State Department Daily Press Briefing, 06/20/07 (VIDEO, PODCAST)

Daily Press Briefing, Spokesman Sean McCormack, FULL STREAMING VIDEO file is windows media format, running time is 17:07, PODCAST of Briefing mp3 format for download. Washington, DC, June 20, 2007, 12:45 p.m. EST. Streaming Audio of briefing mp3 in m3u format for online listening.

MR. MCCORMACK: Good afternoon. I don't have any opening statements so we can get right into your questions. Please, proceed. QUESTION: Good afternoon, again. Now after the gaggle this morning --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: -- the White House has confirmed to Al Jazeera English that Mr. Bush has been talking to Mr. Blair about the possibility of taking over the Quartet Mideast Envoy position. The Russians at this very moment are expressing dismay of this at the United Nations. What will Mr. Bush have to do in order to bring them on board so that his friend Mr. Blair can get the job he wants?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I would remind you that the Prime Minister still does have a day job at the moment. He is Prime Minister of the UK. And far be it for me to comment on what his future plans might be once he leaves office.

But putting that aside for a second; there is a need, as President Bush and Prime Minister Olmert talked about just yesterday at the White House, for the need to lay the groundwork for a Palestinian state. And part of laying that groundwork is building up Palestinian institutions, building up economic capacity, building up those economic institutions, building up those political institutions within the Palestinian system so that when you do have a Palestinian state eventually, you have a state that can function as a well-governed state that serves the needs of the Palestinian people.

Now, the Quartet did previously have an envoy that performed some of those functions in the very discrete -- in the discrete case of Gaza, Jim Wolfensohn, and he did a terrific job on behalf of the Palestinians and on behalf of the Quartet. So there is, we believe, a need to perform that particular function in working with the Palestinians in the Palestinian system to develop those institutions. And again, putting aside the political track because that's something that Secretary Rice working with President Bush is going to work directly with the Israelis, the Palestinians as well as Arab states in consulting with the Quartet. So there is this idea out there of can we identify a person that could fulfill those functions. And I think that the idea has some merit. Clearly there needs to be some more consultations on the matter.

But as for particular individuals at this point I'm certainly not going to get into it.

QUESTION: Would the U.S. Government support Tony Blair then? I mean, is he damaged because of Lebanon and Iraq?

MR. MCCORMACK: Again, I'm not going to -- far be it from me from this podium to comment on Prime Minister Blair's future plans. Prime Minister Blair is somebody who is passionate about the issues of the Middle East and who has played a very constructive role in the international system on these issues -- a clear leader within the international system of very high standing. So I would expect that Prime Minister Blair certainly would have a variety of different options from which he could choose once he leaves office. But as for any particular comment on these news stories I'm going to avoid that at this point.

QUESTION: Sean, just to follow up.

MR. MCCORMACK: Charlie.

QUESTION: Has David Welch been in London consulting with Prime Minister Blair?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes. Yeah, David Welch is in London and he's consulting with our British colleagues on a variety of issues related to David's portfolio.

QUESTION: And that would include the aforementioned issues of how to build Palestinian infrastructure of Palestine.

MR. MCCORMACK: I think -- Charlie, I'm going to leave the diplomatic discussions within that diplomatic channel. But I think you can safely assume that they will touch upon the issue of the Israeli-Palestinian track, but more specifically how do you work to build up those Palestinian institutions. It's a very discrete task, separate from the political track, but nonetheless, one that is going to be absolutely critical for that day when a Palestinian state does come into being so that you can be concerned not only with what the outlines of a Palestinian state might be, but what is actually going on inside that state and that's one of the important points that President Bush made as far back as 2002. And it all falls within the framework of laying this groundwork for an eventual Palestinian state.

Zain?

QUESTION: When was the last time that Secretary Rice spoke to Tony Blair directly?

