White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 04/18/07 VIDEO

Press Briefing by Dana Perino, White House Conference Center Briefing Room, FULL STREAMING VIDEO, Dana M. Perino Biography, 12:38 P.M. EDT . PODCAST OF ARTICLE MS. PERINO: I have a few announcements, and then we'll get ready to answer your questions.

The President and Mrs. Bush were greatly moved at the ceremony yesterday in honor of the Virginia Tech students. They offered the prayers and support of a grieving nation. They spent a lot of time with many family members, family of the victims who had lost their lives. He also met with at least one person who had been shot, but had survived. And one of the things that the President and Mrs. Bush said to them is that they should know that the power of prayer is strong, that there are people all across the world that they will never meet who are praying for them and that they should take comfort in that.

One note that I wanted to highlight is something that Mrs. Bush said yesterday, and I think it's important -- possibly some of your children have said -- but we have heard reports that children are concerned about their own safety at their own schools after seeing some of this coverage. And Mrs. Bush asked everyone -- parents, teachers, friends of these children -- to make sure that they know that they're very loved and that there are many people working to ensure their safety at their school.

Q What happened behind the President yesterday?

MS. PERINO: I will answer some questions after a moment; I have a few announcements.

I do have a statement by the President on the Supreme Court decision upholding the partial birth abortion ban -- we will release this in a moment, but I will read it for you. This is from the President:

"I am pleased that the Supreme Court upheld a law that prohibits the abhorrent procedure of partial birth abortion. Today's decision affirms that the Constitution does not stand in the way of the people's representatives, enacting laws reflecting the compassion and humanity of America. The partial birth abortion ban, which an overwhelming bipartisan majority in Congress passed and I signed into law, represents a commitment to building a culture of life in America.

"The Supreme Court's decision is an affirmation of the progress we have made over the past six years in protecting human dignity and upholding the sanctity of life. We will continue to work for the day when every child is welcomed in life and protected in law."

Later today, at 2:30 p.m. -- I hope you all got the note that we are going to open the President's meeting with the bicameral-bipartisan leadership on the Iraq war supplemental -- it will be pool at the top. The President looks forward to the congressional leadership coming to this meeting today. The troops desperately need the money.

We also look forward to Speaker Pelosi appointing conferees so that the committees -- I'm sorry -- so that the two Houses can get their differences worked out and send a bill to the President's desk. The President will veto a bill that handcuffs our generals, that includes arbitrary dates for withdrawal, or needless and wasteless [sic] spending. It's been 72 days since the President first sent up his request for this money, and the longer that Speaker Pelosi delays in appointing conferees, the worse it gets for our troops.

And finally, the United States Senate today voted to end consideration of legislation that would have had the government negotiate and set prices for prescription drugs available to America's seniors. The Senate made the right decision to do so. When the Congressional Budget Office weighed in this year and last year, they said that, at best, it would do no good. Our view is that it has the potential to do considerable harm, likely resulting in limiting access to necessary drugs for our seniors.

The Medicare prescription drug program is successfully delivering more drugs at cheaper prices than anyone predicted. And if a bill, such as the one that they were contemplating today were to make its way to the President's desk, he would veto it.

I also would encourage anyone who is interested in this story to look at Secretary Leavitt's open letter to America and America's seniors on this. It's got a lot of good points in it.

Terry.

Q What's the President's strategy for his meeting with congressional leaders today? Is he open to any talk of compromise, or is he just going to hear what they say and insist on a clean bill?

MS. PERINO: The President looks forward to having the members come down -- that's why he invited them. I think one of the things that he is looking forward to hearing is how the Democrats have decided to compromise amongst themselves first so that he knows what their position is. They have several different positions, and as you can imagine, that's really difficult to negotiate with anybody if you don't know where someone stands.

The President has laid out clear principles, and he will be able to give some remarks at the top of the meeting. And then, of course, as you know, I'm sure the members will make their way out to the stakeout afterwards.

Q I mean, there are differences. Both the Senate and the House have passed bills, though, and both of them have some form of a withdrawal deadline, timetable. And that's unacceptable --

MS. PERINO: And here's the point on that, which is that the President has said he will not accept a bill that has an artificial timetable -- time line, deadline for withdrawal, a forced retreat, a legislative failure for our troops. He's not going to do that for our troops, and he's not going to do it to the Iraqis, or for the region, and for the safety of the American public.

The Democrats have said that they will not vote to cut off funding for the troops. And yet, they can't come to an agreement amongst themselves as to how to get a clean bill to the President. So the President is saying, negotiate amongst yourselves first; if you need to send me a bill that I have to veto, I will do it, reluctantly. But that's going to be his position. And so it's the Democrats that need to negotiate amongst themselves first before coming and asking the President to change his positions.

Q But to pick up on that, once they have negotiated among themselves and have a unified position --

MS. PERINO: Well, let's see what that is.

Q -- then they can negotiate with the President?

MS. PERINO: You're asking me a hypothetical situation.

Q No, no, no, they will -- let's say that they have a coherent --

MS. PERINO: Well, that's hypothetical. It's speculative. I don't -- I would like to see if they would come forward and have a position before we talk about anything that would tie the generals' hands or have a deadline for withdrawal.

Q But the way you're stating this leads to --

MS. PERINO: Well, what I've said for many days is that I'm not going to negotiate anything from this podium. I'm going to let them have a meeting.

Q I'm just asking you to finish your thought.

MS. PERINO: I finished my thought.

Q With an incomplete thought, an incomplete sentence?

MS. PERINO: No, I thought it was complete.

All right, Kelly.

Q Earlier this week, the President made his concerns known, with military families surrounding him and members of the military and veterans. Earlier today, the Democratic leadership had some military family members with them as they gave an opposing view. Does the President think there's a point at which military families or veterans should not become the faces of this debate?

MS. PERINO: Well, he has said before that -- and I think it was on Monday, in which he said that this is a debate, we have healthy debate in America, we have a job to do in terms of getting the funds to the troops, but that he does not believe that the troops should be caught in the middle of the debate.

The families that the President met with and talked to on Monday are only a sampling of some of the ones that he hears from, in which they ask him to please not let their sons or daughters who have died over there in Iraq or in Afghanistan -- for their mission to go unfulfilled. They are reassured by the President that he is not going to let their death be in vain.

The Army and the rest of the Department of Defense have made it very clear that there are consequences to not getting this money now. And therefore, the President is going to hold the Democrats' feet to the fire and get them to come to a position. It's been 72 days; they didn't even appoint conferees. Time is wasting, and so he's going to ask them to get together and get a bill to his desk.

Q Some Democrats will surely say that the soldiers and relatives of troops with them today are only a sampling of those they hear from, and that they are telling them that we need to begin the process of pulling out of Iraq. I want to ask Kelly's question again -- is it unseemly that the troops should be props, if you will, in this debate?

MS. PERINO: Well, I can assure you that this President doesn't think of any soldier or sailor, or any man or woman that's in uniform as a prop. He is worried about their welfare. He wants to ensure that their mission -- that they have all that they need to complete their mission, and that they are properly trained, and that they have the amount of support that they need back here at home, plus there on the battlefield. And so I do think that it was appropriate for the President to talk with those families -- just as I'm sure that the Democrats feel that it's appropriate for them, as well.

No doubt that there is -- war is a highly charged, emotional debate, and there are many people who would like the American troops to come home immediately. The President wants them to come home when the mission is finished and when the conditions are right on the ground to make sure that the horrific violence, such as we see today happening in Baghdad, can subside.

Q I'd like to ask you a question about the speech the President gave today. What's the time frame to impose sanctions on Sudan?

MS. PERINO: Well, the President said, soon. And I don't have a number of days to attach to that, but he said it must be soon that President Bashir comply with the demands of the international community, or he will move forward with the steps that he said.

Q This isn't a new threat. Sanctions have been threatened before.

MS. PERINO: These would be additional.

Q Right, but how long? What does "soon" mean?

MS. PERINO: He said -- well, I don't have a date for you. And I think what he would like to see is -- we hope it doesn't have to come to us imposing any more sanctions or any other measures against the government. We want Bashir to follow through on what he has said he is going to do. He hasn't in the past, and the President is skeptical, but we're going to give it a chance to work out. But I can assure you that it won't be for very long before the President takes the next steps.

Q What's his level of awareness about the pressure and the impatience of human rights groups, like the ones that put full-page ads in major papers today?

MS. PERINO: The President hears from a lot of people, but I can tell you that he is deeply concerned, he is personally concerned; many of you have heard him express that privately and publicly. And he thinks about it a lot. I think that the pressure that the groups are putting on is known, but I think that it only is an additional factor, given the President's personal concern about it.

