Wednesday, February 14, 2007

Press Conference by the President 02/14/07 VIDEO

Press Conference by the President 02/14/07, FULL STREAMING VIDEO, The East Room, 11:01 A.M. EST.

President George W. Bush smiles as he responds to a writer's question Wednesday, Feb. 14, 2007, during a press conference in the East Room of the White House. The President covered many topics including international issues and bipartisan opportunities. White House photo by Eric Draper.THE PRESIDENT: Thanks for coming in on an icy day. I have just finished a conversation with General David Petraeus. He gave me his first briefing from Iraq. He talked about the Baghdad security plan.
It's the plan that I described to the nation last January, and it's a plan that's beginning to take shape. General Petraeus and General Odierno talked about how the fact that the Iraqi government is following through on its commitment to deploy three additional army brigades, Iraqi army brigades in the capital. We talked about where those troops are being deployed, the position of U.S. troops with them, as well as the embeds with the Iraqi troops, and we talked about the plan.

He also talked about the new Iraqi commander. The commander who Prime Minister Maliki picked to operate the Baghdad security plan is in place; they're setting up a headquarters and they're in the process of being in a position to be able to coordinate all forces. In other words, there's still some work to be done there to get the command and control center up and running in Baghdad.

We talked about the fact that our coalition troops that are heading into Baghdad will be arriving on time. In other words, I'm paying attention to the schedule of troop deployments to make sure that they're there, so that General Petraeus will have the troops to do the job -- the number of troops to do the job that we've asked him to do.

We talked about the coordination between Iraqi and coalition forces. And I would characterize their assessment as the coordination is good. In other words, there's good conversation, constant conversation between the commanders of our troops and their troops, and that's a positive development.

The operation to secure Baghdad is going to take time, and there will be violence. We saw on our TV screens the terrorists will send car bombs into crowded markets. In other words, these are people that will kill innocent men, women and children to achieve their objective, which is to discourage the Iraqi people, to foment sectarian violence and to, frankly, discourage us from helping this government do its job.

Yesterday there was a suicide bomber. In other words, there's an active strategy to undermine the Maliki government and its Baghdad security plan. And our generals understand that, they know that they're all aimed at, frankly, causing people here in America to say it's not worth it. And I can understand why people are concerned when they turn on the TV screens and see this violence. It's disturbing to people, and it's disturbing to the Iraqi people. But it reminds me of how important it is for us to help them succeed. If you think the violence is bad now, imagine what it would look like if we don't help them secure the city, the capital city of Baghdad.

I fully recognize we're not going to be able to stop all suicide bombers. I know that. But we can help secure that capital; help the Iraqis secure that capital so that people have a sense of normalcy -- in other words, that they're able to get a better sense that this government of theirs will provide security. People want to live in peace; they want to grow up in a peaceful environment. And the decision I made is going to help the Iraqi government do that.

When General Petraeus' nomination was considered three weeks ago, the United States Senate voted unanimously to confirm him, and I appreciated that vote by the senators. And now members of the House of Representatives are debating a resolution that would express disapproval of the plan that General Petraeus is carrying out. You know, in recent months, I've discussed our strategy in Iraq with members of Congress from both political parties. Many have told me that they're dissatisfied with the situation in Iraq. I told them I was dissatisfied with the situation in Iraq. And that's why I ordered a comprehensive review of our strategy.

I've listened to a lot of voices; people in my administration heard a lot of voices. We weighed every option. I concluded that to step back from the fight in Baghdad would have disastrous consequences for people in America. That's the conclusion I came to. It's the conclusion members of my staff came to. It's the conclusion that a lot in the military came to.

And the reason why I say "disastrous consequences," the Iraqi government could collapse, chaos would spread, there would be a vacuum, into the vacuum would flow more extremists, more radicals, people who have stated intent to hurt our people. I believe that success in Baghdad will have success in helping us secure the homeland.

What's different about this conflict than some others is that if we fail there, the enemy will follow us here. I firmly believe that. And that's one of the main reasons why I made the decision I made. And so we will help this Iraqi government succeed. And the first step for success is to do something about the sectarian violence in Baghdad so they can have breathing space in order to do the political work necessary to assure the different factions in Baghdad, factions that are recovering from years of tyranny, that there is a hopeful future for them and their families. I would call that political breathing space.

And by providing this political breathing space, in other words, giving the Maliki government a chance to reconcile and do the work necessary to achieve reconciliation, it'll hasten the day in which we can change our force posture in Iraq. A successful strategy obviously -- a successful security strategy in Bagdad requires more than just military action. I mean, people have to see tangible results in their lives. They have to see something better. They not only have to feel secure where they live, but they've got to see positive things taking place.

The other day, the Iraqi government passed a $41 billion budget, $10 billion of which is for reconstruction and capital investment. There's a lot of talk in Washington about benchmarks. I agree -- "benchmarks" meaning that the Iraqi government said they're going to do this; for example, have an oil law as a benchmark. But one of the benchmarks they laid out, besides committing troops to the Iraqi security plan, was that they'll pass a budget in which there's $10 billion of their own money available for reconstruction and help. And they met the benchmark. And now, obviously, it's important they spend the money wisely.

They're in the process of finalizing a law that will allow for the sharing of all revenues among Iraq's peoples. In my talks with members of Congress, some have agreed with what I'm doing, many who didn't -- they all, though, believe it's important for the Iraqi government to set benchmarks and achieve those benchmarks. And one benchmark we've all discussed was making it clear to the Iraqi people that they have a stake in the future of their country by having a stake in the oil revenues. And so the government is in the process of getting an oil revenue law that will help unify the country.

The Iraqi government is making progress on reforms that will allow more of its citizens to reenter political life. Obviously, I'm paying close attention to whether or not the government is meeting these benchmarks, and will continue to remind Prime Minister Maliki that he must do so.

We've given our civilians and commanders greater flexibility to fund our economic assistance money. Part of the strategy in Baghdad is to clear, and then to hold, and then to build. We've been pretty good about clearing in the past; we haven't been good about holding -- "we" being the Iraqis and coalition forces. So we spent time today talking to General Petraeus about the need, his need and his understanding of the need to hold neighborhoods so that the people, themselves, in the capital city feel more secure.

But also part of the strategy is to make sure that we build. So we're giving our commanders flexibility with reconstruction money that they have at their disposal. We're also sending more PRTs, provincial reconstruction teams, into Iraq, trying to speed up their arrival into Iraq so that the Iraqi people see tangible benefits from the government that they elected under one of the most progressive constitutions in the Middle East.

Later this week the House of Representatives will vote on a resolution that opposes our new plan in Iraq -- before it has a chance to work. People are prejudging the outcome of this. They have every right to express their opinion, and it is a non-binding resolution. Soon Congress is going to be able to vote on a piece of legislation that is binding, a bill providing emergency funding for our troops. Our troops are counting on their elected leaders in Washington, D.C. to provide them with the support they need to do their mission. We have a responsibility, all of us here in Washington, to make sure that our men and women in uniform have the resources and the flexibility they need to prevail.

Before I'm going to take some questions, I'd like to comment about one other diplomatic development, and that took place in the Far East. At the six-party talks in Beijing, North Korea agreed to specific actions that will bring us closer to a Korea Peninsula that is free of nuclear weapons. Specifically, North Korea agreed that within 60 days it will shut down and seal all operations at the primary nuclear facilities it has used to produce weapons-grade plutonium. It has agreed to allow international inspectors to verify and monitor this progress. It is committed to disclosing all of its nuclear programs as an initial step toward abandoning these programs.

In exchange, five other parties at the table -- that would be China, Russia, Japan, South Korea and the United States -- have got commitments. We will meet those commitments as this agreement is honored. Those commitments include economic, humanitarian and energy assistance to the people of North Korea.

This is a unique deal. First of all, unlike any other agreement, it brings together all of North Korea's neighbors in the region, as well as the United States. The agreement is backed by a United Nations Security Council resolution. That resolution came about -- the sanctions came about as a result of the resolution because of a unanimous vote in the Security Council.

This is good progress. It is a good first step. There's a lot of work to be done to make sure that the commitments made in this agreement become reality, but I believe it's an important step in the right direction.

And with that, I'll be glad to take your questions, starting with you, Terry.

Q Mr. President, on Russia. Is the Vladimir Putin who said the United States is undermining global security and provoking a new arms race the same Vladimir Putin whose soul you looked into and found to be trustworthy? Has he changed? Are U.S.-Russian relations deteriorating?

THE PRESIDENT: I think the person who I was referring to in 2001 is the same strong-willed person. He is a person with whom I have had agreements and disagreements throughout the course of my presidency and his. We've disagreed on the utility of NATO. I've tried to convince Vladimir that NATO is positive. It's a positive influence, that democracies on your border are good things to have. The democracies tend not to fight each other. And I firmly believe NATO is a stabilizing influence for the good, and that helps Russia. Evidently he disagrees with that assessment; part of his speech was expressing concerns about NATO.

There's a lot we can work together on, and that's what's important for American people to understand. We know that we've got common goals that make sense for both our peoples. Two such goals are Iran, convincing the Iranians to get rid of its nuclear weapons. And Russia's leadership on this issue is very important to getting a Chapter 7 Resolution out of the United Nations. And by the way, they were constructive in terms of the resolution I just described about North Korea. In other words, where we have common interests, and we work together on those common interests, we can accomplish important things for the security of our own people, as well as the security of the world.

