIPT:, 12:40 p.m. EST.

Daily Press Briefing, Sean McCormack, Spokesman, Washington, DC, January 31, 2007

INDEX: ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS, Quartet Meeting on Friday / Issues for Discussion by Quartet Members, Possible Travel to the Region by Secretary Rice in Mid-February, Timing and Venue for Possible Meeting with President Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Olmert, Statements and Communique Following Conclusion of Quartet Meeting

GERMANY, Reported Arrest Warrants in al-Masri Case

CYPRUS, Oil Exploration in the Continental Shelf Off of Cyprus

VENEZUELA, Venezuela Legislature Surrenders Powers to Legislate to President Chavez

IRAQ, Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction Quarterly Report, Report’s Findings on Contracting Management and Oversight Shortcomings, Iraqi Government’s Efforts to Meet Timelines / Secretary Rice’s Letter to Senator Levin, President’s Plan for Iraq and Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTS), Reports Iraqi Government Organizing Regional Conference with Iraq’s Neighbors, Status of Ambassador Khalilzad,

IRAQ/IRAN, Reports of Iranian Connection in Attack in Karbala on US Soldiers, General Odierno’s Comments Regarding Iran Allegedly Supplying Iraqi Militias.

TURKEY, Turkish Foreign Minister’s Visit to US / Meeting with Secretary Rice, General Ralston’s Activities /Travel.

IRAN, Hunger Strike of Iranian Prisoner Abbas Lisani, Political Situation in Iran

MISCELLANEOUS, Reported US Plan to Begin Somali Language Broadcast to Horn of Africa, Proposed US Congressional Armenian Resolution, Report Bin Laden’s Brother-in-Law Murdered in Madagascar.

TAIWAN, John Negroponte’s Comments on Taiwan

CHINA, China’s ASAT Test / US Contact/Communication with PRC

Technorati Tags: State Department and Secretary of State or Abbas Lisani and LEBANON, or Israel and Hariri Investigation or Condoleezza Rice, or Cyprus and Somalia,, or Death of Defense Minister, and al-Masri, or China’s ASAT Test, and Horn of Africa, or Secretary Rice, and VIDEO, or President Chavez, and Reconstruction Assistance to Iraq

Thunderbirds to kick off Super Bowl XLI

Thunderbirds to kick off Super Bowl XLI, The U. S. Air Force Demonstration Squadron, "Thunderbirds" will fly over Dolphin Stadium in their signature six-ship Delta formation

at the conclusion of the national anthem to kick off Super Bowl XLI Feb. 4 over Miami. The Thunderbirds fly the F-16 Fighting Falcons and performs precision aerial maneuvers demonstrating the capabilities of Air Force high performance aircraft to people throughout the world. (U.S. Air Force photo/Robbin Cresswell ) High Resolution Image

American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Jan. 30, 2007 – The U.S. Air Force's elite demonstration squadron, the "Thunderbirds," will help kick off Super Bowl XLI in Miami with a flyover of Dolphin Stadium on Feb. 4.

The team's six red, white and blue F-16 fighter jets will roar over in their signature six-ship Delta formation at the conclusion of the national anthem. The aircraft will fly over at about 500 feet and 450 miles per hour.

"We are honored to participate in the Super Bowl, especially this year, as the United States Air Force commemorates our 60th anniversary," said Lt. Col. Kevin Robbins, Thunderbird commander.

The flyover is just one of many events the Thunderbirds will participate in during 2007 to commemorate the Air Force's six decades of air and space power.

The U.S. Air Force Air Demonstration Squadron is an Air Combat Command unit composed of eight pilots (including six demonstration pilots), four support officers, four civilians and about 120 enlisted airmen performing in more than 25 career specialties. "Our job is to represent the thousands of airmen who serve their country on a daily basis, including the more than 25,000 fighting on the front lines in the global war on terror," Robbins said.

The Super Bowl is the nation's highest-rated TV program annually. According to the National Football League, more than 141 million viewers in the United States tuned in to the last Super Bowl game. Super Bowl XLI will be broadcast to a potential worldwide audience of 1 billion in more than 230 countries and territories.