MR. MCCORMACK: I can't tell you exactly. Within the past month or two I know that they have spoken. And certainly they saw one another when Prime Minister Blair was here for his visit with President Bush. I don't know if they have spoken subsequent to that, though.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Mr. Abbas gave a wide ranging speech just now.

MR. MCCORMACK: Excuse me.

QUESTION: Mr. Abbas gave a wide ranging speech just now. Among issues he raised was that they were foreign elements fomenting the crisis in Palestinian territories. He also said -- talked about a premeditated plan between Hamas and foreign elements abroad in fueling this crisis. And he also talked about a plot -- Hamas plot to murder him.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I certainly can't offer any particular comment on those specific allegations beyond the fact that we, as well as others, have had deep concerns about Hamas' links to outside groups, outside states as well as other violent extremist groups that have been operating in the Palestinian areas. That's no secret. Whether that's Syria or whether that's Iran or others, it's of concern not only to us, but apparently of grave concern to President Abbas as well.

Yes.

QUESTION: Can you take us any further than this morning on the Quartet phone call and any schedule going forward?

MR. MCCORMACK: At this point -- I don't really have much more to offer at this point on the Quartet phone call. They were mainly concerned with the topic of when they would next get together. And I think they're still sorting that out at this point as to when the Quartet would meet again. Obviously there had been plans for Quartet meetings at the end of this month in the region. I think given the events, as we have seen them unfold in the Palestinian areas, would indicate that at some point we will have that meeting. But I'm not sure that that will take place at the end of June. You want this Palestinian Government to be able to get its feet on the ground and start working on behalf of the Palestinian people and give that some time to happen; maybe have the opportunity for President Abbas and Prime Minister Olmert to meet as well. But we're going to be in close contact with the members of the Quartet and I wouldn't be surprised if in the coming weeks you would see even an envoys-level meeting in the region and that at some point, the principals will get together and I couldn't tell you exactly where or when. But nonetheless, they are in close contact, if not actually meeting together.

Anything else on the Middle East?

QUESTION: Sean, the Quartet meeting in Egypt has been canceled, right? It's confirmed.

MR. MCCORMACK: Again I think that given the events in the region, I think that at some point that meeting is going to take place. I'm not sure that it will take place at the end of this month, though.

Yeah, Zain.

QUESTION: I just want you to respond to some comments that former President Jimmy Carter has made, basically accusing the U.S. and Israel and the European Union of trying to divide the Palestinian people by giving aid to Abbas and nothing to Hamas and Gaza. I'd like you to respond to that.

MR. MCCORMACK: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: And he also said that by not supporting Hamas when they won the election victory, that we're criminals. That's a sort of a second element to that.

MR. MCCORMACK: You know, the former president is a private citizen and he's going to have his own opinions and I'm not -- certainly not going to get into the position of criticizing a former president of the United States. But quite clearly, on the issue of our actions in the wake of the Hamas victory in the elections, we have a different view and I think that the President and Secretary of State have articulated that different point of view.

As for the idea that we are somehow treating Fatah and Hamas differently, absolutely; Hamas is a terrorist organization and we're not going to provide aid to a terrorist organization. Neither we nor the European Union or others around the world are going to provide aid to a terrorist organization. Providing aid to Hamas and -- is not the sine qua non for being concerned with the humanitarian situation of the Palestinian people. We're very concerned about the humanitarian plight of the Palestinian people, a condition -- one might add -- that has been brought on by the attack of Hamas on legitimate Palestinian institutions.

So because of our concern for the future humanitarian plight of the Palestinian people, the Secretary announced just the other day that we are going to pledge $40 million to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency so that they can provide assistance specifically to Palestinians in Gaza.

Now I would add as an aside to all of this, it is through Hamas' own actions that they have brought this situation upon themselves and, sadly, on the million-and-a-half people in the Gaza Strip. Hamas, through their actions, has now taken on the responsibility for providing food, medicine, electricity, gas for all of those people. And I would submit to you that Hamas' actions take the Palestinian people in the Gaza farther away from their dream of a Palestinian state.