Q Dana, also on Sudan, when the President said that if President Bashir does not follow the steps that President Bush has laid out that the United States could take other measures, aside from the sanctions, was he referring to a military option on Sudan?

MS. PERINO: No, I don't believe so. I think that the President believes that this can be worked out diplomatically. However, what the President said is that, hopefully, Bashir will comply with the agreement that he just said he would comply with. There is skepticism amongst the administration as to whether or not he will actually do that, based on previous experience.

I'm not going to rule anything in or out; I have not heard that discussed in terms of military options. But I can assure you that the President is serious about possible new sanctions, both against companies and individuals. And in addition to that, he has directed Secretary Rice to work on a new U.N. Security Council resolution. And in the coming days Secretary Rice will confer with the other members and see what the next step is.

Q Can I get your reaction to something Admiral Fallon said today when he was before the House Armed Services Committee?

MS. PERINO: I haven't seen it.

Q He was talking about Iraq, and he said, "I believe that the things I see on a daily basis give me some cause for optimism. But I'll tell you that there is hardly a week that goes by, certainly a day that doesn't go by, without some major event that also causes us to lose ground." What's your reaction to that? You have a military man talking about events going --

MS. PERINO: I think that is consistent with what we have said, which is that there are extremely difficult and dangerous situation right now in Iraq, and especially in Baghdad. You see the bombings today. I don't have an official death count, but obviously it is entirely too high. Every life is precious. That includes all the innocent Iraqis, the men, women and children who are defenseless against a barbaric enemy. And as General Petraeus and others have said is that there are small signs of hope that the Baghdad security plan would be able to reduce the violence enough so that the Maliki government can get reconciliation in order to bring a more peaceful existence for the Iraqis.

But we have also said that it's going to be very challenging along the way. We've had higher death tolls amongst our soldiers and Marines, and I think that you can expect that that will continue, because the enemy knows how determined we are, and they are just as determined. And I think anybody who thinks that this enemy is tired, they are mistaken. This is a very determined enemy. They are watching what we are doing and what we are saying, and it's critically important that we finish the job in Iraq.

Q But it doesn't sound that hopeful, when you talk about a military man saying --

MS. PERINO: It's going to take -- it's going to take a long time before we can finish out this new Baghdad security plan, as General Petraeus has said. I think only about half of the additional troops that we wanted to send in have arrived. He said it's going to be several --

Q Why is it taking so long on that point?

MS. PERINO: I think it just takes a little while to get troops moved.

Q Do you have anything more on why it's taking so long?

MS. PERINO: No, I don't, you'll have to ask DOD.

Go ahead, Mark.

Q Sorry, Dana. At the outset, you said the troops desperately need the money. Are U.S. troops in Iraq desperate for lack of money?

MS. PERINO: Well, I think that the Department of Defense has articulated the measures that they'd have to take because they don't have the money, and those have been well laid out by the Department of Defense. And they said that this is very difficult for the troops. It's difficult for the Department of Defense to move money around. And it's really unfortunate that the political debate is getting in the way of allowing the troops to have what they need. I think the political debate is going to happen, regardless, but as the President said, the troops shouldn't be caught in the middle.

Q Dana, back on Sudan.

MS. PERINO: Okay.

Q For decades, there's been fighting. Sanctions have already been placed against the Sudanese government. What more can new sanctions do, realistically, if they've already been in this spiraling conflict and sanctions and disapproval for years? What more will this do?

MS. PERINO: Well, I think that we've shown that, as a diplomatic tool, economic sanctions can be very powerful. And it puts a lot of pressure on a government. And so it's just one of the many diplomatic tools that you can use in order to help effect a behavior change.

Q So what sanctions do you think will bring a change that you didn't have before? What new will make them allow AU troops or other troops to come in to bring peace? What new?

MS. PERINO: Well, as the President said, he would allow for targeting of 29 companies, and then some individuals. I'm not going to give you any detail on that. One, I don't have it, and it wouldn't be prudent for me to do so. While Bashir has this time that he's been given in order to comply, we want to make sure that that program stays intact.

Go ahead.

Q The White House said in other situations that military options are not necessarily off the table. You said you wanted to do a diplomatic approach, but is there a possibility that this administration could take military action, air strikes against Sudanese interests, possibly?

MS. PERINO: As you know, the President's position is that no Commander-in-Chief or head of state should take that option off of the table. But it's not anything that I hear being actively discussed.

Goyal.

Q Two quick questions. One, as far as the school shooting is concerned, my heart goes out and my condolence for the families.

MS. PERINO: Absolutely.

Q -- in fact, from Washington to New Delhi, because among the dead at least one Indian student and also a professor from India.

MS. PERINO: Yes, professor.

Q My question is that now there's a feel among the students not only here, but across the globe, including in India, those who want to come for the higher education here. What do you think the President will have a message for them now?

MS. PERINO: I know Sean McCormack got asked this question yesterday at the State Department, and I think it's one that not only people around the world are asking, but I'm sure that parents who are encouraging their children to go to college, and that they have it on their minds, too. Again, I would just try to assure that there people who are working very hard to make sure that places are safe. Unfortunately, there are individuals who, if they are determined to perpetuate violence and to kill people, that they have ways of doing that. And as the facts unfold in this case, we're just learning a lot more about this individual's background and behavior.

What was your second one, quickly?

Q Second one, as far as the U.S.-India civil nuclear agreement is concerned, it still is not finalized by the U.S. Congress because there are some questions by the Indian government, which is not recognizing or not agreeing to some of the conditions set by the agreement. My question is -- and also last week, India tested a missile. You think testing a missile last week, and also two Indians were arrested two weeks ago --

MS. PERINO: I don't know of any of that being related. I do know that we're working very hard with the Indian government to get the deal completed.

Q Do you think anything on the way as far as this deal is concerned, all these issues are concerned?

MS. PERINO: I don't think there's any connection.

Go ahead, Olivier.

Q Dana, two on Sudan. The first is -- I don't have the wording exactly in front of me, but the President talked about supporting or exploring ways to deny the Sudanese government the ability to use war planes in Darfur. Was that a reference to an international no-fly zone?

MS. PERINO: I'm going to let the details of that work itself out. Hopefully it won't even come to that, but when there's more to announce, we would announce it. But again, I would stress that hopefully Bashir will follow through on his commitments.

Q Okay. And Tony Blair now says the first discussions on this new resolution will be tomorrow at the U.N. But Russian and Chinese diplomats are already saying it's a non-starter. Was there any effort out of the White House to reach out to either Moscow or Beijing to get some sense of where they were, or to canvas their support before coming out today and saying --

MS. PERINO: I'll check into it. I'm sure that the State Department was in contact with their officials.

Ann.

Q The critics of the Supreme Court decision today say that this is a case in which the new formation of the Court is taking away Americans' liberties, some of their rights. What does the President say to critics who don't like the change in what they see as --

MS. PERINO: Did they say that last week when the Supreme Court rules on the greenhouse gases issue? They didn't. So I think that the Supreme Court -- they decide and we all follow. And I think that that's what people will have to recognize.

Q Does the President think this is a trend, since this is the first such decision since Roe v. Wade?

MS. PERINO: I haven't heard that from him, no.

Q In his speech on Monday, the President said, "Families gathered here understand that our troops want to finish the job." What evidence does he actually have for that? Because there doesn't seem to be any polling data whatsoever to support the idea that the troops do want to stay and finish the job rather than go home.

MS. PERINO: Victoria, I think that there are many troops and there are many families, and the President hears it personally from them, asking to make sure that the President stays strong and completes the mission.

Q The only polling data there seems to be is an Army Times poll that came out last December, which seems to show, really, that the doubts are whether the troops actually feel that they could finish the job and whether they wanted to finish it.

MS. PERINO: I'm not familiar with that poll. I do know that the President feels confident that when he describes what he hears from the troops, that he's being as forthcoming as he can with the American people. And you just have to -- I think that a lot of it could be anecdotal, but I'm not a polling expert and we don't, as you know, make decisions based on polls.

Q So this isn't based on any empirical data; this is based on people he's spoken with?

MS. PERINO: I think people he's spoken with, generals he hears from that are over there on the ground, people that he talks to. I mean, he talks to many outside experts. Yes, I think that he feels very comfortable that the troops, families of the troops believe that this mission should be completed.

Q I was wondering why you think that the House Democrats have not moved forward with conferees? Do you think they just can't reach an agreement or --

MS. PERINO: I don't know. You'll have to ask the Speaker's office. It's unfathomable. It's nothing I can explain for them -- I wish I could.

Q Thank you, Dana. Two questions. How does the President believe it will help -- how long does the President believe it will be before the lack of a funding plan for the military in Iraq starts costing lives?

MS. PERINO: I'm sorry, how long does he think it will be?