(From an Air Force news release.) Related Sites:U.S. Air Force Thunderbirds

Technorati Tags: Thunderbirds and Super Bowl XLI or F-16 fighter and U.S. Air Force Air Demonstration Squadron, or Air Combat Command and National Football League or Dolphin Stadium,

Morals do not conquer all in decision making

This is the Yin-yang symbol or Taijitu, with black representing yin and white representing yang. It is a symbol that reflects the inescapably intertwined duality of all things in nature, a common theme in Taoism.

No quality is independent of its opposite, nor so pure that it does not contain its opposite in a diminished form: these concepts are depicted by the vague division between black and white, the flowing boundary between the two, and the smaller circles within the large regions. Yin and yang, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is morally-motivated choice different from other kinds of decision making? Previous research has implied that the answer is yes, suggesting that certain sacred or protected values are resistant to real world tradeoffs. In fact, proposed tradeoffs between the sacred and the secular lead to moral outrage and an outright refusal to consider costs and benefits (e.g."You can't put a price on a human life").

Previous theory in moral decision making suggested that if people are guided by protected values, values that equate to rules like 'do no harm', they may focus on the distinction between acting/doing harm versus not acting/allowing harm, paying less attention to consequences. People who make choices based on these values, thus show "quantity insensitivity" relative to people without protected values for a given situation.

For example:

A convoy of food trucks is on its way to a refugee camp during a famine in Africa. (Airplanes cannot be used). You find that a second camp has even more refugees. If you tell the convoy to go to the second camp instead of the first, you will save 1,000 people from death, but 100 people in the first camp will die as a result.

If one's protected values guide decision making, they are obligated to serve their original camp and will do so despite the opportunity to save ten times as many lives. Thus it appears people's value-driven decisions are less sensitive to the consequences of an action than choices not about protected values.

But an article published in the January issue of Psychological Science suggests that these value-guided decisions may not be as rigid as previously thought. According to Northwestern University psychologists Daniel Bartels and Douglas Medin, morally motivated decision makers may indeed be sensitive to the consequences of their choices

Using two procedures to assess quantity insensitivity, Bartels and Medin found that protected values don't always produce quantity-insensitive choices. They replicate previous results in a context that focuses people on an action that may cause initial harm but will ultimately maximize benefits (as in the example above).

However, if attention is directed towards the net benefits, the trend actually reverses. That is, protected values relate to increased quantity sensitivity—morally motivated decision makers appeared to achieve the best possible outcome.

The willingness to make tradeoffs then depends not only on whether protected values are involved, but also on where attention is focused, a factor that varies substantially across contexts.

Thus it appears that previous findings suggesting that people who really care about an issue not only fail to maximize their utility or that they might not be taking stock of the consequences at all may be off the mark. "The present findings importantly qualify this theory, suggesting that in some contexts, morally-motivated decision makers are more sensitive to the consequences of their choices than non-morally-motivated decision makers. ###

Psychological Science, published by the Association for Psychological Science, is ranked among the top 10 general psychology journals for impact by the Institute for Scientific Information. For a copy of the article "Are Morally Motivated Decision Makers Insensitive to the Consequences of Their Choices?" and access to other psychological research findings please contact Catherine West at cwest@psychologicalscience.org or (202) 783-2077, Ext. 3029.

Contact: Dan Bartels d-bartels@northwestern.edu, Association for Psychological Science

Technorati Tags: Morals and morally-motivated decision makers or yin-yang and Taijitu, or duality of nature and general psychology or Consequences of Their Choices,

Conference on Global Internet Freedom

State Department Hosts First Conference on Global Internet Freedom

The Global Internet Freedom Task Force (GIFT), which is jointly chaired by Paula Dobriansky, Under Secretary for Democracy and Global Affairs, and Josette Sheeran, Under Secretary for Economic, Energy and Agricultural Affairs, will host its first conference on Global Internet Freedom on January 30, 2007 in Washington, D.C. This event is a follow-up to the State Department's unveiling of the GIFT global strategy to monitor and respond to threats to Internet freedom held December 20, 2006. The presenters and attendees will include U.S. government officials and representatives of corporations, socially responsible investment (SRI) firms, and non-governmental organizations.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced the establishment of the GIFT on February 14, 2006 as an internal State Department coordination group to address challenges to freedom of expression and the free flow of information on the Internet. The core aims of the GIFT are to maximize freedom of expression and the free flow of information and ideas, to minimize the success of repressive regimes in censoring and silencing legitimate debate on the Internet, and to promote access to information and ideas over the Internet

The conference will be held at the U.S. Department of State in the Marshall Center from 1:00 to 4:00 PM. Media interested in covering the event should RSVP to Karen Chen, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, at (202) 647-4648 or ChenKY@state.gov. For this event, members of the press are requested to check in at the registration desk at the 23rd street entrance and present a valid ID or press credential.