And, secondly, Russia and the United States work very closely on proliferation concerns. We're both concerned about the proliferation of technologies that could end up hurting our people and other people in the world.

So there's -- it's a complicated relationship. It's a relationship in which there are disagreements, but there's also a relationship in which we can find common ground to solve problems. And that's the spirit -- that's the spirit I'll continue to work with Vladimir Putin on.

Steve.

Q Thank you, sir. General Pace says that these bombs found in Iraq do not, by themselves, implicate Iran. What makes you so certain that the highest levels of Tehran's government is responsible?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes --

Q And how can you retaliate against Iran without risking a war?

THE PRESIDENT: What we do know is that the Quds force was instrumental in providing these deadly IEDs to networks inside of Iraq. We know that. And we also know that the Quds force is a part of the Iranian government. That's a known. What we don't know is whether or not the head leaders of Iran ordered the Quds force to do what they did.

But here's my point: Either they knew or didn't know, and what matters is, is that they're there. What's worse, that the government knew or that the government didn't know? But the point I made in my initial speech in the White House about Iraq was, is that we know they're there and we're going to protect our troops. When we find the networks that are enabling these weapons to end up in Iraq, we will deal with them. If we find agents who are moving these devices into Iraq, we will deal with them. I have put out the command to our troops -- I mean, to the people who are commanders, that we'll protect the soldiers of the United States and innocent people in Iraq and will continue doing so.

Now, let me step back on Iran, itself. We have a comprehensive strategy to deal with Iraq [sic]. There's a variety of issues that we have with Iraq [sic]. One, of course, is influence inside of Iraq. Another is whether or not they end up with a nuclear weapon. And I believe an Iran with a nuclear weapon would be very dangerous for world peace, and have worked with other nations of like mind. And it turns out there's a lot of countries in the world that agree with that assessment. After all, we did get a Chapter 7 Resolution out of the United Nations that included EU3, as well as Russia and China. That's a positive development.

The message to the Iranian people is that your leaders are making decisions that are isolating you in the world, thereby denying you a brighter future. And I believe Iran is an unbelievably vital nation. It's got a great history, it's got wonderful traditions, it's got very capable, smart people. There is -- I believe there's also a desire to not be isolated from the world. And our policies are all aimed at convincing the Iranian people there's a better way forward, and I hope their government hears that message.

Anyway, that's a long answer to a short question, and now you're trying to get to me to -- Gregory. Excuse me, David. David.

Q Thank you, sir. I'd like to follow on Iran. Critics say that you are using the same quality of intelligence about Iran that you used to make the case for war in Iraq, specifically about WMD that turned out to be wrong, and that you are doing that to make a case for war against Iran. Is that the case?

THE PRESIDENT: I can say with certainty that the Quds force, a part of the Iranian government, has provided these sophisticated IEDs that have harmed our troops. And I'd like to repeat, I do not know whether or not the Quds force was ordered from the top echelons of government. But my point is what's worse -- them ordering it and it happening, or them not ordering it and it happening? And so we will continue to protect our troops.

David, our strategy is comprehensive in order to resolve problems that will affect our own peace and the peace in the world. And the biggest problem I see is the Iranians' desire to have a nuclear weapon. As you know, we've been dealing with this issue ever since you've been covering me, and pretty much ever since I've been the President. And we've made it very clear to the Iranians that if they would like to have a dialogue with the United States, there needs to be a verifiable suspension of their program. I would hope that they would do that. I would like to be at the -- have been given a chance for us to explain that we have no desire to harm the Iranian people.

But my focus is on making sure that this weapon is dealt with, the program is dealt with in a constructive, peaceful way. And we'll continue to work toward achieving our common objective with other nations in the world in a peaceful way.

Sheryl.

Q -- using faulty intelligence to provoke Iran?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I heard your question, and I told you, I was confident that the Quds force, a part of the Iranian government, was providing weaponry into Iraq. And to say it is provoking Iran is just a wrong way to characterize the Commander-in-Chief's decision to do what is necessary to protect our soldiers in harm's way. And I will continue to do so.

Bret.

Q Mr. President, on the North Korea deal, the former U.N. Ambassador, John Bolton, yesterday said, "It's a bad, disappointing deal, and the best thing you can say about it is that it will probably fall apart." This is from a man you repeatedly praised for his judgment and leadership at the United Nations. His main criticism is that the financial pressure led North Korea back to the table, and now it's being released. How do you respond to that?

THE PRESIDENT: I strongly disagree -- strongly disagree with his assessment. I have told the American people, like the Iranian issue, I wanted to solve the North Korean issue peacefully, and that the President has an obligation to try all diplomatic means necessary to do so. I changed the dynamic on the North Korean issue by convincing other people to be at the table with us, on the theory that the best diplomacy is diplomacy in which there is more than one voice -- that has got an equity in the issue -- speaking.

And so we had a breakthrough as a result of other voices in the United States saying to the North Koreans, we don't support your nuclear weapons program and we urge you to get rid of it in a verifiable way. Perhaps the most significant voice that had been added to the table was China. But the South Korean voice was vital, as was the Japanese and Russian voices, as well. So the assessment made by some that this is not a good deal is just flat wrong.

Now those who say the North Koreans have got to prove themselves by actually following through on the deal are right. And I'm one. This is a good first step. It will be a great deal for the North Korean people if their government follows through with the agreement, which, by the way, started in September of 2005. The agreement that we announced the other day was a continuation of the initial agreement in September of 2005. And for those who say that, well, this is an interesting moment and now it's up to the North Koreans to do that which they say they will do, I couldn't agree more with you.

And the first phase is to shut down and seal their facility, their main weapons manufacturing facility, and then disclose their programs. And for that, they'll receive some help from the South Koreans -- the equivalent of 50,000 tons of fuel.

And the second phase is to disable and abandon their facilities. In other words, this is a phased approach that will enable all of us to say to our respective populations we're watching carefully, and that there's an opportunity for the North Koreans to prove that this program can work.

If they do the second phase, there is a -- there will be about the equivalent of a million tons, minus the 50,000 tons, available food, economic assistance and fuel. I am particularly interested in helping get food to the North Korean people. Now, that's not going to happen until there's some verifiable measures that have been taken.

The financial measures that you're speaking about are really a separate item, because it has everything to do with -- it's a banking issue that our Treasury Department is analyzing to determine whether or not funds were illicitly moved through the bank.

Let's see, yes, sir.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. I want to follow up on Iran one more time. You saying today that you do not know if senior members of the Iranian government are, in fact, behind these explosives -- that contradicts what U.S. officials said in Baghdad on Sunday. They said the highest levels of the Iranian government were behind this. It also -- it seems to square with what General Pace has been saying, but contradicts with what your own press secretary said yesterday.

THE PRESIDENT: Can I -- let me -- I can't say it more plainly: there are weapons in Iraq that are harming U.S. troops because of the Quds force. And as you know, I hope, that the Quds force is a part of the Iranian government. Whether Ahmadinejad ordered the Quds force to do this, I don't think we know. But we do know that they're there, and I intend to do something about it. And I've asked our commanders to do something about it. And we're going to protect our troops.

Q But given some of contradictions, Mr. President --

THE PRESIDENT: There's no contradiction that the weapons are there and they were provided by the Quds force, Ed.

Q What assurances can you give the American people that the intelligence this time will be accurate?

THE PRESIDENT: Ed, we know they're there, we know they're provided by the Quds force. We know the Quds force is a part of the Iranian government. I don't think we know who picked up the phone and said to the Quds force, go do this, but we know it's a vital part of the Iranian government.

What matters is, is that we're responding. The idea that somehow we're manufacturing the idea that the Iranians are providing IEDs is preposterous, Ed. My job is to protect our troops. And when we find devices that are in that country that are hurting our troops, we're going to do something about it, pure and simple.

Now David says, does this mean you're trying to have a pretext for war? No. It means I'm trying to protect our troops. That's what that means. And that's what the family members of our soldiers expect the Commander-in-Chief and those responsible for -- responsible for our troops on the ground. And we'll continue do so.

Yes, ma'am. You're not a "ma'am." Martha.

Q Mr. President, do you agree with the National Intelligence Estimate that we are now in a civil war in Iraq? And, also, you talk about victory, that you have to have victory in Iraq; it would be catastrophic if we didn't. You said again today that the enemy would come here, and yet you say it's not an open-ended commitment. How do you square those things?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, victory in Iraq is not going to be like victory in World War II. It's one of the challenges I have to explain to the American people what Iraq will look like in a situation that will enable us to say we have accomplished our mission.

First, the -- Iraq will be a society in which there is relative peace. I say "relative peace" because if it's like zero car bombings, it never will happen that way. It's like -- the fundamental question is, can we help this government have the security force level necessary to make sure that the ethnic cleansing that was taking place in certain neighborhoods has stopped.

Look, there's criminality in Iraq, as well as the ethnic violence. And we've got to help the Iraqis have a police force that deals with criminals. There is an al Qaeda presence in Iraq, as you know. I believe some of the spectacular bombings have been caused by al Qaeda. As a matter of fact, Zarqawi -- the terrorist Zarqawi, who is not an Iraqi, made it very clear that he intended to use violence to spur sectarian -- car bombings and spectacular violence to spur sectarian violence. And he did a good job of it.