Q -- believe it will be before the lack of a funding plan for the military in Iraq starts costing lives.

MS. PERINO: Costing lives --

Q Of our servicemen.

MS. PERINO: Let me just say that the Department of Defense has said that this is creating hardships for the military to do its job. They need the resources now.

Q What does the President think of the gun control rule which prohibited guns on the campus of Virginia Tech?

MS. PERINO: I haven't spoken to him about that specifically. I do know as governor he supported weapons-free school zones.

Q He supported?

MS. PERINO: When he was governor of Texas, yes.

Q And he thinks that this was effective at Virginia Tech?

MS. PERINO: I'm not going to comment about -- obviously, the investigation is ongoing at Virginia Tech.

April.

Q Dana, what happened yesterday when President Bush was helping the person directly behind him?

MS. PERINO: That individual was a father who lost his only daughter, and he was overcome with grief. He shared with the President later that he hadn't eaten or had anything to drink for many hours, and it was quite warm in the gym. He fainted briefly. And then the President did see him afterwards, when he met with the families in the gym, and they shared good fellowship and lots of hugs and had a nice time talking to one another.

Q As everyone is looking back at what could have happened, what should have happened, is the President somewhat taking a look to say maybe this could have been prevented, or maybe this child should not have had -- this young man should not have had a gun, because of certain laws?

MS. PERINO: I think what the President thinks is that, in this time of mourning and grieving and thinking about the aftermath of one individual's actions, that it's only natural that you think about what led to such a tragedy and how to prevent one in the future.

Q Are you thinking -- is he thinking about changing or stepping up gun control issues?

MS. PERINO: As I said yesterday, I think that there's going to be a debate. The President said there's going to be a debate, and it's one that we have in our country about the right to bear arms, as well as gun control policies. In addition to that, I think one of the things that we're learning out of this investigation, as we have from many of the others, is that there are some individuals who are disaffected in society, lonely, and we have to figure out as a society how to identify those individuals and get them help prior to them having -- going on a rampage and killing all this innocent life.

Q When General Pace talked about some evidence that Iran may be supplying weapons in Afghanistan, in addition to Iraq, does the President think this is a spread of Iranian influence, or something that they've just been able to identify now?

MS. PERINO: I have not spoken to the President about it. What I would be able to say is that Iran obviously is trying to spread its elbows out and have more influence in the region, and not anything good. They are a state sponsor of terror, and the more they sponsor terrorism, the more innocent life is ruined. And this is -- and these are people that are -- the people that are in Afghanistan and Iraq and other places that are dealing with the aftermath of the Iranians providing such weapons are people who are dying -- they are innocent people who are dying. It is tragic, and the pressure that we need to put on Iran is very real.

Q Thank you.

MS. PERINO: Thanks.

END 1:04 P.M. EDT. For Immediate Release April 18, 2007

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House or Dana Perino and VIDEO, or Podcast and General Petraeus, or Speaker Pelosi, and Department of Defense , or Darfur and Sudan or Virginia Tech

Virginia Tech Memorial Convocation VIDEO, PODCAST

Virginia Tech Convocation, 2 PM - Tuesday, April 17, 2007, Cassell Coliseum, Blacksburg, VA. Video Archive © 2007, hokiesports.com, FULL STREAMING VIDEO. Running time is 1:00:58

President Bush Offers Condolences at Virginia Tech Memorial Convocation, FULL STREAMING VIDEO, PODCAST OF THIS ARTICLE Cassell Coliseum, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, 2:36 P.M. EDT. Honoring the Victims of the Tragedy at Virginia Tech and In Focus: School Safety.

Cho Seung-Hui Image Zeitgeist Updates Constantly

More Flickr photos tagged with Cho Seung-Hui

Virginia Tech Image Zeitgeist Updates Constantly

More Flickr photos tagged with Virginia Tech

THE PRESIDENT: Governor, thank you. President Steger, thank you very much. Students, and faculty, and staff, and grieving family members, and members of this really extraordinary place.

Laura and I have come to Blacksburg today with hearts full of sorrow. This is a day of mourning for the Virginia Tech community -- and it is a day of sadness for our entire nation. We've come to express our sympathy. In this time of anguish, I hope you know that people all over this country are thinking about you, and asking God to provide comfort for all who have been affected.

Yesterday began like any other day. Students woke up, and they grabbed their backpacks and they headed for class. And soon the day took a dark turn, with students and faculty barricading themselves in classrooms and dormitories -- confused, terrified, and deeply worried. By the end of the morning, it was the worst day of violence on a college campus in American history -- and for many of you here today, it was the worst day of your lives.

It's impossible to make sense of such violence and suffering. Those whose lives were taken did nothing to deserve their fate. They were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Now they're gone -- and they leave behind grieving families, and grieving classmates, and a grieving nation.

In such times as this, we look for sources of strength to sustain us. And in this moment of loss, you're finding these sources everywhere around you. These sources of strength are in this community, this college community. You have a compassionate and resilient community here at Virginia Tech. Even as yesterday's events were still unfolding, members of this community found each other; you came together in dorm rooms and dining halls and on blogs. One recent graduate wrote this: "I don't know most of you guys, but we're all Hokies, which means we're family. To all of you who are okay, I'm happy for that. For those of you who are in pain or have lost someone close to you, I'm sure you can call on anyone of us and have help any time you need it."

These sources of strength are with your loved ones. For many of you, your first instinct was to call home and let your moms and dads know that you were okay. Others took on the terrible duty of calling the relatives of a classmate or a colleague who had been wounded or lost. I know many of you feel awfully far away from people you lean on and people you count on during difficult times. But as a dad, I can assure you, a parent's love is never far from their child's heart. And as you draw closer to your own families in the coming days, I ask you to reach out to those who ache for sons and daughters who will never come home.

These sources of strength are also in the faith that sustains so many of us. Across the town of Blacksburg and in towns all across America, houses of worship from every faith have opened their doors and have lifted you up in prayer. People who have never met you are praying for you; they're praying for your friends who have fallen and who are injured. There's a power in these prayers, real power. In times like this, we can find comfort in the grace and guidance of a loving God. As the Scriptures tell us, "Don't be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."

And on this terrible day of mourning, it's hard to imagine that a time will come when life at Virginia Tech will return to normal. But such a day will come. And when it does, you will always remember the friends and teachers who were lost yesterday, and the time you shared with them, and the lives they hoped to lead. May God bless you. May God bless and keep the souls of the lost. And may His love touch all those who suffer and grieve. (Applause.)

END 2:45 P.M. EDT. For Immediate Release, Office of the Press Secretary, April 17, 2007

Technorati Tags: President Bush and Shootings at Virginia Tech VIDEO or Virginia Tech Memorial Convocation and PODCAST

Shootings at Virginia Tech LIVE VIDEO

UPDATE: Virginia Tech Convocation, 2 PM - Tuesday, April 17, 2007, Cassell Coliseum, Blacksburg, VA. Video Archive © 2007, hokiesports.com, FULL STREAMING VIDEO. PODCAST, Running time is 1:00:58

President Bush Shocked, Saddened by Shootings at Virginia Tech, FULL STREAMING VIDEO, Diplomatic Reception Room 4:01 P.M. EDT, Live Coverage from ABC News FULL STREAMING LIVE VIDEO

THE PRESIDENT: Our nation is shocked and saddened by the news of the shootings at Virginia Tech today. The exact total has not yet been confirmed, but it appears that more than 30 people were killed and many more were wounded. I've spoken with Governor Tim Kaine and Virginia Tech President Charles Steger. I told them that Laura and I and many across our nation are praying for the victims and their families and all the members of the university community who have been devastated by this terrible tragedy. I told them that my administration would do everything possible to assist with the investigation, and that I pledged that we would stand ready to help local law enforcement and the local community in any way we can during this time of sorrow.

Schools should be places of safety and sanctuary and learning. When that sanctuary is violated, the impact is felt in every American classroom and every American community.

Today, our nation grieves with those who have lost loved ones at Virginia Tech. We hold the victims in our hearts, we lift them up in our prayers, and we ask a loving God to comfort those who are suffering today.

Thank you.

END 4:03 P.M. EDT, For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary April 16, 2007

Virginia Tech Image Zeitgeist Updates Constantly

www.flickr.com

Technorati Tags: President Bush and Shootings at Virginia Tech LIVE VIDEO

The American Legion Preview and Review

This Months Launch of the The American Legion Blog reminds us of the brave veterans living and dead to whom we owe a debt that can never be truely repaid.

Please take a moment to visit their new home on the net, look, listen and learn.