Space is limited and available on a first come, first serve basis.

For more information about the event, contact Gabriella Rigg, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, at (202) 647-2311 or Nicolas Fetchko, Bureau of Economic, Energy and Business Affairs, at (202) 647-5778.

2007/055, Released on January 29, 2007

Media Note, Office of the Spokesman, Washington, DC. January 29, 2007

Technorati Tags: State Department and Secretary of State or Global Internet Freedom and Paula Dobriansky, or Josette Sheeran and Condoleezza Rice or Global Internet Freedom Task Force,

Belarus: Eviction of Belarus Helsinki Committee

Belarus: Eviction of Belarus Helsinki Committee

The United States condemns the Government of Belarus' decision to evict the Belarusian Helsinki Committee from its offices, a move which forces the closure of the country's most significant human rights NGO. This latest attack by the Belarusian authorities on independent civil society underscores the steady deterioration of the human rights situation in the country.

The United States urges the Belarusian authorities to immediately reverse this decision against the Belarus Helsinki Committee and to honor its international commitments -- including the 1975 Helsinki Accords -- to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Press Statement, Sean McCormack, Spokesman, Washington, DC. January 29, 2007

Technorati Tags: State Department and Secretary of State or Belarus Helsinki Committee and Sean McCormack, or 1975 Helsinki Accords and Condoleezza Rice or Condoleezza Rice,

Arab Democracy Fellows

Arab Democracy Fellows Begin Four-Month Academic and Professional Experience in the United States

A group of 22 civic leaders from the Middle East and North Africa arrive in Washington today to kick off a new academic and professional development experience that includes a one-month program at the Maxwell School of Syracuse University and a three-month skill-building fellowship in New York or Washington.

The fellows, who are part of the inaugural group of the Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI) Leaders for Democracy program, are coming from Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Oman, the Palestinian territories, Qatar, Syria, Tunisia, and Yemen. They range in age from 21 to 37.

Fellows were selected through a competitive application process based on leadership skills, professional experience working on democratic reform issues, and commitment to continued advocacy work in the future.

The MEPI Leaders for Democracy fellows will meet with U.S. officials at the White House, Congress, the Supreme Court, and the State Department, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Assistant Secretary of State David Welch, and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State J. Scott Carpenter. The fellows also will participate in a series of seminars, meetings with non-government organization leaders, and several other events in their honor, including an event at the Embassy of Jordan.

Fellows will travel to the Maxwell School of Syracuse University for the academic portion of their program, which will be followed by a three-month fellowship with a non-governmental, private sector, or public policy organization. Examples of internships include working for city and county governments, a newspaper, an NPR station, think tanks, and a national teachers' organization.

This program is part of the U.S. Department of State's Middle East Partnership Initiative, which supports greater freedom and opportunity for people in the region. The initiative has devoted more than $293 million in four years to reformers so democracy can spread, education can thrive, economies can grow, and women can be empowered.

For more information, journalists may contact Jill Leonhardt at the Maxwell School of Syracuse University, (315) 443-5492, or Chad Bettes at the U.S. Department of State, (202) 776-8572.

2007/056, Released on January 29, 2007

Media Note, Office of the Spokesman, Washington, DC, January 29, 2007

Technorati Tags: State Department and Secretary of State or Arab Democracy Fellows and Middle East Partnership Initiative, or Palestinian territories and J. Scott Carpenter or Condoleezza Rice, or David Welch and Maxwell School of Syracuse University,, or President Bush, and Bahrain, or Egypt, and Qatar, or Secretary Rice, and VIDEO, or Lebanon, and Yemen

Improving ethanol production

Carnegie Mellon engineers devise new process to improve energy efficiency of ethanol production, Improving ethanol production

PITTSBURGH—.Carnegie Mellon University Chemical Engineers have devised a new process that can improve the efficiency of ethanol production, a major component in making biofuels a significant part of the U.S. energy supply.