And so there -- and then there's this disaffected Sunnis, people who believe that they should still be in power in spite of the fact that the Shia are the majority of the country, and they're willing to use violence to try to create enough chaos so they get back in power.

The reason I described that is that no matter what you call it, it's a complex situation, and it needed to be dealt with inside of Iraq. We've got people who say civil war, we've got people on the ground who don't believe it's a civil war. But nevertheless, it is -- it was dangerous enough that I had to make a decision to try to stop it, so that a government that is bound by a constitution, where the country feels relatively secure as a result of a security force that is even-handed in its application of security; a place where the vast resources of the country -- this is a relatively wealthy country, in that they've got a lot of hydrocarbons -- is shared equally amongst people; that there is a federalism that evolves under the Constitution where the local provinces have got authority, as well; and where people who may have made a political decision in the past and yet weren't criminals can participate in the life of the country; and is an ally in the war on terror. In other words, that there is a bulwark for moderation, as opposed to a safe haven for extremism. And that's what I would view as successful.

Q Do you believe it's a civil war, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: I can only tell you what people on the ground, whose judgment -- it's hard for me, living in this beautiful White House, to give you an assessment, firsthand assessment. I haven't been there; you have, I haven't. But I do talk to people who are and people whose judgment I trust, and they would not qualify it as that. There are others who think it is. It is, however, a dangerous situation, thereby requiring action on my part.

Listen, I considered several options -- one, doing nothing, and that if you don't believe the situation was acceptable, then you should do something. And I didn't believe the situation was acceptable. Secondly, I could have listened to the advice of some and pulled back and hoped for the best. I felt that would be extraordinarily dangerous for this young democracy, that the violence in Baghdad could escalate mightily and then spill out across the country, creating chaos, vacuums into which extremism would flow; or make the decision I made, which is to reinforce the troops that were on the ground, to help this Iraqi government and security force do what they're supposed to do.

Sir. You dropped?

Q Bad hands. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: You know, you got the Blackberry and everything there.

Q I'd like to ask you about troop morale.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q As you know, a growing number of troops are on their second, third or fourth tour in Iraq. There have been a growing number of reports about declining morale among fighting men. I spoke personally to an infantry commander -- tough guy, patriot -- who says more and more of the troops are asking, questioning what they're doing here. Does this come as a surprise to you? Are you aware of this? Is it a minority opinion, is it a growing opinion, and does it concern you?

THE PRESIDENT: I am -- what I hear from commanders is that the place where there is concern is with the family members; that our troops, who have volunteered to serve the country, are willing to go into combat multiple times, but that the concern is with the people on the home front. And I can understand that. And I -- and that's one reason I go out of my way to constantly thank the family members. You know, I'm asking -- you're obviously talking to certain people, or a person. I'm talking to our commanders. Their job is to tell me what -- the situation on the ground. And I have -- I know there's concern about the home front. I haven't heard deep concern about the morale of the troops in Iraq.

Q -- tell you?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, they'd tell me that. Sure, absolutely. Just like they told me that they thought they needed extra troops to do the job. Sure.

Listen, I want our troops out of there as quickly as possible. But I also want to make sure that we get the job done. And I made the decision I made in order to do so.

Jim.

Q You spoke positively about the role of diplomacy in North Korea, and you obviously gave it a long time to work. Where does diplomacy fit in, in terms of Iran, and do we have any leverage if we try diplomacy there?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I guess you could call getting the EU3, China and Russia on the same page on a Chapter 7 Resolution successful diplomacy. I thought that was diplomacy. And it took a long time to get there. I mean, we're working hard to send a concerted message to the Iranians -- a focused, unified message that the world believes you should not have a nuclear program. And so this is a multilateral approach to try to get the government to alter its course on a nuclear weapons program.

I can't think of any more robust diplomacy than to have more than one party at the table talking to the Iranians. And we did so through the United Nations in this case. If they want us at the table, we're more than willing to come, but there must be a verifiable suspension of this weapons program that is causing such grave concern.

We'll continue to work with other nations. Matter of fact, I believe that it is easier for the United States to achieve certain diplomatic objectives when we work with other nations, which is precisely why we adopted the strategy we did in dealing with the Iranians.

Sheryl.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, it seems pretty clear where this Iraq vote in the House is headed. Your press secretary has said repeatedly that members of Congress ought to watch what they say and be concerned about the message that they're sending to our enemy. I'm wondering, do you believe that a vote of disapproval of your policy emboldens the enemy? Does it undermine your ability to carry out your policies there? And, also, what are you doing to persuade the Democratic leadership in Congress not to restrict your ability to spend money in Iraq?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, thanks. A couple of points. One, that I understand the Congress is going to express their opinion, and it's very clear where the Democrats are, and some Republicans; I know that. They didn't like the decision I made. And by the way, that doesn't mean that I think that they're not good, honorable citizens of the country. I just have a different opinion. I considered some of their opinions and felt like it would not lead to a country that could govern itself, sustain itself, and be an ally in the war on terror. One.

Secondly, my hope, however, is that this non-binding resolution doesn't try to turn into a binding policy that prevents our troops from doing that which I have asked them to do. That's why I keep reminding people, on the one hand you vote for David Petraeus in a unanimous way, and then the other hand you say that you're not going to fund the strategy that he thought was necessary to do his job, a strategy he testified to in front of the Senate. I'm going to make it very clear to the members of Congress, starting now, that they need to fund our troops and they need to make sure we have the flexibility necessary to get the job done.

Secondly, I find it interesting that there is a declaration about a plan that they have not given a chance to work. Again, I understand, I understand. The other part of your question?

Q It emboldens --

THE PRESIDENT: The only thing I can tell you is that when I speak, I'm very conscience [sic] about the audiences that are listening to my words. The first audience, obviously, is the American people. The second audience would be the troops and their families. That's why I appreciate the question about whether or not -- about the troop morale, it gave me a chance to talk to the families and how proud we are of them.

Third, no question people are watching what happens here in America. The enemy listens to what's happening, the Iraqi people listen to the words, the Iranians. People are wondering; they're wondering about our commitment to this cause. And one reason they wonder is that in a violent society, the people sometimes don't take risks for peace if they're worried about having to choose between different sides, different violent factions. As to whether or not this particular resolution is going to impact enemy thought, I can't tell you that.

But I can tell you that people are watching the debate. I do believe that the decision I made surprised people in the Middle East. And I think it's going to be very important, however, that the Iraqi government understand that this decision was not an open-ended commitment, that we expect Prime Minister Maliki to continue to make the hard decisions he's making.

Unlike some here, I'm a little more tolerant of a person who has been only in government for seven months and hasn't had a lot of -- and by the way, a government that hasn't had a lot of experience with democracy. And on the other hand, it's important for him to know, and I believe he does know, that the American people want to see some action and some positive results. And listen, I share that same desire.

The faster that the Maliki government steps up security in Baghdad, the more quickly we can get to what Baker-Hamilton recommended, and that is embedding and training over the rise in presence, protection of the territorial integrity of Iraq, and a strong hunt for al Qaeda, and terrorists who would try to use that country as safe haven. I thought the Baker-Hamilton made a lot of sense, their recommendations. We just weren't able to get there if the capital was up in flames. That's why I made the decision I made.

Yes, Peter.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Sir, we've now learned through sworn testimony that at least three members of your administration, other than Scooter Libby, leaked Valerie Plame's identity to the media. None of these three is known to be under investigation. Without commenting on the Libby trial, then, can you tell us whether you authorized any of these three to do that, or were they authorized without your permission?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, thanks, Pete. I'm not going to talk about any of it.

Q They're not under investigation, though?

THE PRESIDENT: Peter, I'm not going to talk about any of it.

Q How about pardons, sir? Many people are asking whether you might pardon --

THE PRESIDENT: Not going to talk about it, Peter. (Laughter.) Would you like to think of another question? Being the kind man that I am, I will recycle you. (Laughter.)

John.

Q Thank you --

THE PRESIDENT: You like that one? "Recycling" him. (Laughter.)

Q That took care of one of my questions, as well, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: If that's the case, sit down. Next question. (Laughter.)

Q A lot of our allies in Europe do a lot of business with Iran, so I wonder what your thoughts are about how you further tighten the financial pressure on Iran, in particular, if it also means economic pain for a lot of our allies?

THE PRESIDENT: It's an interesting question. One of the problems -- not specifically on this issue, just in general -- let's put it this way, money trumps peace, sometimes. In other words, commercial interests are very powerful interests throughout the world. And part of the issue in convincing people to put sanctions on a specific country is to convince them that it's in the world's interest that they forgo their own financial interest.

And John, that's why sometimes it's tough to get tough economic sanctions on countries. And I'm not making any comment about any particular country, but you touched on a very interesting point.

And so, therefore, we're constantly working with nations to convince them that what really matters in the long run is to have the environment so peace can flourish. In the Iranian case, I firmly believe that if they were to have a weapon, it would make it difficult for peace to flourish. And, therefore, I'm working with people to make sure that that concern trumps whatever commercial interests may be preventing governments from acting. I make no specific accusation with that statement. It's a broad statement. But it's an accurate assessment of what sometimes can halt multilateral diplomacy from working.