So this idea that somehow we are not concerned with the plight of the Palestinian people, I think, is simply wrong.

QUESTION: Just -- if I may just follow up, Hamas has come out today with a specific list of what it says -- it seized something like $400 million in U.S. military equipment from Fatah. Do you know anything about this? Can you confirm that? Can you shed any more light on that?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, that would be very odd since the extent of the security assistance program that was only just beginning and, in fact, was only in the tens of millions of dollars -- so I would caution you against using figures like that coming out of Hamas.

Yes, anything else on the Middle East? Lambros.

QUESTION: On Turkey, Mr. McCormack, very important, this one, because there's a lot of stories all over in Turkey. Last Wednesday at the Hudson Institute, which is under the supervision of a federal agents of the U.S. Government, was a secret meeting seeking some ideas to overthrow the Turkish Government of Recep Erdogan via Iraq. There were inter alia representatives from the Turkish general, the Turkish military attaché, the son of Jalal Talabani, other Turkish civilians, and members of the Bureau of Intelligence of the Department of State.

I'm wondering why DOS representative participated in such a meeting against democracy in Turkey and particularly the most decent, honest and particular -- excuse me, and popular Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan.

MR. MCCORMACK: So let me get this right. You're coming to the defense of Prime Minister Erdogan?

QUESTION: I'm defending democracy in Turkey and for information on --

MR. MCCORMACK: And as is the Turkish Government and we have faith in Turkey's secular democracy and we believe that that secular democracy is supported by all aspects of Turkish political life, including the Turkish military and by Prime Minister Erdogan and his government. So I can't speak to such --

QUESTION: For this --

MR. MCCORMACK: I can't even tell you if such a meeting took place, Lambros. I, furthermore, cannot tell you that somebody from the State Department was at such a meeting. I can't tell you if this is imaginary or not. You know, of course, we're going to meet with Turkish Government representatives and we're also working with them very closely on a variety of issues related to Turkey's future with the EU, Turkey's role in the region, and most importantly, also Turkey -- how Turkey can work together with Iraq to address the terrorist threat.

QUESTION: And one --

MR. MCCORMACK: That's it.

QUESTION: On Greece --

MR. MCCORMACK: No, that's it. That's it. Yeah, in the back.

QUESTION: Do you have any updates on the American citizens detained in Iran? Has there been any response through the Swiss Government?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't have any updates, unfortunately. No, there has been no news in that regard. I would only add that we want to see these people allowed to return to the United States as soon as possible.

QUESTION: That includes Mr. Levinson?

MR. MCCORMACK: That includes Mr. Levinson.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Yeah, on the U.S.-China Senior Dialogue, did Deputy Secretary Negroponte bring up the topic of China's investments in the Iranian oil sector?

MR. MCCORMACK: I haven't gotten a readout of the meeting. It's going to actually spill over until tomorrow. I hope at the end of the dialogue, that we'll be able to provide you a little bit more robust readout of what they actually discussed. I talked a little bit this morning about sort of the general areas that we envision they would talk about there, but we'll try to get you more information about what they actually talked about.

QUESTION: But just as a matter of record, what is the U.S. position on investments in Iran and particularly the energy sector?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, there -- this question has come up before about the Chinese national oil company potentially being interested in investing in Iran's oil and gas sector. Well, the United States has laws that are applicable in this regard that are -- and there's a review and possible penalties that are triggered by any investments that actually take place above a certain level.

And I'm sure the Chinese Government is aware of that. We've talked to them about this, I think, within the past several months when the news stories came up that the oil company was interested in talking to the Iranians about investments. There's a big difference between talking to the Iranian Government and even negotiating with the Iranian Government about potential investments and actually investing money, which is -- which really gets you to the trigger point and I don't think the Chinese Government is anywhere near that at this point.

Yes.