Carnegie Mellon researchers have used advanced process design methods combined with mathematical optimization techniques to reduce the operating costs of corn-based bio-ethanol plants by more than 60 percent.

The key to the Carnegie Mellon strategy involves redesigning the distillation process by using a multi-column system together with a network for energy recovery that ultimately reduces the consumption of steam, a major energy component in the production of corn-based ethanol.

"This new design reduces the manufacturing cost for producing ethanol by 11 percent, from $1.61 a gallon to $1.43 a gallon,'' said Chemical Engineering Professor Ignacio E. Grossmann, who completed the research with graduate students Ramkumar Karuppiah, Andreas Peschel and Mariano Martin. "This research also is an important step in making the production of ethanol more energy efficient and economical ."

For a long time, corn-based ethanol was considered a questionable energy resource. Today, 46 percent of the nation's gasoline contains some percentage of ethanol. And demand is driven by a federal mandate that 5 percent of the nation's gasoline supply – roughly 7.5 billion gallons – contain some ethanol by 2012.

Corn is most often used to produce ethanol, but it can be made from grains, sugar beats, potato and beverage wastes and switchgrass.

The research was conducted through the Chemical Engineering Department's Center of Advanced Process Decision-making in collaboration with Minneapolis-based Cargill, an international provider of food, agricultural and risk management services and products.

"As a result of the explosive growth of the U.S. fuel ethanol industry, we decided to collaborate with Professor Grossmann's team to verify how process synthesis tools could be applied to improve the production of ethanol from corn. The work done at Carnegie Mellon demonstrated the potential for considerable capital and energy cost savings in the corn to ethanol process. We look forward to the time when the tools developed by Carnegie Mellon researchers will become part of industry's new toolkit for making the process even more economical and sustainable," said Luca C. Zullo, technical director of Cargill Emissions Reduction Services. ###

In the United States, ethanol production began in the late 1980s with a handful of plants producing about 170 million gallons. More than 25 years later, the industry has 107 plants that produced more than 5 billion gallons last year.

Contact: Chriss Swaney swaney@andrew.cmu.edu 412-268-5776 Carnegie Mellon University

Technorati Tags: ethanol production and biofuels or corn-based ethanol and gasoline supply or Carnegie Mellon and Chemical Engineering or Emissions Reduction and energy or Energy Efficiency and PODCAST

Freedom Calendar 01/27/07 - 02/03/07

January 27, 1964, U.S. Senator Margaret Chase Smith (R-ME), first woman to be considered for nomination by a major party, announces candidacy for President; she finishes 2nd at Republican National Convention.

January 28, 1818, Birth of anti-slavery activist George Boutwell, a founder of Massachusetts Republican Party; later served in Congress and as U.S. Treasury Secretary.

January 29, 1981, Jeane Kirkpatrick appointed by President Ronald Reagan as first woman to be U.S. Ambassador to United Nations.

January 30, 2001, Republican Gale Norton, appointed by President George W. Bush, becomes first woman to serve as U.S. Secretary of the Interior.

January 31, 1865, 13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. House with unanimous Republican support, intense Democrat opposition,

February 1, 1865, Chief Justice Salmon Chase swears in Republican John S. Rock, first African-American to be admitted to practice before U.S. Supreme Court.

February 2, 1856, After leaving Democratic Party because of its pro-slavery policies, U.S. Rep. Nathaniel Banks (R-MA) becomes first Republican Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.

February 3, 1870, After passing House with 98% Republican support and 97% Democrat opposition, Republicans’ 15th Amendment is ratified, granting vote to all Americans regardless of race.

"I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.”

Abraham Lincoln, 16th President of the United States

Technorati Tags: President Bush and Freedom Calendar or Booker T. Washington and Republicans or African-Americans and Brown v. Board of Education or Ronald Reagan and Condoleezza Rice or Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass or 40 acres and a mule or Martin Luther King and Voting Rights Act of 1965 or Dred Scott

Presidential Podcast 01/27/07

Presidential Podcast 01/27/07
Subscribe to Our Odeo or 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.