Let's see here. Ann.

Q Thank you. Iraq is not only being debated in Congress, but it's going to be debated in the presidential election that's coming ahead. Is that debate -- is there a chance that that is going to hurt your progress in Iraq? And is it appropriate at some point, perhaps, for the government to brief the presidential candidates so they have a better understanding of what it is you're trying to do?

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you for that question. I thought for a minute you were going to try to get me to comment on the presidential race, and I'd just like to establish some ground rules here with those of you who are stuck following me for the next little less than two years: I will resist all temptation to become the pundit-in-chief and commenting upon every twist and turn of the presidential campaign. As much as I like politics, and I'm intrigued by the race -- it's very similar to how I deftly handled Baker's question -- I won't comment.

Secondly, I remember a member of Congress came to me before one of my speeches -- I think it was the Iraq speech, as opposed to the State of the Union speech, and said, you'd better be eloquent in order to convince the American people to support this plan. He didn't say "articulate," he said, "eloquent." (Laughter.) And my point to the person was, what really matters is what happens on the ground. I can talk all day long, but what really matters to the American people is to see progress -- which leads to your point, Martha -- and that is, progress can best be measured by whether or not the people can see noticeable changes of security inside the capital city. In this case, the Baghdad security plan has got to yield peace in certain mixed neighborhoods, for example.

And so, therefore, to the extent that it affects votes, speeches, perceptions, elections, what really is going to matter is what happens, ultimately. And that's all I really care to comment about it. You know, it's --

Q -- reelection --

THE PRESIDENT: I'm not running. (Laughter.) And I know that's going to disappoint some of you. But, anyway, that's pundit-in-chief type questions, so I'm not going to answer those. You're trying to get me to be pundit-in-chief.

Let's see here. Hutch.

Q Good morning.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, thanks.

Q I'd like to follow on Sheryl's question about undermining the troops. Do you have to support the war to support the war here? I mean, if you're one of those Americans that thinks you've made a terrible mistake, that it's destined to end badly, what do you do? If they speak out, are they by definition undermining the troops?

THE PRESIDENT: No, she actually asked "the enemy," not "the troops." But I'll be glad to answer your question. No, I don't think so at all. I think you can be against my decision and support the troops, absolutely. But the proof will be whether or not you provide them the money necessary to do the mission.

I said early in my comment -- my answer to Sheryl was, somebody who doesn't agree with my policy is just as patriotic a person as I am. Your question is valid. Can somebody say, we disagree with your tactics or strategy, but we support the military -- absolutely, sure. But what's going to be interesting is if they don't provide the flexibility and support for our troops that are there to enforce the strategy that David Petraeus, the general on the ground, thinks is necessary to accomplish the mission.

Michael. Michael, who do you work for? (Laughter.)

Q Mr. President, I work for Politico.com.

THE PRESIDENT: Pardon me? Politico.com?

Q Yes, sir. Today. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: You want a moment to explain to the American people exactly what -- (laughter.)

Q Mr. President, thank you for the question. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: Quit being so evasive.

Q You should read it.

THE PRESIDENT: Is it good? You like it?

Q David Gregory --

THE PRESIDENT: David Gregory likes it. I can see the making of a testimonial. (Laughter.) Anyway, go ahead, please.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. You spoke hopefully about your ability to work with Democrats, their willingness to work with you in this new world. I wonder how that's going so far, what you've learned about how they think, and does the current debate constitute grounds for divorce?

THE PRESIDENT: Interesting way to put it. First of all, I think they're patriotic people who care about our country -- back to Hutch's penetrating comment, or question. I do. I was very appreciative of the reception I got at the State of the Union. It was a cordial, respectful reception that gave me the chance to talk about what I believe. I was also very grateful for the reception I received at the Democratic retreat that I went to there in Virginia.

You know, my impression of the meeting there was that we share a lot in common; we're people that actually put filing papers down and ran for office, we were willing to put our families through the grind of politics, we wanted to serve our country, that we care deeply about what takes place in Washington, America and the world.

My hope is, is that we can get positive pieces of legislation passed. I think there's a lot of expectation that the difference of opinion on Iraq would make it impossible for us to work on other areas. I disagree with that assessment. And I hope I'm right, and the best way to determine whether I'm right is will I be able to sign legislation that we have been able to work on.

One such piece of policy is a balanced budget. There seems to be agreement that we should have a balanced budget. I laid out one way forward to achieve that balance. And it shows that we can balance the budget without raising taxes and do so in a five-year horizon. And I'd like to work with the Democrat leadership, as well as, obviously, my Republican folks, to get it done.

Secondly, an interesting opportunity is immigration. As you know, I strongly believe that we need to enforce our borders and that -- and have taken steps to do so. But I also believe that in order to enforce the borders, we need a temporary worker program so that people don't try to sneak in the country to work, that they can come in an orderly fashion, and take the pressure off the Border Patrol agents that we've got out there, so that the Border Patrol agents don't focus on workers that are doing jobs Americans aren't doing, but are focusing on terrorists and criminal elements, gun runners, to keep the country -- both our countries safe -- Mexico and the United States safe.

I also know that we need to deal with the people who are here -- the 12 million people who are here illegally. I have said multiple times that we can't kick them out of our country. It doesn't make any sense to me to try to do that, and I don't think -- maybe some feel that way, but I don't feel that way. But I also don't believe we should give them automatic amnesty -- automatic citizenship, which I view as amnesty. And look forward to working with Democrats and Republicans to have a comprehensive immigration plan.

Energy is an opportunity for us to work together. We've done a lot of work in the past on promoting alterative sources of energy. America has done more than any nation in the world in promoting alternatives and renewables, all aiming to make sure our economy grows, that we have energy independence, and that we're good stewards of the environment. And I look forward to working with the Democrats on the Energy Independence Initiative I laid out.

One such initiative was the mandatory fuel standards that relies upon alternative fuel to power automobiles. Ethanol is the first and most notable place where we can start, but we also need to spend monies to develop technologies that will enable us to make energy out of products other than corn -- switchgrass or wood chips, for example.

The problem with relying only on corn is that -- by the way, when the demand for corn stays high, the price tends to go up, and your hog farmer gets disgruntled with the alternative energy plan. And, therefore, what's going to matter is that new technologies come online as quickly as possible to take the pressure off of corn ethanol, or corn, as a result of being used in ethanol, and we can work with Congress to do that. That's an area we can work.

Health care. I got a letter the other day from a group of Republican and Democrat senators talking about the desire to work on health care. And they liked some of my ideas. But my only point is that there's an opportunity for us to work together to help the uninsured have private insurance so they can be -- so they can get good health care. And there's an opportunity to work together there.

The governors are coming into town soon, and I'm going to have Secretary Leavitt describe to them the affordable grants program that is a part of our comprehensive approach, including rewriting the tax code.

Finally, No Child Left Behind needs to be reauthorized. I fully understand that if you read your newspaper articles -- which I do sometimes -- and listen carefully, you'll hear voices in both parties saying they don't like No Child Left Behind --it's too much testing, or, we don't want to be held to account, or whatever they say. The bill is working. It makes a lot of sense.

There's an income gap in America that I talked about when I went to Wall Street. And what's clear to me is that our kids have got to have education so that in this global economy, the jobs of the 21st century stay here at home. And it starts with good education. And, therefore, I will argue vociferously the No Child Left Behind Act needs to be reauthorized, it's working, it's an important piece of legislation, and will reach out to Democrat members, as well as Republican members, to get this bill reauthorized.

And so there's a lot of areas, Mike. I'd say it's a little early in the process. This is a two-year term. We've got time to work together to get important pieces of legislation done. And I'd like to start. As a matter of fact, this afternoon I've got members of both parties, both chambers coming down to visit about how we can continue to work together to get some legislation done.

As I told the Democrats, and as the Democrats have made clear to me in my visits, that neither of us are going to abandon our principles, that I don't expect them to change their principles and they shouldn't expect me to. But there's ways for us to work together to achieve legislative successes for the common good. That's what the American people want to see, and that's what I believe we can do. Is it going to take work? Yes, it's going to take work. But it's okay, that's why you pay us all this money.

Richard.

Q Thank you, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Last question, then I've got to go have lunch with Bob Gates, Secretary of the Defense.

What are you looking at? Checking the time? For the viewer out there -- you're getting a big -- timekeeper and everything. (Laughter.)

Q I don't mean to interrupt. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: I just thought he was looking at the watch because he was getting bored. I wasn't sure, you know?

Q I'm never bored.

THE PRESIDENT: Remember the debates?

Q Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. (Laughter.)

Q Mr. President, Republican and Democratic Presidents before you sat down for face-to-face talks with the Soviet Union, a nation that was clearly hostile, tyrannical, and had a huge nuclear arsenal. Why do you think that face-to-face talks between yourself and the leadership of Iran would be any more compromising for you?

THE PRESIDENT: Richard, if I thought we could achieve success, I would sit down. But I don't think we can achieve success right now. And, therefore, we'll want to work with other nations. I think that we're more likely to achieve our goals when others are involved, as well. I really don't want to put the situation -- let me put it this way: I want to make sure in the Iranian issue that the whole world stays engaged, because I believe that's a more effective way of convincing the Iranians to give up their nuclear weapons ambitions. That's why.