QUESTION: Also a follow-up. Will Taiwan question be included in the senior dialogue? And also, consistent with the U.S. recent remark on Taiwan's sovereignty issue, President Chen Shui-bian in Taiwan called the U.S. attention to this six assurance made by Reagan Administration, especially on the issue of sovereignty. I don't know if you can tell us -- you know, has any -- is there any change in U.S. sovereignty's position on the Taiwan? And what's the content of the -- you know, U.S. six assurances?

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. As for whether or not Taiwan has come up in the senior dialogue, I can't tell you. I haven't gotten a readout of it. Very often, the Chinese Government raises the issue of Taiwan and we provide them with a response that they are very accustomed to hearing and that response hasn't changed in some time.

Look, with respect to our Taiwan policy, you have heard many, many times over, me repeat it and Secretary Rice repeat it; that policy is unchanged. And you can go back in the transcripts and take a look for yourself exactly what that is.

QUESTION: Yeah, but there are so many different elements and President Chen Shui-bian especially indicated six assurances, so --

MR. MCCORMACK: I can refer you back to the many times in the recent past that we have talked about what our policy is.

QUESTION: One additional question.

MR. MCCORMACK: This fellow right back here had one question -- yeah, and you --

QUESTION: While we were -- during the course of the BDA issue, you repeatedly said that you didn't want to get into a play-by-play --

MR. MCCORMACK: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- and hoping to get to the end of it before --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: -- offering us some insight. So now that it seems to be pretty much resolved, is there anything more you could give us that you had been hesitant to previously?

MR. MCCORMACK: Not at the moment, no.

Yes, ma'am.

QUESTION: Yes, there were talks on the Western Sahara in New York that just rolled up+. Do you have anything -- any comment on this?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't. I'll be happy to look into it and see if we have anything to offer. Thanks.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:05 p.m.)

DPB # 110

Technorati Tags: Palestinian People and Hamas or Chinese National Oil Company and David Welch or Study could impact noninvasive treatment of cancer tumors or Currier & Ives Great horses in a great race and US Military "Gay Bomb" VIDEO

US Military "Gay Bomb" VIDEO

A chemical weapon that could be dropped on the enemy troops to make them sexually irresistible to each other Sunshine Project Uncovers US Military "Gay Bomb" Pentagon Examined Sexual Warfare Proposal From Air Force's Wright Laboratory Original Document in PDF format

"The Pentagon has confirmed rumors that it tried to develop a gay bomb -- a bomb that used chemicals to make enemy soldiers attracted to one another. A documentary about the gay bomb will be broadcast on both the History Channel and Bravo. ... Insiders say this will be the biggest gay bomb since 'Rent' was made into a movie. ... They even devoted a special plane to drop the bomb. It's the Enola Really Gay" --Jay Leno

“The Pentagon has admitted they once tried to develop a gay bomb, a bomb that would turn enemy soldiers gay. This is true. They said their goal was to turn the Iraq war into a musical. I believe the main ingredient in the gay bomb was Agent Orange with a chartreuse accent. In fact, when asked what impact this gay bomb would have, the head of the Joint Chiefs said, ‘Fabulous!’” --Jay Leno

"CBS News reports that the Pentagon once considered building a bomb filled with hormones that would turn enemy soldiers gay. ... Experts say the gay bomb would have meant battlefield victories for the U.S. and higher ratings for the Tony Awards" --Conan O'Brien

Technorati Tags: Gay Bomb and Pentagon or Sexual Warfare Proposal and Air Force's Wright Laboratory and 2 qubits in action, new step towards the quantum computer or This Day in History Napoleon Waterloo and AIF Engagement: Gun Tape VIDEO

AIF Engagement: Gun Tape VIDEO

AIF Engagement: Gun Tape FULL STREAMING VIDEO, B-roll of AIF engagement. Scenes include aerial footage of a gun ship firing upon buildings and suspected insurgents.