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House radio address or State of the Union Address and health care or Strategic Petroleum Reserve and Health Insurance Program or cellulosic ethanol and alternative fuels or biofuels and PODCAST

Bush radio address 01/27/07 full audio, text transcript

bush radio address 01/27/07 full audio, text transcript. PODCAST and, President's Radio Address . State of the Union 2007

Subscribe to Our Odeo or 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 week, I appeared before Congress to report on the state of our union. I asked members of the House and Senate from both sides of the aisle to join me in confronting the great challenges before us, so we can build a future of hope and opportunity for all Americans.

Two key challenges we face are reducing our dependence on oil and expanding access to affordable health care. I have asked Congress to take several vital steps to address these issues. And while some members gave a reflexive partisan response, I was encouraged that others welcomed this opportunity to reach across the aisle. One Democratic Senator said the initiatives I put forward were "serious proposals" and encouraged his fellow Democrats to "respond in a constructive way." Another Senate Democrat pledged to work toward these goals "through sincere bipartisan efforts." This is a good start, and I look forward to working with Republicans and Democrats in Congress to reform our health care system and increase energy security.

Our Nation's dependence on oil leaves us vulnerable to hostile regimes and terrorists who can hurt our economy by disrupting our oil supply. To protect America against supply disruptions, I have asked Congress to double the current capacity of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We also must diversify our Nation's energy supply, and the way forward is through technology. On Wednesday, I visited DuPont's Experimental Station in Wilmington, Delaware, where researchers are developing new methods of producing cellulosic ethanol and other advanced biofuels using everything from grasses to cornstalks to agricultural wastes. By expanding our use of renewable and alternative fuels like ethanol, we can become less dependent on oil, and confront the serious challenge of climate change.

To increase the supply of alternative fuels, I've asked Congress to join me in setting a mandatory fuel standard to require 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels in 2017 -- nearly five times the current target. At the same time, we need to reform and modernize fuel economy standards for cars the way we did for light trucks, and conserve up to 8.5 billion more gallons of gasoline by 2017. By taking these steps, we can help achieve a great goal: reducing the use of gasoline in the United States by 20 percent in the next ten years, and cutting our total imports by the equivalent of three-quarters of all the oil we now import from the Middle East.

We must also work together to ensure that Americans have accessible and affordable health care. The government has an obligation to provide care for the elderly, the disabled, and poor children; and we will meet these responsibilities. For all other Americans, private insurance is the best way to meet their needs. And this week, I proposed two new initiatives to help more Americans afford their own insurance.

First, we should establish a standard tax deduction for health insurance that will be like the standard tax deduction for dependents. Families with health insurance will pay no income or payroll taxes on $15,000 of their income. Single Americans with health insurance will pay no income or payroll taxes on $7,500 of their income. With this reform, more than 100 million men, women, and children who are now covered by employer-provided insurance will benefit from lower tax bills. This reform will also level the playing field for those who do not get health insurance from their employers. On Thursday, I met an uninsured mother of two children from Overland Park, Kansas. The restaurant where she works does not offer health insurance, and she cannot afford to buy it on her own. My plan would help put a basic health insurance plan within reach of this mom, and millions of uninsured Americans like her.

Second, we must help states that are developing innovative ways to cover the uninsured. States that make basic private health insurance available to all their citizens should receive Federal funds to help them provide this coverage to the poor and the sick. I have proposed using existing Federal funds to create "Affordable Choices" grants. These grants would give our Nation's governors more money and flexibility to get basic private health insurance to those most in need.

Over the next few weeks, I will be talking more about my energy and health care proposals. We've set important goals, and now Republicans and Democrats must work together to make them a reality. Together, we can reduce our dependence on oil, improve health care for more of our citizens, and make life better for all our citizens.

Thank you for listening.

END For Immediate Release, Office of the Press Secretary, January 27, 2007

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House radio address or State of the Union Address and health care or Strategic Petroleum Reserve and Health Insurance Program or cellulosic ethanol and alternative fuels or biofuels and PODCAST

Discurso Radial del Presidente a la Nación 01/27/07

forre el audio de la dirección de radio 01/27/07 por completo, transcripción del texto. (nota de los redactores: ninguna lengua española mp3 lanzó esta semana, apesadumbrada) PODCAST Discurso Radial del Presidente.