Look, this is a world in which -- and I'm not suggesting you're this way -- but this is a world in which people say, meet -- sit down and meet. And my answer is, if it yields results; that's what I'm interested in. And so I believe the strategy that -- and by the way, I remember this during the North Korean issue, debate. People kept saying, well, all you've got to do is sit down with the guy. And I kept saying, well, I think it's going to be more effective if we have other people at the table with us saying the same thing, so that just in case he decides not to honor the agreement, there will be other people saying the same thing I'll say, which is, you said one thing, you did another. It will make it easier for us to send that message that the world is pretty well united in solving this problem peacefully.

And so that's why I made the decision I made. It sounds tempting for somebody to say, all you've got to do is sit down with the people. I'm in a little different position in that I'm trying to achieve certain objectives. And we are making progress on the Iranian issue. If you step back to early on in the process, there was doubt as to whether or not the world would come together, sometimes because of the reason John mentioned. There were conflicting interests. And I believe we are making good progress toward solving this issue peacefully.

And we'll continue to try to solve the issue peacefully. It's an important issue whether or not Iran ends up with nuclear weapons. It's one of these issues that people are going to look back and say, you know, how come they couldn't see the impending danger? What happened to them? You've heard me say that often about what would happen if we don't -- if we were to abandon our efforts in the Middle East for stability and peace, through forms of government that are more likely to defeat an extremist ideology that would like to be able to prevail.

And it's a -- at any rate, that's why I made the decision I made. Presidents have to weigh different options all the time. Look, I fully understand there are some who are -- don't agree with every decision I make. I hope the American people understand I make those decisions because I believe it's going to yield the peace that we all want.

Listen, thank you for your time. I enjoyed it very much.

END 12:00 P.M. EST. For Immediate Release, Office of the Press Secretary, February 14, 2007

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

President Meets with President Johnson-Sirleaf of Liberia VIDEO

President Bush Meets with President Johnson-Sirleaf of Liberia, FULL STREAMING VIDEO, PODCAST OF THIS ARTICLE, Oval Office, 2:18 P.M. EST. In Focus: Global Diplomacy

President George W. Bush greets Liberia's President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf during her visit Wednesday, Feb. 14, 2007, to the White House. President Bush applauded the leader's confidence and deep concern for the people of Liberia, saying, 'I thank you very much for setting such a good example for not only the people of Liberia, but for the people around the world, that new democracies have got the capability of doing the hard work necessary to rout out corruption, to improve the lives of the citizens with infrastructure projects that matter.' White House photo by Shealah Craighead PRESIDENT BUSH: Madam President, thanks for coming. This is the second Oval Office visit I've had with the first democratically elected woman President from Africa.
The first time we met you were wondering whether or not it was possible to achieve your dreams, and you asked for our help. I was impressed by your spirit at the last meeting.

This meeting, there is no doubt in your mind that you can achieve your dreams. And I am impressed by your confidence, but more importantly, your deep concern for the people of Liberia. And so I pledge our ongoing help to you and your government. I thank you very much for setting such a good example for not only the people of Liberia, but for the people around the world, that new democracies have got the capability of doing the hard work necessary to rout out corruption, to improve the lives of the citizens with infrastructure projects that matter. And we want to help you, we really do.

Secretary State Condoleezza Rice and the President worked out an agreement that I hope other nations follow, and that is, we effected debt relief for Liberia. And I call upon other nations that have got debt with this vital country to follow our lead and to give this country a chance to succeed.

Secondly, today we're announcing an initiative where the Treasury Department is providing monies so that the IMF and other international lending institutions will be able to have the confidence in going forward to help relieve obligations of Liberia. And the reason this is important is you want to give this young country a chance to succeed by eliminating some of the interest obligations and burdens, so that there is room to grow.

And so, Madam President, I love your spirit. We spent a lot of time talking about education. If anybody who understands the importance of education, it's the President. She understands that her country has got vast potential, it's got resources -- but the biggest potential of all is the people. And we want to help you. Really glad you came back. I'm thrilled to call you friend.

PRESIDENT JOHNSON-SIRLEAF: Mr. President, I'm just so pleased for this extraordinary opportunity to meet you a second time in one year. We came back this time to report on progress; to tell you in this first year of our administration, with the strong support of your government -- led by yourself, personally -- we've been able to set our goals. We've identified the four areas in which we want to concentrate our effort, and that's peace and security, economic revitalization, governance and the rule of law, and infrastructure

And under each of these areas we've achieved important first steps. We've set the country on the way to recovery, and now we're back here to tell you that we're about to embark on the next phase. And the next phase is to do even more: get our kids back in school, to create jobs for our people, to open up our economy, restock our mines and our forestry sector and our agriculture, get our refugees and our displaced persons back into their villages and in their communities, on their farms, producing for self-sufficiency.

All of those things are beginning to happen. Our kids are back in school, our enrollment has increased by 40 percent. And now, as I told you, we just need to get this debt off our backs. And that's the last thing you've done for us. And Secretary Rice was just exceptional in taking the leadership yesterday in our forum. And once she did that, others are beginning to follow. And you've just made a great call to all of them to tell them to follow. And we think it's going to happen. If we get the $3.7 billion external debt off us, we can then access resources, we can expand the progress we've made, we can accelerate the implementation of all of our programs.

And so we're just so pleased about that. We thank you for what is being done in the security sector reform, the training of our new army, the professionalization of our police force. All of that will enable us to consolidate the peace, and then really begin to deliver to the Liberian people. We're fighting corruption, we're starting to put people in court, we've created a court of conduct for public officials, anti-corruption policy and strategy.

All of these things would not have happened, Mr. President, if we didn't have your strong support, and the support of your colleagues in the government, and also on the Hill. We're thankful that we enjoy bipartisan support on the Hill. And we're meeting a lot of them in these two days. And they've just been there for us and giving you the support that you need from there to enable you to continue to support us.

We want you to know the Liberian people are very thankful, Liberian people are resolved never to go to war again. They want the simple things in life: send their children to schools, have jobs, be able to give their families a square meal at the end of the day, be able to get around. And we want you to know that those things are happening. We thank you for what you have done to put us on this path.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Thank you Madam President. Thank you very much.

END 2:24 P.M. EST. For Immediate Release, Office of the Press Secretary, February 14, 2007
President George W. Bush welcomes Liberia's President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf to the Oval Office at the White House, Tuesday, March 21, 2006. President Sirleaf is the first woman elected President to any country on the continent of Africa. White House photo by Eric Draper.Tuesday, March 21, 2006. President Sirleaf is the first woman elected President to any country on the continent of Africa. White House photo by Eric Draper.
President George W. Bush and Liberia's President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf speak to reporters in the Oval Office at the White House, Tuesday, March 21, 2006. President Sirleaf, the first woman elected President to any country on the continent of Africa, thanked President Bush, the American people and the U.S. Congress for helping support Liberia's transition from war to peace. White House photo by Eric Draper President George W. Bush and Liberia's President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf talk as they walk along the Colonnade from the Oval Office at the White House, Tuesday, March 21, 2006. White House photo by Eric DraperPresident George W. Bush toast Liberia's President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Tuesday, March 21, 2006, at a social luncheon at the White House in honor of President Sirleaf. White House photo by Eric DraperPresident George W. Bush and Mrs. Laura Bush join Liberia's President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf in viewing a dance performance by Moving in the Spirit, on the State Floor of the White House, Tuesday, March 21, 2006, prior to a social luncheon in honor of President Sirleaf. White House photo by Eric DraperPresident George W. Bush and Mrs. Laura Bush join invited guests in listening to vocal star Denyce Graves at a White House social luncheon in honor of Liberia's President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Tuesday, March 21, 2006, at the White House. White House photo by Shealah Craighead
Technorati Tags: and or and or and or and

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

North Korea - Denuclearization Action Plan

North Korea - Denuclearization Action Plan

The following action plan was released in Beijing on February 13, 2007 following the conclusion of the latest round of Six-Party Talks.

Initial Actions for the Implementation of the Joint Statement, 13 February 2007

map of North Korea, CIA factbookThe Third Session of the Fifth Round of the Six-Party Talks was held in Beijing among the People's Republic of China, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation and the United States of America from 8 to 13 February 2007.
Mr. Wu Dawei, Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs of the PRC, Mr. Kim Gye Gwan, Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs of the DPRK; Mr. Kenichiro Sasae, Director-General for Asian and Oceanian Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan; Mr. Chun Yung-woo, Special Representative for Korean Peninsula Peace and Security Affairs of the ROK Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade; Mr. Alexander Losyukov, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation; and Mr. Christopher Hill, Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs of the Department of State of the United States attended the talks as heads of their respective delegations.

Vice Foreign Minister Wu Dawei chaired the talks.

I. The Parties held serious and productive discussions on the actions each party will take in the initial phase for the implementation of the Joint Statement of 19 September 2005. The Parties reaffirmed their common goal and will to achieve early denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful manner and reiterated that they would earnestly fulfill their commitments in the Joint Statement. The Parties agreed to take coordinated steps to implement the Joint Statement in a phased manner in line with the principle of "action for action".