The founder of the American Legion was the late Col. Ernest Lester Jones, who served in the First Army Air Service overseas during World War I, and later became the director of the U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey. It was Col. Jones’ idea that memories of the comradeship and sacrifices made by those who participated in World War I should be perpetuated through a national veterans organization, and he called a small group together in the Cosmos Club on February 5, 1919, and plans were discussed.

A call was sent out on February 23, 1919, for a caucus to be held in the Cosmos Club, of which Col. Jones was an active member, and on March 7, 1919, a caucus was held in the assembly hall of the Cosmos Club with 375 veterans responding and participating in the activities of the meeting.

It was decided at this caucus not to form any permanent organization because a large number of veterans were still overseas, but to organize the first unit and elect officers, which was done. Col. Jones was unanimously elected the first commander of the unit, which was named “General Pershing Post, No. 1,” in honor of his close friend, Gen. John J. Pershing, with whom he served overseas. At the request of the unit, Col. Jones sent the following telegram next day to Gen. Pershing:

“I have the honor to inform you that on March 7 the first veteran post of the World War was organized in the Nation’s Capital, which was unanimously named General Pershing Post, No. 1, Delegates were named to confer with representatives from our forces overseas, looking toward early formation of national organization.

“E. Lester Jones, “Colonel, Air Service.”

On March 15, 1919, eight days after the caucus at the Cosmos Club, a representative group of officers and men who were still overseas held a caucus in Paris, France, and the name “American Legion” was tentatively adopted.

A committee representing the overseas veterans came to the United States and joined a like committee and plans were formulated for holding a caucus in St. Louis, Mo., on May 8, 9 and 10, 1919.

Col. E. Lester Jones headed the first delegation which attended the St. Louis caucus.

There was adopted, among other things at the St. Louis caucus, the “preamble” to the constitution of the American Legion which has made that organization famous the world over. The groundwork for this preamble was drafted by Col. Jones, chairman of the District delegation, and was formally presented by the delegation to the caucus. A comparison of his original manuscript with the present preamble shows how his original ideas were embodied in the preamble as finally adopted. Also at the St. Louis caucus authority was granted the District to form a department, and on May 19, 1919, at a largely attended meeting in Central High School, Col. Jones was unanimously elected the first department commander in the history of the American Legion. George Washington Post holds “Charter No. 1" in the national organization and the Department of the District of Columbia holds “Department Charter No. 1.”

As a memorial to the late Col. E. Lester Jones, George Washington Post, No. 1, American Legion, formally presented a bronze plaque to the U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey in January, 1940. The presentation was made by the late Maj. Wallace Streator.

It was the wish of George Washington Post, No. 1, that this plaque be installed or unveiled in the U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey tender E. Lester Jones with appropriate ceremonies and with representatives of a Seattle (Wash.) American Legion post in attendance. Present on the occasion were various members of George Washington Post, No. 1, Miss Cecil Lester Jones, daughter of the late Col. Jones; Col. J. M. Johnson, and several Coast and Geodetic Survey officers on duty in the Washington office.

The plaque was installed in the Wardroom of the tender E. Lester Jones with appropriate ceremonies and with representatives of a Seattle American Legion Post participating.

MARY ETHEL KNOTTS, U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Washington.

General Disclaimer for NOAA text and Images: Information presented on this Web site (NOAA) is considered public information and may be distributed or copied freely unless identified as being subject to copyright protection. In return, we request only that the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), be cited as the source of any information, photos, and images copied from this site and that any photo credits or bylines be similarly credited to the photographer or author.

Copyright Notice: As required by 17 U.S.C. 403, third parties producing copyrighted works consisting predominantly of the material produced by U.S. government agencies must provide notice with such work(s) identifying the U.S. Government material incorporated and stating that such material is not subject to copyright protection. The information on government web pages is in the public domain unless specifically annotated otherwise (copyright may be held elsewhere) and may therefore be used freely by the public.

American Legion Vision Disclaimer - This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License

Technorati Tags: The American Legion and Col. Ernest Lester or World War I and national veterans organization or Cosmos Club and General Pershing Post or Four Pillars of Service and Web News for God and Country

Least Dense Crystals in alternative energy technologies

Chemists at UCLA Design the Least Dense Crystals Known to Man for Applications in Clean Energy

Chemists at UCLA have designed new organic structures for the storage of voluminous amounts of gases for use in alternative energy technologies.

The research, to be published on April 13 in the journal Science, demonstrates how the design principles of reticular chemistry have been used to create three-dimensional covalent organic frameworks, which are entirely constructed from strong covalent bonds and have high thermal stability,

high surface areas and extremely low densities.

The team of researchers comprises chemists from the Center for Reticular Chemistry at UCLA's California NanoSystems Institute and the departments of chemistry and biochemistry at UCLA.

Led by Omar Yaghi, UCLA professor of chemistry and biochemistry, the team has developed a class of materials in which components can be changed nearly at will. Reticular chemistry, the brainchild of Yaghi, is the chemistry of linking molecular building blocks by strong bonds into predetermined structures. The principles of reticular chemistry and the ability to construct chemical structures from these molecular building blocks has led to the creation of new classes of materials of exceptional variety.

The covalent organic frameworks, or COFs (pronounced "coffs"), one of these new classes of materials, are the first crystalline porous organic networks. A member of this series, COF-108, has the lowest density reported of any crystalline material.

"These are the first materials ever made in which the organic building blocks are linked by strong bonds to make covalent organic frameworks," Yaghi said. "The key is that COFs are composed of light elements, such as boron, carbon and oxygen, which provide thermal stability and great functionality."

COF-108, the latest advance in reticular chemistry development, has a high surface area, with more than 4,500 meters per gram.

"One gram, unraveled, could cover the surface area of approximately 30 tennis courts," Yaghi said.

In the push to develop methods to control greenhouse gas emissions, some of the biggest challenges have been finding ways to store hydrogen for use as a fuel, to use methane as an alternative fuel, and to capture and store carbon dioxide from power plant smokestacks before it reaches the atmosphere. Yaghi and his colleagues believe COFs are uniquely suited for all these applications because of their functional flexibility and their extremely light weight and high porosity.

Through reticular chemistry, Yaghi has developed a process whereby it is possible to utilize the arsenal of organic building blocks to construct a large number of new COF structures whose components can be easily designed to suit a particular application. The pore size and pore functionality of these materials can be varied at will.

Yaghi, whose research overlaps chemistry, materials science and engineering, is a member of the California NanoSystems Institute (CNSI) at UCLA, which encourages cross-disciplinary collaboration to solve problems in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Yaghi is also the director of the Center for Reticular Chemistry at the CNSI.

"I have long been interested in making materials in a rational way," Yaghi said. "At the beginning of my career, I always thought it should be possible to create a predetermined chemical structure by linking together well-defined molecules as building blocks, just as an architect creates a blueprint prior to construction on buildings."

A year ago, Yaghi made national headlines when he and his team at UCLA, along with colleagues at the University of Michigan, conducted research that could lead to a hydrogen fuel that powers not only cars but laptop computers, cellular phones, digital cameras and other electronic devices. The findings were reported in the Journal of the American Chemical Society in March 2006.

The materials used in that research, invented by Yaghi in the early 1990s, are called metal-organic frameworks, or MOFs, which have been described as crystal sponges. These frameworks have nanoscale-size openings, or pores, in which Yaghi and his colleagues can store gases — such as hydrogen and methane — that are generally difficult to store and transport.

BASF, a global chemical company based in Germany, has licensed the technology and is moving forward on commercialization of MOFs.

In the fall of 2006, Yaghi was named one of the "Brilliant 10" by Popular Science magazine, which described him as a "hydrogen nano-architect" whose "research papers rank among the most influential in his field." At the age of 42, Yaghi is already ranked No. 22 on the list of the Top 100 most-cited chemists by Thomson Scientific.

The research was funded by BASF, the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Energy.

For more on Yaghi's research, visit Omar M. Yaghi Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry, UCLA.

The California NanoSystems Institute (CNSI) is a multidisciplinary research center at UCLA whose mission is to encourage university–industry collaboration and to enable the rapid commercialization of discoveries in nanosystems. CNSI members include some of the world's preeminent scientists, and the work conducted at the institute represents world-class expertise in five targeted areas of nanosystems-related research: renewable energy, environmental nanotechnology and nanotoxicology, nanobiotechnology and biomaterials, nanomechanical and nanofluidic systems, and nanoelectronics, photonics and architectonics. The institute is home to eight core facilities that will serve both academic and industry collaborations. For additional information, visit California NanoSystems Institute.

UCLA is California's largest university, with an enrollment of nearly 37,000 undergraduate and graduate students. The UCLA College of Letters and Science and the university's 11 professional schools feature renowned faculty and offer more than 300 degree programs and majors. UCLA is a national and international leader in the breadth and quality of its academic, research, health care, cultural, continuing education and athletic programs. Four alumni and five faculty have been awarded the Nobel Prize.