Suscribir a nuestro canal de Podcast de Odeo o del 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. Esta semana presenté al Congreso mi informe sobre el Estado de nuestra Nación. Les pedí a los miembros de la Cámara de Representantes y del Senado de ambos lados del pasillo que se unieran a mí para enfrentar los grandes desafíos que tenemos por delante - a fin de poder crear un futuro de esperanza y oportunidad para todos los estadounidenses.

Dos desafíos claves que enfrentamos son reducir nuestra dependencia sobre el petróleo - y expandir el acceso al cuidado de la salud asequible. He pedido al Congreso que tome varias medidas vitales para afrontar estos puntos de interés. Y mientras algunos miembros dieron una respuesta partidaria reflexiva, me sentí alentado de que otros acogieron esta oportunidad para extender la mano al otro lado del pasillo. Un senador demócrata dijo que las iniciativas que yo propuse eran "propuestas serias" y les instó a sus colegas demócratas que "respondieran de forma constructiva". Otro senador demócrata se comprometió a trabajar hacia estas metas "a través de serios esfuerzos bipartitas". Este es un buen comienzo - y espero trabajar con Republicanos y Demócratas en el Congreso para reformar nuestro sistema de cuidado de la salud y aumentar la seguridad energética.

La dependencia de nuestra Nación sobre el petróleo nos deja vulnerable a regímenes hostiles y a terroristas - que pueden perjudicar a nuestra economía al interrumpir nuestro abastecimiento de petróleo. Para proteger a Estados Unidos contra interrupciones en la oferta, he pedido al Congreso que doble la capacidad actual de la Reserva Estratégica de Petróleo. También debemos diversificar la oferta de petróleo de nuestra Nación - y la manera de hacerlo es a través de la tecnología. El miércoles, visité la Estación Experimental DuPont en Wilmington, Delaware donde investigadores están desarrollando nuevos métodos para producir etanol celulósico y otros biocombustibles avanzados usando todo desde hierbas a tallos de maíz hasta desperdicios agrícolas. Al ampliar nuestro uso de combustibles renovables y alternativos como etanol, podemos llegar a ser menos dependientes sobre el petróleo - y enfrentar el grave desafío del cambio climatológico.

Para aumentar la oferta de combustibles alternativos, he pedido al Congreso que se una a mí en fijar una norma obligatoria para combustibles que exija 35 mil millones de galones de combustibles renovables y alternativos en el 2017 - casi cinco veces la meta actual. Al mismo tiempo, necesitamos reformar y modernizar las normas obligatorias de economía de combustible para automóviles como lo hicimos para camiones ligeros - y conservar hasta 8.5 mil millones de galones más de gasolina para el 2017. Tomando estas medidas podemos lograr un gran objetivo: reducir el uso de gasolina en un veinte por ciento a lo largo de los próximos diez años, y disminuir nuestras importaciones de petróleo en el equivalente del setenta y cinco por ciento de todo el petróleo que actualmente importamos del Medio Oriente.

También debemos trabajar juntos para asegurar que los estadounidenses tengan cuidado de la salud asequible y económico. El gobierno tiene la obligación de ofrecer cuidado para las personas de edad avanzada, los incapacitados y los niños pobres - y cumpliremos con esas responsabilidades. Para todos los demás estadounidenses, el seguro privado es la mejor manera de satisfacer sus necesidades. Y esta semana propuse dos iniciativas nuevas para ayudar a que más estadounidenses puedan pagar por su propio seguro.

Primero, debemos establecer una deducción tributaria estándar para el seguro de salud que sería como la deducción tributaria estándar por dependientes. Familias con seguro de salud no pagarían impuestos sobre los ingresos o por nómina sobre 15,000 dólares de sus ingresos. Los estadounidenses solteros con seguro de salud no pagarían impuestos sobre los ingresos o por nómina sobre 7,500 dólares de sus ingresos. Con esta reforma, más de 100 millones de hombres, mujeres y niños que actualmente están cubiertos por seguro ofrecido por sus empleadores se beneficiarían de facturas de impuestos más bajas. Esta reforma también igualaría las condiciones para aquellos que no reciben seguro de salud de sus empleadores. El jueves conocí a una madre de dos niños de Overland Park, Kansas que no tiene seguro. El restaurante donde ella trabaja no ofrece seguro de salud - y ella no tiene cómo comprarlo por su cuenta. Mi plan pondría un plan básico de seguro de salud al alcance de esta mamá, y de millones de estadounidenses sin seguro como ella.