II. The Parties agreed to take the following actions in parallel in the initial phase:

The DPRK will shut down and seal for the purpose of eventual abandonment the Yongbyon nuclear facility, including the reprocessing facility and invite back IAEA personnel to conduct all necessary monitoring and verifications as agreed between IAEA and the DPRK.

The DPRK will discuss with other parties a list of all its nuclear programs as described in the Joint Statement, including plutonium extracted from used fuel rods, that would be abandoned pursuant to the Joint Statement.
The DPRK and the US will start bilateral talks aimed at resolving pending bilateral issues and moving toward full diplomatic relations. The US will begin the process of removing the designation of the DPRK as a state-sponsor of terrorism and advance the process of terminating the application of the Trading with the Enemy Act with respect to the DPRK.

The DPRK and Japan will start bilateral talks aimed at taking steps to normalize their relations in accordance with the Pyongyang Declaration, on the basis of the settlement of unfortunate past and the outstanding issues of concern.
Recalling Section 1 and 3 of the Joint Statement of 19 September 2005, the Parties agreed to cooperate in economic, energy and humanitarian assistance to the DPRK. In this regard, the Parties agreed to the provision of emergency energy assistance to the DPRK in the initial phase. The initial shipment of emergency energy assistance equivalent to 50,000 tons of heavy fuel oil (HFO) will commence within next 60 days.
The Parties agreed that the above-mentioned initial actions will be implemented within next 60 days and that they will take coordinated steps toward this goal.

III. The Parties agreed on the establishment of the following Working Groups (WG) in order to carry out the initial actions and for the purpose of full implementation of the Joint Statement:

1. Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula
2. Normalization of DPRK-US relations
3. Normalization of DPRK-Japan relations
4. Economy and Energy Cooperation
5. Northeast Asia Peace and Security Mechanism

The WGs will discuss and formulate specific plans for the implementation of the Joint Statement in their respective areas. The WGs shall report to the Six-Party Heads of Delegation Meeting on the progress of their work. In principle, progress in one WG shall not affect progress in other WGs. Plans made by the five WGs will be implemented as a whole in a coordinated manner.

The Parties agreed that all WGs will meet within next 30 days.

IV. During the period of the Initial Actions phase and the next phase - which includes provision by the DPRK of a complete declaration of all nuclear programs and disablement of all existing nuclear facilities, including graphite-moderated reactors and reprocessing plant - economic, energy and humanitarian assistance up to the equivalent of 1 million tons of heavy fuel oil (HFO), including the initial shipment equivalent to 50,000 tons of HFO, will be provided to the DPRK.

The detailed modalities of the said assistance will be determined through consultations and appropriate assessments in the Working Group on Economic and Energy Cooperation.

V. Once the initial actions are implemented, the Six Parties will promptly hold a ministerial meeting to confirm implementation of the Joint Statement and explore ways and means for promoting security cooperation in Northeast Asia.

VI. The Parties reaffirmed that they will take positive steps to increase mutual trust, and will make joint efforts for lasting peace and stability in Northeast Asia. The directly related parties will negotiate a permanent peace regime on the Korean Peninsula at an appropriate separate forum.

VII. The Parties agreed to hold the Sixth Round of the Six-Party Talks on 19 March 2007 to hear reports of WGs and discuss on actions for the next phase.

2007/099, Media Note, Office of the Spokesman, Washington, DC. February 13, 2007

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

Secretary Rice To Travel to Jerusalem and the Palestinian Territories, Amman, and Berlin

Secretary Rice To Travel to Jerusalem and the Palestinian Territories, Amman, and Berlin

Secretary Rice during her press availability with visiting European dignitaries,Russia, E.U., Germany, as well as UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon.  [State Department photo by Michael Gross]Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will travel to Jerusalem and the Palestinian Territories, Amman, and Berlin February 16 - 22, 2007. She will hold bilateral meetings with both Israeli and Palestinian leaders,
as well as a trilateral meeting with President Abbas and Prime Minister Olmert on February 19. In Amman Secretary Rice will meet with the King Abdullah of Jordan and other members of the Jordanian government.

In addition to a meeting of the Quartet in Berlin, Secretary Rice will meet with Foreign Minister Steinmeier and Chancellor Merkel. The Quartet will discuss the recent agreement reached by the Palestinian government in Saudi Arabia and the next steps in the implementing the Road Map.

2007/096, Released on February 12, 2007, Press Statement, Sean McCormack, Spokesman, Washington, DC. February 12, 2007

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

Two Terrorists Added to Rewards For Justice's Most Wanted List

Two Terrorists Added to Rewards For Justice's Most Wanted List, Secretary Rice Authorizes Up To $5 Million Reward For Each Terrorist

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has authorized the addition of Mohammed Ali Hamadei and Ramadan Abdullah Mohammad Shallah to the U.S. State Department Bureau of Diplomatic Security's Rewards for Justice (RFJ) Program, each with a potential reward of up to $5 million.

Hamadei and Shallah were added to RFJ's Most Wanted List at the request of the FBI's Counterterrorism Division; both are also on the FBI's Most Wanted Terrorists List.

Photo array of Rewards For Justice terrorist suspect Mohammed Ali Hamadei.
Hamadei, an alleged member of the terrorist organization Lebanese Hizballah, is believed to be living in Lebanon. A Federal Grand Jury in Washington, D.C., indicted Hamadei on 15 charges in 1985 for his role in planning and participating in the hijacking of TWA Flight 847. This hijacking resulted in assaults on various passengers and crew members, and the murder of Petty Officer Robert D. Stethem, United States Navy. The indictment charges included: Violations of Aircraft Piracy in the Special Aircraft Jurisdiction of the United States; Unlawful Placing of a Destructive Device on an Aircraft; Hostage Taking; Murder; Assault on a Passenger; and Conspiracy.
Photo array of Rewards For Justice terrorist suspect Ramadan Abdullah Mohammad Shallah.
Ramadan Abdullah Mohammad Shallah is wanted for conspiracy to conduct the affairs of the terrorist organization Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) through a pattern of racketeering activities such as bombings, murder, extortions and money laundering. Shallah was one of the original founding members of the PIJ. Since 1995, he has been the Secretary-General and leader of the organization, which is headquartered in Damascus, Syria. Shallah was officially listed as a Specially Designated Terrorist in 1995, and indicted in a 53-count indictment in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, in 2003.

Diplomatic Security Assistant Secretary Richard J. Griffin said, "The RFJ program continues to be one of the most valuable tools in the U.S. fight against international terrorism. Thousands of innocent lives have been saved through information received under this program. We thank the FBI and all our fellow law enforcement organizations for their noteworthy diligence and assistance in this critical effort. Together we make a difference."

Assistant Director Joseph Billy, Counterterrorism Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation stated, "The FBI is working closely with our law enforcement and intelligence community partners to bring all necessary resources to bear to protect the American public from terrorist attacks and the nefarious activities from extremely dangerous terrorists like Ramadan Abdullah Mohammad Shallah and Mohammed Ali Hamadei. We appreciate the continued support from the U.S. Department of State's Rewards for Justice Program. We agree that with the combined strength of law enforcement and intelligence components at home and abroad, and with a vigilant and engaged public, we will ensure the successful apprehension of Most Wanted Terrorists."

Anyone with information on a past or planned act of international terrorism against U.S. persons or property worldwide, or regarding the location of a key terrorist leader, is urged to contact RFJ directly at the following:

Internet: rewardsforjustice.net (secure online tip form) E-mail: RFJ@state.gov Hotline: 1-800-US-REWARDS (1-800-877-3927) Mail: Rewards for Justice, Washington, DC 20522-0303

In addition, anyone in the United States with information may contact the nearest Diplomatic Security Service (DSS) or FBI field office. Persons located overseas may also contact the Regional Security Office at the nearest U.S. Embassy or Consulate.

Since its inception, Rewards for Justice has paid more than $62 million to more than 40 people who have provided credible information that has brought terrorists to justice or prevented acts of international terrorism. Established by the 1984 Act to Combat International Terrorism, the program is administered by the U.S. Department of State's Bureau of Diplomatic Security.

The Bureau of Diplomatic Security is the U.S. Department of State's law enforcement and security arm. The special agents, engineers, and security professionals of the Bureau are responsible for the security of 285 U.S. diplomatic facilities around the world. In the United States, Diplomatic Security personnel protect the U.S. Secretary of State and high-ranking foreign dignitaries and officials visiting the United States, investigate passport and visa fraud, and conduct personnel security investigations. More information about the U.S. Department of State and the Bureau of Diplomatic Security may be obtained at www.state.gov/m/ds.

Fact Sheet, Washington, DC. February 12, 2007

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

Monday, February 12, 2007

President Meets with President Adamkus of Lithuania (VIDEO)

President Bush Meets with President Adamkus of Lithuania, FULL STREAMING VIDEO, Oval Office. 11:02 A.M. EST. In Focus: Global Diplomacy

President George W. Bush is introduced to officials accompanying Lithuania's President Valdas Adamkus Monday, Feb.12, 2007, during the leader's visit to the White House. White House photo by Eric Draper.
PRESIDENT BUSH: It's my honor to welcome a personal friend and a friend of freedom and peace to the Oval Office. Mr. President, I respect you, I respect your country. Lithuania has been a country whose history has been one of great tragedy.
You, yourself, have lived through that tragedy. And it's so refreshing for a person like me to talk to somebody and to strategize with somebody who knows the great blessings of living in a free society.