Contact: Jennifer Marcus jmarcus@cnsi.ucla.edu 310-267-4839 University of California - Los Angeles

Technorati Tags: organic structures and alternative energy technologies or chemistry and biochemistry or Twenty in Ten Initiative and Chemical Engineering or covalent organic frameworks and greenhouse gas emissions or Energy Efficiency and Department of Energy or hydrogen and methane

Freedom Calendar 04/07/07 - 04/21/07

April 14, 1896, George Myers, nationally prominent African-American Republican, rallies southern blacks to support William McKinley, helping him win 1896 presidential nomination.

April 15, 1929, U.S. Rep. Oscar De Priest (R-IL) becomes first African-American in Congress since 1901

April 16, 1862, President Lincoln signs bill abolishing slavery in District of Columbia; in Congress, 99% of Republicans vote yes, 83% of Democrats vote no.

April 17, 1823, Birth of Arkansas Republican Mifflin Gibbs, elected in 1873 as first African-American judge; later appointed by President William McKinley as Consul to Madagascar.

April 18, 1920, Minnesota’s first-in-the-nation anti-lynching law, promoted by African-American Republican Nellie Francis, signed by Republican Gov. Jacob Preus.

April 19, 1866, Thousands assemble in Washington, DC to celebrate Republican Party’s abolition of slavery.

April 20, 1871, Republican Congress enacts the Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democratic Party-affiliated terrorist groups which oppressed African-Americans.

April 21, 1926, Death of George Murray, former slave who served as U.S. Rep. (R-SC) from 1893-97.

“No man is above the law, and no man is below it.”

Theodore Roosevelt, 26th President of the United States

Technorati Tags: President Bush and Freedom Calendar or NAACP and Republicans or African-Americans and 13th Amendment or right to vote and Civil Rights or Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass or 40 acres and a mule or Brown v. Board of Education and Martin Luther King or Dred Scott

Presidential Podcast 04/14/07

Presidential Podcast 04/14/07 . In Focus: Defense, Subscribe to Our Odeo or podnova Podcast Channel and receive the weekly Presidential Radio Address in English and Spanish with select State Department Briefings. Featuring real audio and full text transcripts, More content Sources added often so stay tuned.

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House radio address or Congress

Bush radio address 04/14/07 full audio, text transcript

bush radio address 04/14/07 full audio, text transcript. President's Radio Address . In Focus: Defense

Subscribe to Our Odeo or podnova Podcast Channel and receive the weekly Presidential Radio Address in English and Spanish with select State Department Briefings. Featuring real audio and full text transcripts, More content Sources added often so stay tuned.

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. This week I extended an invitation to congressional leaders of both parties to come to the White House so we can discuss the emergency war funding our troops are waiting for. When we meet on Wednesday, I look forward to hearing how Members of Congress plan to meet their responsibilities and provide our troops with the funding they need.

Supporting our troops is a solemn responsibility of all elected officials in Washington, D.C. So 68 days ago, I sent Congress an emergency war spending bill that would provide the vital funds needed for our troops on the front lines. But instead of approving this funding, Democrats in Congress have spent the past 68 days pushing legislation that would undercut our troops. They passed bills that would impose restrictions on our military commanders and set an arbitrary date for withdrawal from Iraq, giving our enemies the victory they desperately want.

The Democrats' bills also spend billions of dollars on domestic projects that have nothing to do with the war, such as funding for tours of the United States Capitol and for peanut storage. And after passing these unacceptable bills in the House and Senate, Democratic leaders then chose to leave town without sending any legislation to my desk.
The Senate came back to Washington earlier this week, but the House is still on its Easter recess. Meanwhile, our troops are waiting for the funds. And to cover the shortfall, our military may be forced to consider what Army General Pete Schoomaker has called "increasingly draconian measures."

In the next few days, our military leaders will notify Congress that they will be forced to transfer $1.6 billion from other military accounts to make up for the gaps caused by Congress' failure to fund our troops in the field. That means our military will have to take money from personnel accounts so they can continue to fund U.S. Army operations in Iraq and elsewhere.

This $1.6 billion in transfer comes on top of another $1.7 billion in transfers that our military leaders notified Congress about last month. In March, Congress was told that the military would need to take money from personnel accounts, weapons and communications systems, so we can continue to fund programs that protect our troops from improvised explosive devices and send hundreds of mine-resistant vehicles to the front lines. These actions are only the beginning, and the longer Congress delays the worse the impact on the men and women of the Armed Forces will be.

I recognize that Republicans and Democrats in Washington have differences over the best course in Iraq, and we should vigorously debate those differences. But our troops should not be trapped in the middle. They have been waiting for this money long enough. Congress must now work quickly and pass a clean bill that funds our troops, without artificial time lines for withdrawal, without handcuffing our generals on the ground, and without extraneous domestic spending.

When you live in Washington, it's easy to get caught up in the complexities of legislative procedure. But for the American people, this is not a complicated debate. When Americans went to the polls last November, they did not vote for politicians to substitute their judgment for the judgment of our commanders on the ground. And they certainly did not vote to make peanut storage projects part of the funding for our troops.

The American people voted for change in Iraq, and that is exactly what our new commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, is working to achieve. And they expect their elected leaders to support our men and women on the front lines, so they have every resource they need to complete their mission.

We owe it to the American people and to our troops and their families to deliver our full support. I will continue working with Republicans and responsible Democrats to do just that. I call on Members of Congress to put partisanship on hold, resolve their differences, and send me a clean bill that gets our troops the funds they need.

Thank you for listening.

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House radio address or Congress

Discurso Radial del Presidente a la Nación 04/14/07

forre el audio de la dirección de radio 04/14/07 por completo, transcripción del texto. (nota de los redactores: ninguna lengua española mp3 lanzó esta semana, apesadumbrada) PODCAST

Suscribir a nuestro canal de Podcast de Odeo o del podnova y recibir la dirección de radio presidencial semanal en inglés y español con informes selectos del departamento del estado. Ofreciendo transcripciones audio y con texto completo verdaderas, más fuentes contentas agregaron a menudo así que la estancia templó.

Buenos Días. Esta semana invité a los líderes de ambos partidos en el Congreso que vinieran a la Casa Blanca para que podamos discutir los fondos de emergencia para la guerra que nuestras tropas esperan. Cuando nos reunamos el miércoles tendré interés en escuchar cómo los miembros del Congreso piensan cumplir con sus responsabilidades y proporcionar a nuestras tropas los fondos que necesitan.

Apoyar a nuestras tropas es la responsabilidad solemne de todo oficial electo en Washington DC. Por lo tanto, hace 68 días yo envié al Congreso un proyecto de ley para gastos de guerra de emergencia que ofrecería los fondos vitales necesarios para nuestras tropas en las líneas del frente. Pero en lugar de aprobar este financiamiento, los Demócratas en el Congreso han pasado los últimos 68 días promoviendo legislación que perjudicaría a nuestras tropas. Aprobaron proyectos de ley que impondrían restricciones a nuestros comandantes militares y fijarían una fecha arbitraria para retirarnos de Irak – dándoles a nuestros enemigos la victoria que desean desesperadamente. Los proyectos de ley de los Demócratas también gastarían miles de millones de dólares en proyectos que no tienen nada que ver con la guerra – tales como financiar visitas al Capitolio de Estados Unidos y para almacenaje de cacahuates. Y después de aprobar estos proyectos de ley inaceptables en la Cámara de Representantes y el Senado, los líderes Demócratas decidieron irse de la ciudad – sin enviarme ninguna legislación.

El Senado volvió a Washington a principios de esta semana, pero la Cámara sigue en su receso de Pascua. Mientras tanto, nuestras tropas están esperando los fondos. Y para cubrir el déficit, nuestras fuerzas armadas podrán verse obligadas a considerar lo que el General del Ejército Pete Schoomaker ha llamado “medidas cada vez más draconianas”. En los próximos días nuestros líderes militares notificarán al Congreso que se verán obligados a transferir 1.6 mil millones de dólares de otras cuentas militares para cerrar las lagunas causadas por la falta del Congreso de financiar nuestras tropas en el terreno. Eso significa que nuestras fuerzas militares tendrán que usar dinero de cuentas de personal a fin de poder continuar financiando operaciones del Ejército de EE.UU. en Irak y otras partes.

Estos 1.6 mil millones de dólares en transferencias vienen encima de otros 1.7 mil millones de dólares en transferencias sobre las cuales nuestros líderes militares notificaron al Congreso el mes pasado. En marzo, el Congreso fue informado que las fuerzas armadas necesitarían tomar dinero de cuentas de personal, armas, y sistemas de comunicaciones a fin de que podamos seguir financiando programas que protegen a nuestras tropas de dispositivos explosivos improvisados, y enviar cientos de vehículos resistentes a minas a las líneas del frente. Estas acciones son sólo el comienzo – y mientras más demore el Congreso, peor será el impacto sobre los hombres y mujeres de las Fuerzas Armadas.