Segundo, debemos ayudar a los estados que están desarrollando formas innovadoras de cubrir a los que no tienen seguro. Los estados que ponen a disposición de todos sus ciudadanos un seguro básico de salud privado deberían recibir fondos federales para ayudarlos a ofrecer esta cobertura a los pobres y a los enfermos. Yo he propuesto utilizar fondos federales existentes para crear subvenciones para "Opciones Económicas". Estas subvenciones darían a los gobernadores de nuestra nación más dinero y flexibilidad que necesitan para hacer llegar el seguro básico de salud privado a aquellos que más lo necesitan.

En las próximas semanas, estaré hablando más de mis propuestas sobre energía y cuidado de la salud. Hemos fijado metas importante - y ahora los Republicanos y los Demócratas deben colaborar para hacerlas realidad. Juntos podemos reducir nuestra dependencia sobre el petróleo, mejorar el cuidado de la salud para un mayor número de nuestros ciudadanos y mejorar la vida para todos nuestros ciudadanos.

Gracias por escuchar.

### Para su publicación inmediata, Oficina del Secretario de Prensa, 27 de enero de 2007

Etiquetas De Technorati: Discurso Radial del Presidente a la Nación, y Presidente Bush, o Estado de la dirección de la unión y Reserva estratégica del petróleo, o etanol celulósico, o biofuels y combustibles alternativos o seguro médico

Robert Gates Pentagon Briefing VIDEO

Gates Expresses Support for Casey, Fallon, By Sgt. Sara Wood, USA. American Forces Press Service. FULL STREAMING VIDEO, High Resolution Image

Biographies: PODCAST FOR THIS ARTICLE.

• Robert M. Gates
• Adm. William J. Fallon, USN
• Gen. George W. Casey Jr., USA

WASHINGTON, Jan. 26, 2007 – Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr. and Navy Adm. William J. Fallon, both of whom are nominated for key leadership positions, are supremely qualified professionals who should be confirmed by the Senate, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said here today.

Fallon, who is nominated to take over U.S. Central Command, faces his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Jan. 30; Casey, who is nominated to be Army chief of staff, has his hearing Feb. 1.

Speaking today at a media roundtable at the Pentagon, Gates expressed support for both officers. Casey, he noted, has given more than 35 years of service to the nation and spent 30 months in Baghdad as the commander of Multinational Force Iraq.

As commander in Iraq, Casey adjusted to changing circumstances on the ground, Gates said. After the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra in February 2006, Casey adjusted tactics to deal with the rise in sectarian violence and changed force levels as needed, he said.

“He was the first choice of the professional military and the secretary of the Army for this position,” Gates said. “He served as the vice chief of staff of the Army. So I think he’s eminently qualified. I think he’s rendered good service. I think he deserves this position.”

Fallon is described as one of the best strategic thinkers in the military, Gates said. His experience in U.S. Pacific Command has given him diplomatic skills that will come in handy in the Middle East, and Central Command could benefit from the perspective of a Navy officer, Gates said.

“As you look at the range of options available to the United States, the use of naval and air power, potentially, it made sense to me for all those reasons for Admiral Fallon to have the job,” he said.

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House or Dr. Robert M. Gates and Secretary of Defense or U.S. Central Command and CENTCOM or Pentagon and Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr or video and Navy Adm. William J. Fallon

President, General David Petraeus Confirmation, VIDEO

President Bush Congratulates General Petraeus on Senate Confirmation, Discusses Way Forward in Iraq, FULL STREAMING VIDEO, The Oval Office, 10:20 A.M. EDT. In Focus: Renewal in Iraq and In Focus: Defense, 10:20 A.M. EDT. Senate Committee, Iraq Commander (Lieutenant General David H. Petraeus) Nomination Hearing, Armed Services, Carl Levin , D-MI, David H. Petraeus , U.S. Army. Running time is 4:00:23. Full biography and photo. PODCAST FOR THIS ARTICLE.