The example of your country is an important example for the world, and that is that freedom is universal, that those of us who have the benefits of living in a free society must prevent a country such as yours from ever again being subjected to the tyranny of a few. You know full well the suffering that your relatives went through.

And, therefore, I find it -- I'm not surprised that in a struggling democracy like Afghanistan, your country has stood up bravely to support the Karzai government and the people of Afghanistan. And I thank you. And I thank the citizens of your country for your willingness to contribute to peace by helping a young democracy survive. I thank you very much for your support for the people of Iraq. It's hard work in Iraq. But, nevertheless, it is inspiring to know that Lithuania has said, we want to help the people realize the blessings of a free society.

We talked about a lot of issues. We talked about energy independence. I was very pleased by the strategy that you and others in the Baltics are working to achieve to achieve energy independence. We share the same objectives here in America, and I look forward to working with you as new technologies become available to make us all less dependent on oil and natural gas.

Secondly, the President was quite adamant about visa waiver. I can understand your strong position, Mr. President. I thank you very much for your clarity of thought. There should be no doubt that here in the Oval Office that President Adamkus represented the will of the majority of the Lithuanian people, when we discussed visa waiver and his desire for the people of his country to be treated like most of the other people in the European Union. I assured him we'll work with Congress to get a fair piece of legislation forward as quickly as possible so we can deal with this issue once and for all.

All in all, I'm so grateful that you and the First Lady came by to say hello here in the Oval Office. And I know Laura was very much looking forward to entertaining your good wife over there at the Residence. I thought the business session here went very well in a very constructive way. And, again, I welcome you back to the Oval Office.

PRESIDENT ADAMKUS: Thank you very much, Mr. President. I believe the visit is just reconfirmation of the Lithuanian people for what we stand for. And I believe there is no doubt that our commitments -- international commitments, joining United States, actually based on the principles, principles which were the guiding light for us during the very difficult times of the Soviet occupation, almost for half of the century.

But at the same time, like I indicated to you, knowing what it means to be free and knowing, I mean, that this freedom still is not available in some parts of the world, this is why we are with our, I would say, meager resources, but standing by you in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Kosovo. And definitely we are going to stand shoulder to shoulder just to make sure that the remaining Iraq people who cannot even enjoy today those kind of privileges -- free speech, respect for human rights -- would be given to them.

So I want to just thank you once again, I mean, for the support we are receiving. We are going to work together, especially in developing situations like we just mentioned during our conversations here about the latest statements in Munich. I believe this is not going to sway away the free people from the -- I mean, its ideals, the direction we are going together, and I think that the final outcome will be this is what we dream about, this is for what the American people stand for, for centuries and the day is coming.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Thank you, sir.

PRESIDENT ADAMKUS: Thank you very much.

END 11:07 A.M. EST. For Immediate Release, Office of the Press Secretary, February 12, 2007

Technorati Tags: and or and or and or and

President Celebrates African American History Month (VIDEO)

President Bush Celebrates African American History Month, FULL STREAMING VIDEO, The East Room, 2:30 P.M. EST. National African American History Month, 2007 and African American History

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Thanks for coming. Welcome to the White House. I'm so pleased that you all have joined us for the 81st celebration of African American History Month. During this special month we reflect on the many ways African Americans have shaped our nation's history, and we honor outstanding achievements by our fellow citizens.

One of those achievements took place two Sundays ago in Miami, Florida -- took place at a football game. (Laughter and applause.) It might just have been a game for some, but for a lot of folks it was a moment, an historic moment. And we congratulate Tony Dungy and Lovie Smith for their strong leadership and their example -- (applause.) That's an achievement.

I'm also proud to be here with another football coach who deserves a lot of credit, Sylvester Croom, who is the head football coach from Mississippi State University. His achievement is the first African American coach in the Southeastern Football League -- Southeastern Conference. He was picked because he's a strong leader and a fine man. And I thank you for blazing trails. (Applause.)

I'm proud to be here with Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State. (Applause.) So last night on this very stage, we celebrated Abraham Lincoln, and we welcomed Doris Kearns Goodwin, who wrote a book called, "The Team of Rivals." Abraham Lincoln surrounded himself with fine Cabinet officers, all of whom wanted one thing -- his job. (Laughter.) Not so fast, Madam Secretary. (Laughter.)

I appreciate so very much members of the Congress for joining us: first the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Charlie Rangel. (Applause.) That's an achievement. (Laughter.) I'm looking forward to working with this achievement to get some things -- (laughter) -- to get some things done. He's a good man and a smart guy.

Senator Norm Coleman from Minnesota. Senator, thanks for coming. (Applause.) From the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, one of the most important benches in America, Justice Janice Rodgers Brown. Good to see you -- thank you. (Applause.)

And Dewey -- good move, Dewey. Dewey tried to lead the standing ovation. That was -- (laughter.) Loyal husband.

I appreciate Doctor Dorothy Height. Thank you for coming, Dr. Height. (Applause.) Roslyn Brock, who is the Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors for the NAACP. Roslyn, it's great to see you. Thanks for coming. (Applause.) I'm proud you're here. Thanks for taking time.

I am so pleased that the Jackson High School Black History Tour Group from Jackson, Michigan, is with us, and Director Shirley Pitts. Thank you for coming. I'm looking forward to hearing you. I'm proud you're here. (Applause.)

The theme of this year's African American History Month is, "From Slavery to Freedom: Africans in the Americas." For hundreds of years, the people of Africa were brought -- were bought and sold by colonial merchants and transported as cargo to this hemisphere. The journey endured by millions of Africans is one of the largest migrations of history, and one of the great crimes of history. For the men, women, and children who survived this journey, life in the New World was a life in chains. They toiled for the bread that others would eat. They were often denied even the comfort of suffering together. And their families were broken up when a spouse or child was sold.

Yet despite these assaults on culture and humanity, the children of Africa persevered. They kept faith that the freedom that God intended for all would one day be theirs. And across this hemisphere in different places and at different times, that faith would be redeemed.

In America, their first real hope of freedom came on New Year's Day in 1863, when President Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation in a room right upstairs. The heroes of the civil rights movement continued the struggle for freedom. And by their courage, they changed laws and opened up the promise for millions of our citizens.

Today, African Americans are seizing opportunities gained at great price, and they're making their mark in this wonderful country in countless ways. We see their character and achievement in the neighborhoods across our nation, and we see it right here in this room -- right here in the White House.

One of those faces is familiar to us, Wesley Autrey. You know, you might remember Wesley from the State of the Union address. I remember Wesley was I think sending a hand signal to you, Mr. Chairman. So was I, by the way. (Laughter.) I love you, man. (Laughter and applause.) Yes, not yet, Wesley. I've got to tell the story one more time. (Laughter.)

So in case you haven't heard the story, he was waiting at a Harlem subway station. He saw the guy fall into the path of a train. He had seconds to act. He jumped onto the track, and he pulled the man into a space between the rails, and he held him as a train went right over them. And so they said, you're a hero. He said, no. Yet, Wesley -- I told him -- I said, you're a hero. He told me, no. I said, Wesley, I disagree, as do millions of our fellow citizens. (Laughter.)

And so we're proud you're here again. We thank you for your courage. We thank you for your commitment to a life of a stranger. What a wonderful example you set for young and old, black, white, anybody in the United States of America. Welcome back here. (Applause.)

I want to tell you the story of Bonnie St. John. She grew up in California, which is -- most places in California are not very close to the snow. But she wanted to be a skier. The problem was at age five she lost one of her legs. But she never lost her dream. She said she fell down a lot while learning to ski, but she also learned the key to success was how fast she got up after the fall.

And so she went to Harvard and she became a Rhodes scholar. And then she won medals in downhill skiing in the Paralymics. She owns her own small business. She's writing an inspirational book to encourage others. She is the kind of person that you really want to be around, and the kind of person that shows that individual courage matters in life.

And so, Bonnie, thanks for coming. God bless. (Applause.)

So at one time in my life I was a baseball person. (Laughter.) Nearly all my life I was a baseball fan. And so I remember a pitcher named Jim "Mudcat" Grant. Some of you baby boomers might remember Mudcat. He pitched for the Minnesota Twins. They went to the 1965 World Series, and he won 25 games. He founded what's called the Black Aces. This is an organization made up of African American pitchers who have won at least 20 games in a single season.

I view the organization as a way not only to herald success, but to inspire others. See, it wasn't all that often -- let me just say this -- at certain points in our past, we didn't have a lot of African American pitchers. And I want to thank you, Mudcat, for showing courage, character and perseverance, and also thank you for setting an example.

With you today happens to be a -- I like to call him a former Texas Ranger -- Chicago Cub fans remember him as a Chicago Cub. Any baseball fan knows he's a Hall of Famer -- and that's Fergie Jenkins, a member of the Black Aces, as well as Mike Norris, former pitcher for the -- (applause.)

Mudcat, don't sit down yet -- sit up yet. Mudcat Grant, everybody. (Applause.)