Reconozco que los Republicanos y los Demócratas en Washington tienen diferencias sobre el mejor curso a seguir en Irak – y debemos debatir estas diferencias vigorosamente. Pero nuestras tropas no deben quedar atrapadas en el medio. Han estado esperando este dinero demasiado tiempo. El Congreso debe actuar sin demoras y aprobar un proyecto limpio que proporcione fondos para nuestras tropas – sin plazos artificiales para retirarnos – sin atar las manos de nuestros generales en el terreno… y sin gastos domésticos innecesarios.

Cuando uno vive en Washington es fácil verse inmiscuido en las complejidades del procedimiento legislativo. Pero para el pueblo de Estados Unidos este no es un debate complicado. Cuando los estadounidenses fueron a las urnas en Noviembre pasado no votaron para que los políticos sustituyeran su juicio por el de nuestros comandantes en el terreno. Y definitivamente no votaron para que proyectos de almacenaje de cacahuates formaran parte del financiamiento de nuestras tropas. El pueblo de Estados Unidos votó por un cambio en Irak – y eso es exactamente lo que nuestro nuevo comandante en Irak, el General David Petraeus, está buscando lograr. Y ellos esperan que sus líderes electos apoyen a nuestros hombres y mujeres en las líneas del frente – para que tengan todos los recursos que necesitan para cumplir con su misión.

Es nuestro deber entregar nuestro apoyo completo al pueblo de Estados Unidos – y a nuestras tropas y sus familias. Yo seguiré trabajando con Republicanos y con Demócratas responsables para hacer precisamente eso. Les pido a los miembros del Congreso que suspendan el partidarismo, resuelvan sus diferencias, y me envíen un proyecto de ley limpio que le hará llegar a nuestras tropas los fondos que necesitan.

Gracias por escuchar.

Para su publicación inmediata, Oficina del Secretario de Prensa, 14 de abril de 2007

Etiquetas De Technorati: Discurso Radial del Presidente a la Nación, y Presidente Bush

White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 04/13/07 VIDEO

Press Briefing by Dana Perino, White House Conference Center Briefing Room, FULL STREAMING VIDEO, Dana M. Perino Biography, 1:41 P.M. EDT . PODCAST OF ARTICLE MS. PERINO: Good afternoon. Happy Friday. Okay, I don't have anything to announce. I'll just go to questions.

Q Have you been able to determine why Karl Rove's ability to delete emails was --

MS. PERINO: No, not between the gaggle and now, I haven't.

Q Okay. How about the list of the 22 officials; are you ready to release that?

MS. PERINO: No, but we've taken it under consideration. No, I don't have that ready yet, but we are consulting -- obviously, we're in communication with the committee, meaning the House Judiciary Committee, as well as the RNC general counsel. And so a lot of these things are being discussed at that level. And so in between 10 a.m. and now I wasn't able to get a conclusion.

Q Do you know whether White House officials were able to delete their own emails even after this archival policy went into effect?

MS. PERINO: White House officials -- you mean somebody like myself?

Q Who had the RNC accounts.

MS. PERINO: If they could have deleted their own emails --

Q After the 2005 archive provision went into effect. Did they retain the ability?

MS. PERINO: I believe that that would have been within the realm of possibility, but I don't know of anybody that -- again, we don't know of anybody that actually was doing that, to my knowledge, and we do not have any indication that there was any basis to conclude that there was any wrongdoing, intentional wrongdoing in the use of the RNC emails. You're talking about the double-delete function, where you can delete your deleted files?

Q Yes.

MS. PERINO: I don't know.

Q Dana, is there a limit to the mailbox size with the RNC accounts? Do you know that level of detail, whether you'd have to delete at some point or you couldn't get any more emails?

MS. PERINO: I don't know. I know that oftentimes our computers can slow down, but we have an automatic archiving system that comes through and cleans it up for us. And all of the emails, except for the ones -- the very small slice of the universe I've told you about that have the GWB accounts -- any email that touches any part of an EOP or White House server or computer, those are automatically preserved.

Q Dana, Democrats are concerned that perhaps these accounts were used in order to keep information -- harder to be under public scrutiny, harder to find through discovery, things like that. They're not satisfied that these emails can't be retrieved. What's your --

MS. PERINO: I would caution against anyone making any broad, sweeping conclusions. What we have done is come forward to talk about the small slice of universe -- small slice of the universe of the emails that we've identified that have the potential to possibly not be there. And, again, I think that one of the things that's difficult is the things that we don't know. We don't know them, but we're trying to find them out. And there are ways that you can retrieve any emails that are potentially lost. And we are beginning conversations with outside consultants, forensic consultants who could tell us the best way to do that, the best way to retrieve those. But, again, I would stress to you that we have seen no basis to conclude that there was any intentional wrongdoing with the use of these emails.

Q But this was a problem, a mistake.

MS. PERINO: I said it yesterday, I think I said it concisely.

Q Dana, if I could follow. We have mentioned before the group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. They issued this report, and they are saying their analysis shows that between March 2003-October 2005, there were hundreds of days in which emails were missing -- this being in the White House system, not the RNC -- and that this equated -- it was estimated that roughly over 5 million email messages were missing.

MS. PERINO: I don't know if that group actually has -- I don't know how they do an analysis on an internal White House system. But I did check it out, and we are in communication with the Office of Administration to see if there are days or partial days when there were emails that would have gone missing. And in terms of -- "missing" is a word that -- maybe misplaced, or not necessarily lost forever. I think there are backup tapes, there are different ways in order to go back and find emails.

And in talking with them and with the Counsel's Office, there is no indication that anyone who is working on a server or in terms of technical capability that would be able to look at a server, clean up a server, or, in terms of when we converted from Lotus Notes to Microsoft Outlook if there would have been any potential loss there, that there was any intentional loss of any document. I think that those folks take those jobs very seriously and endeavor to make sure that all of the records are preserved for the Presidential Records Act, as well as the Federal Records Act.

Q So, just to be clear, are you taking issue with their conclusions, or are you just saying --

MS. PERINO: I'm not taking issue with their conclusions at this point. We're checking into them. And, again, there's 1,700 people in the Executive Office of the President. I don't know how -- we'll try to find out how many emails a day are sent with that many people. I can assure you it's a high number. But I also will tell you that the technical folks that we've spoken to in the preliminary discussions was that if there had been an inadvertent human error or a technical problem where there were days where emails might have been misplaced, that either, one -- well, one, it wouldn't have been intentional; and, two, there are ways that we can try to gather those if need be.

Think about it. I mean, there are sometimes -- and I don't have a list of the days with me -- but if it was a Saturday or a Sunday, oftentimes because we have such a large organization that works 24/7, but mostly Monday through Friday, if they do any maintenance on our servers, just like in your organizations, they often do it on times when it's slow -- slow periods. And so if they are looking at those days -- we just need to do a little bit more work before I can answer definitively.

Q So, to your knowledge, there's no problem within the White House email system, in terms of messages or emails that have been deleted? Or at this point, you just don't know?

MS. PERINO: No, what I'm saying is that -- the way that the system is set up, and the way to comply with the Presidential Records Act is that any email that goes to or from a White House account, an EOP account that you all email us on, those are automatically preserved. Their question was specific not to GWB emails but to White House account emails, and their question is -- the allegations that there could be days, whole days missing.

And what I'm saying is, we're looking into that. But I would caution people from making any broad conclusions about that, for the reasons I've stated -- which is, there's no indication that that would have been intentional, and there are ways that you can find missing emails. And that's one of the ways that they do that. I'm not a technical expert, but they have the expertise on that.

Q Just a quick follow here. They alleged that White House Counsel Harriet Miers was informed of this problem at the time, these missing emails, and that they -- that she didn't do anything about it or the White House didn't do anything about it. Are you aware of that, or --

MS. PERINO: I haven't spoken to Harriet. Obviously, she's no longer working here. But we are -- Scott Stanzel and I are working to find as much information as possible, and we're talking to the Office of Administration. Remember, sometimes -- we don't have the same personnel, necessarily, that we had three or four years ago. So we're working to get the answers for you.

Q Dana, can we go back broadly for just one moment?

MS. PERINO: Okay.

Q You've had a change of policy here. Why?

MS. PERINO: Well, as I said, this -- now stepping back away from that particular problem on EOP emails and talking about, specifically about GWB RNC-hosted accounts, out of an abundance of caution at the beginning of the administration, there were two basic notices, in terms of policy, on this issue. One was, official White House business should be done on official White House accounts.