Video Location: IQ Unit(s) Involved: • 3rd Infantry Division (Ft. Stewart,), Submitting Unit: Headquarters, 3rd Infantry Division Public Affairs

Filename: 0706/DOD_100004554.wmv. Size (bytes): 3448748 (3.29 MB). Length: 2:13, Date Taken: 06-15-2007.

Technorati Tags: gun camera footage and gun ship firing or cobra gun ship and or Nanotechnology Today April 2007 Archive or Nanotechnology Today May 2007 Archive and Nanotechnology Today March 2007 Archive

The perks and pitfalls of pride

Research lends insight into nature and function of this complex emotion. Pride has perplexed philosophers and theologians for centuries, and it is an especially paradoxical emotion in American culture. We applaud rugged individualism, self-reliance and personal excellence, but too much pride can easily tip the balance toward vanity, haughtiness and self-love.

Scientists have also been perplexed by this complex emotion, because it is so unlike primary emotions like fear and disgust.

University of British Columbia psychologist, Jessica Tracy, and Richard Robins of the University of California, Davis, have been exploring the origins and purpose of pride, both in the laboratory and in the field. They wanted to know if pride is as universal as, say, joy or anger.

In the June issue of Current Directions in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, Tracy and Robins review several recent studies on the nature and function of pride.

In one experiment, researchers used photographs of models with varying facial expressions and body language, asking subjects to identify the nonverbal signs of pride. And they did indeed find a prototypical prideful look, which was recognized by children as young as four, and people in many different cultures, including members of an isolated, preliterate tribe in Burkina Faso, West Africa.

So, pride appears to be universal, but that still leaves the question: What is it" What is its purpose" To explore this, Tracy and Robins first asked people to come up with words that they associated with pride. They found that either people link pride to such achievement-oriented ideas as accomplishment and confidence (authentic pride) or, people connect pride to self-aggrandizement, arrogance and conceit (hubristic pride).

People who tend to feel authentic pride were more likely to score high on extraversion, agreeableness, genuine self-esteem and conscientiousness. However, those who tend to feel hubristic pride were narcissistic and prone to shame. Further, they found that people who felt positive, achievement-oriented feelings of pride viewed hard work as the key to success in life, whereas hubristic people tended to view success as predetermined, due to their stable abilities.

Tracy and Robins argue that the primitive precursors of pride probably motivated our ancestors to act in altruistic and communitarian ways, for the good of the tribe, and the physical display of pride both reinforced such behavior and signaled to the group that this person was worthy of respect. So individual pride, at least the good kind, contributed in important ways to the survival of the community.

But what about pride’s dark side" Tracy and Robins speculate that hubris might have been a social “short cut,” a way of tricking others into paying respect when it was not warranted. Those who could not earn respect the old-fashioned way figured out how to look and act accomplished in order to gain status. Social cheaters puffed themselves up because deep down they did not have what it took to succeed in their world. Whatever respect they got would have been fleeting, of course, as it is today. ###

For more insights into the quirks of human nature, visit “We’re Only Human . . .” at psychologicalscience.org/onlyhuman.

Author Contact: Jessica Tracy jltracy@psych.ubc.ca

Contact: Catherine West cwest@psychologicalscience.org 202-783-2077 Association for Psychological Science

Current Directions in Psychological Science publishes concise reviews on the latest advances in theory and research spanning all of scientific psychology and its applications. For a copy of the article “Emerging Insights into the Nature and Function of Pride” and access to other Current Directions in Psychological Science research findings, please contact Catherine West at (202) 783-2077 or cwest@psychologicalscience.org.

Technorati Tags: pitfalls of pride and complex emotion or University of California, Davis and Association for Psychological Science and Nanotechnology Today April 2007 Archive or Nanotechnology Today May 2007 Archive and Nanotechnology Today March 2007 Archive

Freedom Calendar 06/16/07 - 06/23/07

June 16, 1854, Newspaper editor Horace Greeley calls on opponents of slavery to unite in the Republican Party.

June 17, 1856, Republican National Convention makes John C. Fremont its first Republican presidential nominee, with slogan 'Free soil, free labor, free speech, and Fremont'.