THE PRESIDENT: I just had a full briefing with General David Petraeus about the way forward in Iraq. I want to thank the Secretary, and General Pace, National Security Advisor, for joining this discussion. Congratulations.

GENERAL PETRAEUS: Thank you, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: The Senate confirmed this good man without a dissenting vote. I appreciate the quick action of the United States Senate. I appreciate them giving General David Petraeus a fair hearing, and I appreciate the vote. My instructions to the General is, get over to the zone as quickly as possible and implement a plan that we believe will yield our goals.

I thank the General and his family. I particularly want to thank your family for supporting you and supporting our nation. One of the amazing things about our country is that we've got military folks who volunteer to go into a tough zone to protect the American people from future harm, and they've got families who stand by them. Whether you be a general or a private in the military, there is a U.S. -- there's a family member saying, I love you and I support you.

And so, General, I congratulate you and I congratulate the volunteers and their families for making the hard decisions necessary to protect its people from a grave danger. And you're going into an important battle in this war on terror, and I give you my full support, and wish you Godspeed.

GENERAL PETRAEUS: Thank you, Mr. President. If I could thank the Senate, as well, thank my family, and above all thank those great soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and civilians who are out there on the front lines of the global war on terror.

THE PRESIDENT: All right. I'll answer a couple of questions. Jennifer.

Q Thank you, sir. The other night in your State of the Union address, you asked Congress to give your plan a chance. But lawmakers, Democrats and Republicans, didn't really miss a step in starting to turn out resolutions against that plan. Why do you think it's okay to go ahead without their support?

THE PRESIDENT: One of the things I've found in Congress is that most people recognize that failure would be a disaster for the United States. And in that I'm the decision maker, I had to come up with a way forward that precluded disaster. In other words, I had to think about what's likely to work.

And so I worked with our military and I worked with Secretary Gates to come up with a plan that is likely to succeed. And the implementor of that plan is going to be General Petraeus. And my call to the Congress is, is that I know there is skepticism and pessimism, and that they are -- some are condemning a plan before it's even had a chance to work. And they have an obligation and a serious responsibility, therefore, to put up their own plan as to what would work.

I've listened a lot to members of Congress. I've listened carefully to their suggestions. I have picked the plan that I think is most likely to succeed, because I understand, like many in Congress understand, success is very important for the security of the country.

Let's see -- Steven.

Q This policy of going after the Iranians inside Iraq, are you concerned that that could be a provocative act in the region?

THE PRESIDENT: I made it very clear, as did the Secretary, that our policy is going to be to protect our troops in Iraq. It makes sense that if somebody is trying to harm our troops, or stop us from achieving our goal, or killing innocent citizens in Iraq, that we will stop them. That's an obligation we all have, is to protect our folks and achieve our goal.

Now some are trying to say that because we're enforcing -- helping ourselves in Iraq by stopping outside influence from killing our soldiers or hurting Iraqi people that we want to expand this beyond the borders -- that's a presumption that simply is not accurate. We believe that we can solve our problems with Iran diplomatically, and are working to do that. As a matter of fact, we're making pretty good progress on that front. As you know, the Iranians, for example, think they want to have a nuclear weapon. And we've convinced other nations to join us to send a clear message, through the United Nations, that that's unacceptable behavior.

And so, yes, we're going to continue to protect ourselves in Iraq, and at the same time, work to solve our problems with Iran diplomatically. And I believe we can succeed. The choice is the Iranian government's choice. And one of the things that the Iranian government has done, is they've begun to isolate their nation to the harm of the Iranian people. And the Iranian people are proud people, and they've got a great history and a great tradition.

Our struggle is not with the Iranian people. As a matter of fact, we want them to flourish, and we want their economy to be strong. And we want their mothers to be able to raise their children in a hopeful society. My problem is with a government that takes actions that end up isolating their people and ends up denying the Iranian people their true place in the world. And so we'll work diplomatically, and I believe we can solve our problems peacefully.

Thank you all very much.

END 10:26 A.M. EST

For Immediate Release, Office of the Press Secretary, January 26, 2007

Technorati Tags: Lieutenant General David H. Petraeus and U.S. Army Combined Arms Center or U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command and Fort Leavenworth, or International Security Force Assistance and United States Military Academy