There happens to be other Black Aces in baseball, one of whom joined us -- Dontrelle Willis, of the Florida team. Dontrelle, he can throw. (Laughter.) So I thought I was looking at a little, tiny left-hander when I first heard Dontrelle Willis was going to be here. No. You might stand up and show everybody that you're not a little, tiny left-hander. (Applause.) Dontrelle, welcome.

Thank you, Mudcat, for bringing your friends, and thank you for bringing class to the baseball diamond. (Applause.)

We've got two folks here who know how to reach for the stars, and that would be Robert Curbeam and Joan Higginbotham. And I really mean that literally. See, these are astronauts who went into space with the crew of the Space Shuttle in early December. Their job was not much of a job, just to rewire the International Space Station. (Laughter.) It sounds complex. (Laughter.) And it is. It was one of the most challenging missions in NASA's history.

They did their job and, thankfully, came home. And in doing so, I suspect they've earned more frequent flier miles than anybody here. (Laughter.) I really appreciate the fact that they are furthering humanity's path of discovery, and I appreciate the fact that you say loud and clear, our country is unlimited in its opportunities for people from all walks of life. We're really proud you're here. Thanks for coming. (Applause.)

Tyrone Flowers is with us. His is an interesting story, one that speaks to a good heart, I suspect a gracious and glorious God, as well. You see, he was a basketball star, and he was headed for college and perhaps a scholarship. He was living the dream of a lot of folks. And he got shot, and he's paralyzed.

The interesting thing about this good man is a lot of people would have either quit or sought revenge. But not him. He picked a different path and found a different calling. He went to a community college. He earned a bachelor's degree. And then he became a lawyer. Nothing wrong with that. (Laughter.) Fourteen years ago, he and his wife founded a group called Higher M-pact. Higher M-pact has this goal: to help today's high risk urban youth become tomorrow's leaders. That is a noble goal. It is a necessary goal. And it's a goal that I suspect is more likely to be achieved because this good man has decided to turn a horrific act into an act of love. And we welcome you and thank you. (Applause.)

So as you can see, this is a little different kind of speech. It's one where all I had to do was just simply talk about the accomplishments and lives of some of our citizens. And their stories speak a lot louder and a lot clearer than I could have. This is a -- I always tell people the strength of this country lies in the hearts and souls of our citizens. The strength of the African American community has always lied in the hearts and souls of our citizens, people who refuse to allow adversity to diminish the spirit and extinguish the drive to make America live up to its promise.

And that's what we're honoring today -- ordinary citizens who do unbelievably fine things. I can't think of any better way to celebrate African American History Month. And our call -- and our need is to continue to remember promise belongs to everybody. And our call for this country is never to rest until equality is real, opportunity is universal, and every citizen can realize his or her dreams in the greatest country on the face of the Earth.

And now it's my honor to introduce the Jackson High School Black History Tour Group. Thank you for coming. (Applause.)

END 2:46 P.M. EST. For Immediate Release, Office of the Press Secretary, February 12, 2007

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

Sunday, February 11, 2007

Sustainable Ethanol Production

MIT experts foresee sustainable ethanol production, Anne Trafton, News Office, February 8, 2007

Professor Gregory StephanopoulosAs the search for alternative fuel sources intensifies, more and more attention has been focused on ethanol--a fuel many see as desirable because it burns cleanly and can be produced from plants.
In recent days, two MIT chemical engineering professors have weighed in on ethanol's potential -- Professor Gregory Stephanopoulos, in a Feb. 9 article for Science, and Assistant Professor Kristala Jones Prather, who testified during a Senate hearing on biofuels Feb. 1.Assistant Professor Kristala Jones Prather
Both professors expressed optimism that biofuels can become a significant part of the U.S. energy supply but said that much more research must be done before ethanol can reach its full potential.

"Biofuels represent a grand challenge in technology," Prather told the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. "There is no single silver bullet that will make a robust transportation fuels industry a reality."

Most of the 5 billion gallons of ethanol produced annually in the United States comes from corn, but there's not enough corn available to make it a viable long-term source, according to Stephanopoulos.

Right now, about 16 percent of the U.S. corn crop is going into ethanol production, but the fuel makes up less than one percent of U.S. demand for liquid fuels, once you take into account the amount of energy needed to produce the ethanol, Stephanopoulos said. Even if all U.S. corn went into ethanol production, there would only be enough for 4 to 5 percent of U.S. annual liquid fuel consumption.

To replace corn, scientists are turning to cellulose found in grasses and agricultural wastes. In his Science article, Stephanopoulos outlined several challenges to producing ethanol from cellulose and avenues of research scientists are pursuing to overcome them.

"The technology to produce cellulosic ethanol is not there yet," he said. However, he estimates that large-scale, economically feasible production of ethanol from cellulose could happen within 10 to 15 years.

One of the major advantages of cellulosic material is its abundance, according to Stephanopoulos. He cited a recent Department of Energy report that estimated the United States could sustainably produce about 1.4 billion tons of such material per year.

"If we can convert that into liquid fuel, that could become a pretty significant percentage of liquid fuels in the U.S.," he said.

In addition, the energy balance in making ethanol from cellulosic material is much more favorable than producing ethanol from corn.

There are two major steps to producing ethanol from plant energy crops and agricultural wastes. First, the plant material must be broken down into its main components (cellulose and hemicellulose), which is done by treatment with heat, acid, ammonia or steam. In the second step, the cellulose is broken down into sugars, such as glucose, and fermented into ethanol. That is usually done by yeast or other microorganisms.

To maximize efficiency, scientists need to improve both the amount of plant material that can be produced per acre and the amount of ethanol that can be produced from the biomass, Stephanopoulos says.

Current lines of research described in his Science article include:
  • Engineering grasses that can grow at high density, in close proximity to biofuels processing facilities.
  • Engineering microbes that can efficiently process the two types of sugars commonly found in plant biomass--hexoses and pentoses.
  • Consolidating the ability to break down cellulose and ferment sugar into ethanol in a single microorganism--"That would be a wonderful possibility, to have a single reactor," Stephanopoulos said.
Last year, Stephanopoulos and MIT colleagues reported that they had developed a new way to engineer the genome of yeast to produce desirable traits--in that case, the ability to tolerate high levels of ethanol, which is normally toxic to yeast. The technique holds promise for the development of other traits that would make yeast more efficient ethanol producers.

In her prepared statement during last week's Senate hearing, Prather pointed to that study as an example of the kind of research that needs to be done if the United States wants to commit to converting to alternative fuels like ethanol.

"If we're going to be serious about it, the government has to be serious about funding long-term research about how we're going to transform our infrastructure--our economy, really," Prather said this week.

Prather emphasized to the committee that the development of biofuels is a "systems problem, meaning that there are lot of components and each one has an impact on all the others."

While some researchers pursue genetic manipulation of microorganisms, they need to also coordinate with others involved in fuel production and consumption--for example, engineers designing new engines and agricultural scientists working with new crops.

"Those are conversations that have to be had all along the pipeline," Prather said.

Her other primary message to the committee was that while ethanol is promising, other potential biofuels, such as biodiesel, butanol and hydrogen, should not be excluded from study.

Ethanol has only 70 percent of the energy density of gasoline, making it less efficient, and its tendency to absorb water makes corrosion a concern for the current U.S. petroleum storage and distribution network, she said.

"A broader vision should include the possibility of alternative biomass-derived fuels with better physical properties and better integration into the infrastructure--that is, fuels that will work in existing cars and which can be transported through existing networks," she told the committee.

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

Saturday, February 10, 2007

Freedom Calendar 02/10/07 - 02/17/07

February 10, 1995, Death of Judge Masaji Marumoto, Japanese-American Republican who served with distinction on Hawaii Supreme Court.

February 11, 1856, Republican Montgomery Blair argues before U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of his client, the slave Dred Scott; later served in President Lincoln’s Cabinet.

Abraham Lincoln’s Birthday, February 12, 1909, On 100th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s birth, African-American Republicans and women’s suffragists Ida Wells and Mary Terrell co-found the NAACP.

February 13, 1862 Birth of Republican Benigno Hernandez, first Hispanic U.S. Representative from New Mexico (1915-17, 1919-21).

February 14, 1928, Birth of Ben Garrido Blaz, Hispanic Republican and former Brigadier General; served as Delegate from Guam to U.S. Congress, 1985-93.

February 15, 1932, Republican President Herbert Hoover nominates Benjamin Cardozo as second Jewish Justice on U.S. Supreme Court.

February 16, 1812 Birth of Republican civil rights activist and U.S. Senator (R-MA) Henry Wilson, Vice President under Ulysses Grant.

February 17, 1973, Republican Navy Secretary John Warner commissions frigate in honor of first African-American naval aviator, Jesse L. Brown, who died in combat during Korean War.

"In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free —honorable alike in what we give and what we receive.”

Abraham Lincoln, 16th President of the United States

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

Presidential Podcast 02/10/07

Presidential Podcast 02/10/07 en EspaƱol
Click here to Subscribe to Our Republican National Convention Blog Podcast Channel with Odeo Subscribe to Our Odeo or Click here to Subscribe to Our Republican National Convention Blog Podcast Channel with Podnova podnova Podcast Channel and receive the weekly Presidential Radio Address in English and Spanish with select State Department Briefings. Featuring real audio and full text transcripts, More content Sources added often so stay tuned.

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