June 18, 1912, African-American Robert Church, founder of Lincoln Leagues to register black voters in Tennessee, attends 1912 Republican National Convention as delegate; eventually serves as delegate at 8 conventions.

June 19, 1865, On “Juneteenth,” U.S. troops land in Galveston, TX to enforce ban on slavery that had been declared more than two years before by the Emancipation Proclamation.

June 20, 1964, The Chicago Defender, renowned African-American newspaper, praises Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) for leading passage of 1964 Civil Rights Act.

June 21, 1832, Birth of U.S. Rep. Joseph Rainey (R-SC), former slave who in 1870 became first African-American member of U.S. House.

June 22, 1870, Republican Congress creates U.S. Department of Justice, to safeguard the civil rights of African-Americans against Democrats in the South.

June 23, 1958, President Dwight Eisenhower meets with Martin Luther King and other African-American leaders to discuss plans to advance civil rights.

"We continue to work for an America where individuals are celebrated for their abilities, not judged by their disabilities.”

George W. Bush, 43rd President of the United States

Technorati Tags: President Bush and Freedom Calendar or Dwight Eisenhower and Republicans or African-Americans and Ronald Reagan or John C. Fremont and Civil Rights or Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass or 40 acres and a mule or Martin Luther King and Everett Dirksen or Dred Scott or Nanotechnology Today April 2007 Archive or Nanotechnology Today May 2007 Archive and Nanotechnology Today March 2007 Archive

Presidential Podcast 06/16/07

Presidential Podcast 06/16/07 . website: earmarks.omb.gov, Subscribe to Our Podcast feed or online podnova Podcast Channel and receive the weekly Presidential Radio Address in English and Spanish with select State Department Briefings. Featuring full audio and text transcripts, More content Sources added often so stay tuned.

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House radio address or earmarks.omb.gov and Federal spending or Nanotechnology Today April 2007 Archive or Nanotechnology Today May 2007 Archive and Nanotechnology Today March 2007 Archive

Bush radio address 06/16/07 full audio, text transcript

bush radio address 06/16/07 full audio, text transcript. President's Radio Address .

Subscribe to Our Podcast feed or online 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, Congress began to debate its annual spending bills. The American people expect us to spend their tax dollars wisely, or not at all, and to pursue pro-growth economic policies that will allow us to reduce the deficit while keeping our economy strong.

Since my Administration's tax relief was implemented four years ago, our economy has added more than eight million new jobs, and we've experienced 45 months of uninterrupted job growth. With more Americans working and more businesses thriving, our economy has produced record tax revenues. The Treasury Department recently reported that this year's Federal revenues are up eight percent over last year. As a result, our Nation's budget deficit is about one-third lower than it was at this time last year.

In addition to pursuing pro-growth tax relief, my Administration is working to reduce the Federal deficit through strict fiscal discipline. Over the past three years, we have met the urgent needs of our Nation while holding the growth of annual domestic spending close to one percent -- well below the rate of inflation. I've also proposed policies that would slow the unsustainable growth of our most serious long-term fiscal challenge: entitlement spending. By keeping taxes low and restraining Federal spending, we can meet my plan to have a balanced budget by 2012.
The Democrats in Congress are trying to take us in a different direction. They've passed a budget that would mean higher taxes for American families and job creators, ignore the need for entitlement reform, and pile on hundreds of billions of dollars in new government spending over the next five years. This tax-and-spend approach puts our economic growth and deficit reduction at risk.

For months, I've warned the Democrats in Congress that I will not accept an irresponsible tax-and-spend budget. I put Democratic leaders on notice that I will veto bills with excessive levels of spending. And I am not alone in my opposition. In the House, 147 Republicans have pledged to support fiscal discipline by opposing excessive spending. These 147 members are more than one-third needed to sustain my veto of any bills that spend too much.