The second one was -- and it was much more extensive -- how an individual who has responsibilities in both the political and the official worlds would avoid violating the Hatch Act. And that was very explicit, and the Hatch Act says you cannot use a government-issued computer or any sort of government-issued equipment, which is paid for by taxpayer dollars, to do any sort of political business. And so out of an abundance of caution, and because people were concerned about violating the Hatch Act, and because of convenience, in terms of managing multiple devices, as the BlackBerrys became more ubiquitous, the policy wasn't always followed correctly.

And so we decided that the best thing to do was to let you know that, and to, secondly, have a new policy, one that makes it much more clear and gives the employee much more clear guidance. There was a failing both on not having a clear guidance, not having good management or overseeing of the issue, and then individuals not following through on the guidance.

Again, I think it was more -- I don't think it was intentional, and there's no indication that there was anything improper or improper use of these RNC emails. But it is better now to have a clearer policy in which people know exactly where the lines are, and if they have questions about whether they fall in the gray area and where the line is, the Counsel's Office has let them know that their door is open and that they're happy to help them make those judgments.

Q Could you enunciate what that policy is and when it went into effect?

MS. PERINO: It was recently, only in the last couple weeks or so, I think.

Q And what is that policy?

MS. PERINO: I think it's what I've just described to you, which is that you still need -- that White House business still needs to be done on White House official accounts; political -- I see your point -- political affairs business needs to be done on your RNC account. We want to make sure that people aren't using government-sponsored -- or government-paid-for equipment to do political business, but that, out of an abundance of wanting to make sure we're complying with the Presidential Records Act, that you should figure out a way to preserve those documents, so either by printing them out or saving them in some way on your computer or CC-ing yourself so that if, in the future, at any time the Counsel's Office needs to review those documents, they are available.

Q Dana, I'm unclear on -- you said the policy wasn't always followed before. But then is there an indication of wrongdoing there, and violation of the Hatch Act?

MS. PERINO: I think the way to describe it would be that there's no indication that anyone was intentionally not following the policy. I think that the policy wasn't very clear, and that people needed a clearer policy. And especially because technology changed pretty rapidly. I think people at the White House -- and I don't know about you all -- but we didn't have access to BlackBerrys until well after -- right around after September 11th. And then at that point, it was only a very few people. And now it's much more widespread.

Q Are you certain there was no violation of the Hatch Act? I mean, you just said the policy wasn't always followed. So what does that mean, exactly?

MS. PERINO: I don't know of anybody that violated the Hatch Act.

Q Whether it was intentional or not --

MS. PERINO: I don't know of anyone that violated the Hatch Act or would have intentionally violated the Hatch Act.

Q Dana, just following up on that, two questions. First, at the outset of the administration you had this policy. Were there ethics trainings? Was it just a written policy that was distributed? How was the policy communicated to your staff?

MS. PERINO: I've worked here a long time; I can't remember. I do know that we get a written policy. I do know that -- and there is ethics training for everyone. I can't remember specifically how this was described in that ethics training.

Q And then you said -- actually, three questions. You said there wasn't enough oversight of the policy. Whose job is it to oversee that people were adhering to this policy? Who fell down on the job?

MS. PERINO: That's a good question. I don't specifically know. I think it was more a definition of senior staff, senior management.

Q And then with respect to Karl, Henry Waxman, after his meeting with the RNC, or his aide's meeting with the RNC lawyer yesterday, wrote a letter stating that the committee had, in 2005, adopted a policy specifically aimed at Karl Rove, that precluded him from manually deleting his emails from the RNC server. Why did the RNC need a special policy for Karl Rove?

MS. PERINO: As I said this morning, there are ongoing discussions between our Counsel's Office and the RNC general counsel, and it's just not something I'm able to answer right now. I understand that you want the answer, I just don't have it for you.

Go ahead, Holly.

Q When you talk about this guidance at the beginning of the administration, our understanding is that Gonzales, when he was in the White House Counsel's Office, he issued some guidance on this. Is that true, and can you release that guidance?

MS. PERINO: Can I look into it?

Q Yes.

MS. PERINO: It would follow that as Counsel to the President and in charge of the ethics counsel -- that's not illogical, but I need to check.

Q Can that be released, so we could actually see what was --

MS. PERINO: We typically have not released internal White House documents, but I'll take a look.

Q The thing is, since you're saying it was unclear, it was confusing, that way we could see for ourselves, and judge it.

MS. PERINO: Yes. Go ahead, John.

Q Have you read or been briefed on the letter from Waxman to Gonzales?

MS. PERINO: I have read the letter.

Q Okay, because at the end it seems to indicate that Rove's email capabilities were changed -- I'm sorry, I don't have the specific language in front of me -- but it seems to indicate that his email capabilities were changed because of an investigation. There's some mention of an investigation.

MS. PERINO: This follows within what Sheryl was asking about, and it's just not something I can answer right now.

Q Do you think that the increased focus on Karl Rove's

email and possibly his emails being missing might give more ammunition to Democrats who want to see him brought up to testify?

MS. PERINO: My experience has been that any time Karl Rove's name is mentioned, it adds to the ammunition, regardless of merit.

Q Do you think it has merit?

MS. PERINO: No comment. Go ahead, Peter.

Q Following up on a question from yesterday, were you able to determine who determined that the emails were missing and how this was determined?

MS. PERINO: Broadly but not specifically, in terms of the Counsel's Office review. I think that's when they realized that that -- remember, the Justice Department has been working to be responsive to the Congress, providing the documents that they ask for. And in one of those documents it showed that a White House employee had sent an email to the Justice Department, and it was from a GWB account. And that's what raised a question about it. There was nothing improper about using that account, but that's where it initiated. And so I think that from there, that's where they started looking into it more.

Q So someone went back and looked into that and found that it and others were missing, is that what you're saying?

MS. PERINO: Well, I'm not saying that anyone said that they were missing. The question is, is there a potential that some could have been lost. And, yes, there is a potential that some could have been lost, but we don't have a definition in terms of that universe or an answer specifically on that, until we are able to talk more about the forensics.

Q You've been talking about so many policies today and in the other briefing. Just to try to clarify, you said the policy wasn't clear, the policy was not always followed correctly. Which policy or policies are you talking about?

MS. PERINO: Just specifically about -- the example that I can give you is that from the White House manual that I've looked at, there is one paragraph explaining -- it's a short paragraph explaining that you should do White House official business on your White House official account. And then when you get to the part about how to avoid violating the Hatch Act, there's two pages of very explicit instruction. That's why I say that that policy was a little bit more clear.

Q And that's been sharpened now?

MS. PERINO: Yes. Go ahead, Alexis.

Q Dana, I want to go back in time, related to what Sheryl was asking. When the White House Counsel told the White House employees to be in full compliance with the subpoenas and requests for information in the Plame investigation, for example, did the Counsel's Office, with knowledge of the RNC accounts -- which the counsel did have -- instruct or inform the RNC that the White House officials should all be responsive to the subpoenas, in relation to their RNC accounts?

MS. PERINO: Going back to the Plame investigation?

Q Yes.

MS. PERINO: I don't -- I don't know the answer to that, and to avoid --

Q Can you check on that, and whether any information was then transferred from the RNC to the White House and then the White House to the investigators?

MS. PERINO: I will check into it and I'll see what we can say.

Q And then the second question I have is, currently now the White House network system has a pop-up message when or if employees try to delete something, that says, you can't delete, you're in violation of the blah-blah-blah law.

MS. PERINO: I must not have ever violated it, because it's never popped up on my computer. I don't know what you're talking about. I've never seen it.

Q Okay, so you've never seen it. My question is, is the new policy now installing that sort of message in any way on the RNC accounts?

MS. PERINO: Not that I'm aware of, but, again, I've never seen such a message, so I'll have to check into it.

Let me go to Suzanne, and then I'll go to the back again.

Q Dana, you keep saying that there's no indication that anybody willfully or intentionally misused the email system. What is that based on? Is the White House conducting interviews with the 22 people who had double accounts or --

MS. PERINO: I'll decline to talk about the internal review that we have that is ongoing, but I feel pretty confident in the source that I talked to that we are able to say that there is no basis to say that anyone was improperly and intentionally misusing one of the accounts that they were provided to avoid violating the Hatch Act. There's just no -- there's no indication of that.

And that's why I encourage people to not make any broad, sweeping conclusions about this, and to understand that our position has been, let's let people know that we think we had a problem, we're going to fix the problem and we're going to be working with the committee, with the RNC and then the House Judiciary Committee in their inquiry.

Q So it's fair to say that at least those 22 people have been approached in some way by the White House, through your investigation, and you've been reassured that their intentions were not --

MS. PERINO: Since I don't know that -- I don't know specifically if that's true about all 22 people. Let me check into it.

Q Karl Rove, perhaps?

MS. PERINO: I think he's aware. He's aware.

Goyal.

Q Two quick questions. One, if President has been informed or briefed on the situation in Bangladesh? Because there's a new army man and he has arrested and charged the two former --

MS. PERINO: I don't know. But I'll check into it.

Q And, second, how is our friend, dear friend, Tony Snow doing? And we pray for him.

MS. PERINO: Tony is doing really, really well. So he'd be happy to know you're thinking of him.

Go ahead, Joanie.

Q Does the President think that Paul Wolfowitz should remain President of the World Bank, given the controversy?

MS. PERINO: The President has full confidence in Paul Wolfowitz. He's done a remarkable job at the World Bank, where they are working to lift people up out of poverty from around the world. He's apologized for the matter, and his board is undergoing an internal review. And we expect him to remain as World Bank President -- he has the President's support. But for more detail and questions I would have to refer you over to the World Bank, who is conducting that independent review.

I'll go to Mark, and then I'll do Les.

Q Next week's schedule, Dana, as you described it to us as war on terrorism speeches Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, if I've got my days right this time.

MS. PERINO: Yes.

Q Is this all a continuation of the Iraq supplemental debate, or is it something beyond that?

MS. PERINO: You can be sure that there's going to be discussion about the Iraq war supplemental debate. Remember, Wednesday is when we have the members coming down, the bipartisan, bicameral leadership on Wednesday. But the President, when he goes to visit the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and make a statement there, he will not be talking about the Iraq war supplemental. That will be different type of remarks. And then we'll travel the next two days.

Q But he will in Ohio and Michigan?

MS. PERINO: Yes.

Q What time is the --

MS. PERINO: It's in the afternoon, mid-afternoon.

Les.

Q Thank you very much, Dana. If I could follow up this question. Page one of this morning's New York Times reports that Mr. Wolfowitz's tenure as President of the World Bank was, "thrown into turmoil by disclosure that he helped arrange a pay raise for his companion, Shaha Riza, for which he was greeted with, 'booing, cat calls, and cries for his resignation by staff members.'" And I have two questions. Does the President believe it was right or wrong for Mr. Wolfowitz to do this for what the Times terms "his companion"?

MS. PERINO: As I said, the President apologized for the matter. He's taken full responsibility for it. I'm sorry, Paul Wolfowitz apologized for the matter, and has talked to his board about it, and there's a review underway.

Q What definition of this word, "companion," can the public conclude, other than mistress? Does the President believe that people he nominated to such posts --

MS. PERINO: I'm not going to go there, Les -- not going to do it.

Q -- a mistress, rather than getting married?

MS. PERINO: Not going to do it. Thanks for trying to push the envelope, but not going to do it.

Q You'd like to run away from that?

MS. PERINO: Kelly, go ahead.

Q I just want to go back one more time. You've talked about not finding any indication of wrongful intent. But there were employees who used their RNC accounts for official government business, isn't that what you were --

MS. PERINO: I think that there were probably instances of that, but I think that was probably either out of an abundance of caution, or because of convenience. As I said, you're managing multiple email accounts, and plus we live in a world where we work 24/7. And I think that, again, there was no willful intention, but that there is a possibility that because you're using multiple accounts and trying to juggle that, that that was a problem. That's why we're working to fix it.

Q Out of an abundance of caution they used their RNC accounts to do official business?

MS. PERINO: Well, I think that when people have -- I think there are gray areas -- when they feel that there was a gray area that possibly they erred on the wrong side of it. I haven't seen copies of these emails, where they would -- where these were described.

Q Can you talk about what gray area would be?

Q It wasn't discussing the firing of federal prosecutors? That clearly is official business, is it not?

Q Or is it politics?

MS. PERINO: Well, I guess that is one of the questions that's before us in the U.S. attorney matter. I'm going to decline to comment on that specific question. Let me take it back to the Counsel's Office and see what I can say.

Q Is the President meeting with any potential candidates for this war czar position this weekend?

MS. PERINO: No. Steve Hadley is -- he hasn't even narrowed the list down, so he hasn't sent anyone to the President yet.

Q And he won't this weekend?

MS. PERINO: Not that I'm aware of, no. I'm going to do one more in the back -- go ahead.

Q Regarding the bombing in the Iraqi parliament, is there any new information as to how that occurred, and where was the lapse in security?

MS. PERINO: No, we don't have an update yet. Dr. Al-Dabbagh was here this morning, the press secretary for the government of Iraq. I was thrilled to have him here; I hope that you guys enjoyed it, as well. But right now we don't have any update, but if we get some over the weekend, we'll let you know.

Q One more topic, Dana. Governor Corzine was in a very serious accident, and it's been reported that he was not wearing a seat belt. Does the President wear a seat belt when he is in motorcades?

MS. PERINO: You know, I've never been with him in the limo to have personal knowledge of that, so we'll see if we can ask.

Q Thank you.

END 2:03 P.M. EDT

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House or Dana Perino and VIDEO, or Podcast and Karl Rove, or Presidential Records Act, and Federal Records Act, or Harriet Miers and Hatch Act or Paul Wolfowitz

Multi-National Force - Iraq VIDEO

B-roll of Operation Tomahawk Strike 11, one in a series of raids targeting illegal militia activity. Scenes include U.S. and Iraqi Soldiers engaging insurgents from a high-rise in the Haifa Street area of Baghdad.

Multi-National Force - Iraq Subscribe MNFIRAQ, Joined: March 07 2007, Last Login: 2 hours ago, Videos Watched: 81Subscribers: 2137, Channel Views: 129,850 Multi-National Force - Iraq established this YouTube channel to give viewers around the world a "boots on the ground" perspective of Operation Iraqi Freedom from those who are fighting it. Video clips document action as it appeared to personnel on the ground and in the air as it was shot. We will only edit video clips for time, security reasons, and/or overly disturbing or offensive images. What you will see on this channel in the coming months: - Combat action - Interesting, eye-catching footage - Interaction between Coalition troops and the Iraqi populace. - Teamwork between Coalition and Iraqi troops in the fight against terror. What we will NOT post on this channel: - Profanity - Sexual content - Overly graphic, disturbing or offensive material - Footage that mocks Coalition Forces, Iraqi Security Forces or the citizens of Iraq. This YouTube channel is brought to you by www.mnf-iraq.com, the official Web site of Operation Iraqi Freedom. City: Baghdad Country: Iraq Website: mnf-iraq.com

Coalition Servicemembers Reach Out to America via YouTube By Carmen L. Gleason American Forces Press Service.

WASHINGTON, – Coalition military officials in Iraq are hoping to reach out to younger, broader audiences by posting clips of servicemembers in action on a popular video-sharing Web site.
Clips of combat and support operations have been posted to the YouTube Web site in an effort to inform Americans of the successes of U.S. and Iraqi soldiers in Iraq, Army Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, Multinational Force Iraq spokesman, said during a phone interview today.

“How do we reach out to those in mid-town America who don’t know someone serving here? How do they find out what’s going on?” Caldwell asked. “One thing people don’t know is what’s really going on over here on a daily basis.”

The initiative first came about when soldiers began brainstorming about how to reach out and share stories of what’s happening in Iraq with a greater number of people. The group determined that the user-generated Web site would be a perfect venue for the more visually oriented, younger American audience.

“We want the American public, from an unfiltered vantage point, to be able to see what coalition forces and Iraqi security forces are doing here in Iraq,” he said.

Mechanisms are in place so video clips can quickly and accurately be posted to the Web site, while still adhering to operational security requirements, Caldwell said.

Since the multi-national force began the initiative on March 7, six videos have been posted, resulting in thousands of viewings.

The most popular, with more than 2,000 views, is a Jan. 24 clip from Operation Tomahawk Strike 11. The video shows U.S. Army soldiers from the 2nd Infantry Division alongside soldiers from the 6th Iraqi Army Division engaging insurgents from a high-rise building during a series of targeted raids.

Clips also have been posted showing footage from an unmanned aerial vehicle and a documentary-like essay on the discovery and destruction of a factory making vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices.

In addition to posting videos on the YouTube site, a “Share our Story” tab has been established on the Multinational Force Iraq Web site, www.mnf-iraq.com, filled with videos, still photos and narratives of the men and women in uniform stationed there.

“(The link tells) what they’re doing over here to serve our country, support the government of Iraq and support the Iraqi people as we try to bring greater security and stability and self-governance to this nation,” the general said.

Related Sites:

• Multinational Force Iraq
• Multinational Force Iraq YouTube Page

Technorati Tags: YouTube and Multinational Force Iraq