Another key area of difference between my Administration and the Democratic leadership in Congress is my support for meaningful earmark reform. Earmarks are spending provisions that are slipped into bills by individual members of Congress, often at the last hour and without discussion or debate. It's not surprising that this leads to unnecessary Federal spending. And the problem is growing. Over the last decade, the number of earmarks has more than tripled.

In January, I proposed reforms that would make the earmark process more transparent, end the practice of concealing earmarks in so-called report language that is never included in legislation, and cut the number and cost of earmarks by at least half. My Administration has also developed the government's first public database of earmarks, and we've posted them on a website: earmarks.omb.gov. On this website, we will also be releasing information on new earmarks, because this Administration wants you to see where your tax dollars are being spent.

After I announced my earmark reforms in January, the House passed a rule that called for full disclosure of earmarks. But in the past few weeks, Democratic House leaders announced that they were abandoning this commitment. Instead of full disclosure, they decided they would not make public any earmarks until after Members had already voted on the spending bills. This change would have allowed a small group of lawmakers and their unelected staff to meet behind closed doors to decide how and where to spend your tax dollars. I'm pleased to report that earlier this week a group of House Republicans stopped this plan and extracted a commitment from House Democrats to list all earmarks in advance and give lawmakers a chance to strike them. The American people need to hold House Democrats accountable for keeping that commitment.

In the weeks ahead, my Administration will continue pushing for earmark reform and holding the line on Federal spending. The American people do not want to return to the days of tax and spend policies. They expect accountability and fiscal discipline in Washington, D.C. And I will use my veto to stop tax increases and runaway spending that threaten the strength of our economy and the prosperity of our people.

Thank you for listening.

END For Immediate Release June 16, 2007

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House radio address or earmarks.omb.gov and Federal spending or Nanotechnology Today April 2007 Archive or Nanotechnology Today May 2007 Archive and Nanotechnology Today March 2007 Archive

Discurso Radial del Presidente a la Nación 06/16/07

forre el audio de la dirección de radio 06/16/07 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 el Congreso comenzó a debatir sus proyectos de ley para gastos anuales. El pueblo estadounidense espera que gastemos sabiamente los dólares que paga como impuestos, o no gastarlos del todo - y llevar a cabo políticas económicas pro-crecimiento que nos permitan reducir el déficit al mismo tiempo que mantengamos fuerte a nuestra economía.

Desde que se implementó el alivio tributario de mi administración hace cuatro años, nuestra economía ha sumado más de 8 millones de nuevos empleos y hemos tenido 45 meses de crecimiento de empleos sin interrupción.

Con más estadounidenses trabajando y más negocios floreciendo, nuestra economía ha producido ingresos tributarios sin precedente. El Departamento del Tesoro recientemente informó que los ingresos federales de este año están 8 por ciento por encima de los del año pasado. Como resultado, el déficit en el presupuesto de nuestro Nación está a más o menos la tercera parte de lo que fue el año pasado en este período.

Además de llevar a cabo un alivio tributario pro-crecimiento, mi Administración está trabajando para reducir el déficit federal a través de una disciplina fiscal estricta. En los últimos tres años hemos satisfecho las necesidades urgentes de nuestra Nación mientras hemos mantenido el crecimiento de los gastos domésticos anuales en cerca del un por ciento - muy por debajo de la tasa de inflación. También he propuesto políticas que frenarían el crecimiento insostenible de nuestro desafío fiscal más serio a largo plazo - los gastos reglamentarios. Manteniendo impuestos bajos y limitando los gastos federales, podemos lograr mi plan de tener un presupuesto equilibrado para el 2012.

Los Demócratas en el Congreso están tratando de llevarnos en un sentido diferente. Han aprobado un presupuesto que significaría impuestos más elevados para las familias estadounidenses y para quienes crean empleos, que ignoraría la necesidad de reformar los gastos reglamentarios y que amontonaría cientos de miles de millones de dólares en nuevos gastos gubernamentales en los próximos cinco años. Este enfoque de imponer impuestos y luego gastar pone en riesgo nuestro crecimiento económico y nuestra reducción del déficit.

Durante meses he advertido a los Demócratas en el Congreso que no aceptaré un presupuesto irresponsable de imponer impuestos y gastar. He avisado a los líderes demócratas que vetaré proyectos de ley con niveles excesivos de gastos. Y no estoy sólo en mi oposición. En la Cámara de Representantes, 147 Republicanos se han comprometido a oponer gastos excesivos. Estos 147 miembros son más de la tercera parte necesaria para sostener mi veto de cualquier proyecto de ley que tenga gastos excesivos.

Otra área de diferencia clave entre mi Administración y el liderazgo demócrata en el Congreso es mi apoyo a una reforma significativa de la asignación de fondos. La asignación de fondos consiste en disposiciones para gastos que son introducidas en proyectos de ley por miembros individuales del Congreso - frecuentemente a última hora y sin discusión o debate. No sorprende que esto conduzca a gastos federales innecesarios. Y el problema está creciendo. En la última década, el número de asignaciones ha aumentado en más del triple.

En enero propuse reformas que harían más transparente el proceso de asignación de fondos, terminarían con la práctica de esconder asignaciones de fondos en el llamado lenguaje de informe que nunca se incluye en la legislación y disminuiría el número y el costo de asignaciones en por lo menos la mitad. Mi administración también ha desarrollado la primera base de datos pública del gobierno sobre asignaciones de fondos - y las hemos colocado en un sitio Internet: earmarks.omb.gov. En este sitio Internet también estaremos divulgando información sobre nuevas asignaciones - ya que esta Administración quiere que usted vea donde se están gastando sus dólares de impuestos.

Después de que anuncié mis reformas de la asignación de fondos en enero, la Cámara de Representantes aprobó una regla que exigía una divulgación total de asignaciones de fondos. Pero en las últimas semanas, líderes demócratas de la Cámara anunciaron que estaban abandonando este compromiso. En lugar de divulgación total, decidieron que no harían pública ninguna asignación hasta que los miembros ya hubiesen votado sobre los proyectos de ley para gastos. Este cambio hubiera permitido a un pequeño grupo de legisladores y su personal no-electo reunirse a puertas cerradas para decidir cómo y dónde gastar los dólares que usted paga en impuestos. Me es grato informar que a principios de esta semana un grupo de Republicanos de la Cámara detuvo este plan - y obtuvo un compromiso de los Demócratas de la Cámara de enumerar todas las asignaciones por adelantado y dar a los legisladores la oportunidad de eliminarlas. El pueblo estadounidense necesita responsabilizar a los Demócratas de la Cámara para que respeten ese compromiso.

En las semanas venideras, mi Administración seguirá presionando a favor de la reforma de la asignación de fondos y manteniéndose firme sobre los gastos federales. El pueblo estadounidense no quiere volver a los días de políticas de imponer impuestos y gastar. Espera responsabilidad y disciplina fiscal en Washington DC. Y yo usaré mi veto para detener aumentos en los impuestos y gastos galopantes que amenazan la fuerza de nuestra economía y la prosperidad de nuestro pueblo. Gracias por esperar.

### Para su publicación inmediata Oficina del Secretario de Prensa 16 de junio de 2007

Etiquetas De Technorati: Discurso Radial del Presidente a la Nación, y Presidente Bush or Nanotechnology Today April 2007 Archive or Nanotechnology Today May 2007 Archive and Nanotechnology Today March 2007 Archive

The Daniel Pearl Story, A first person account VIDEO PODCAST

The Daniel Pearl Murder -- Part 1: The Understanding PODCAST OF THIS ARTICLE QUESTION: Randall, how did you wind up in Iraq? MR. BENNETT: Well, I'm a regional security officer for the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, so when the assignments came around,

I looked on the list and in the OC positions was senior regional security officer for Baghdad. And that seems to be the ultimate assignment for us and I put in my bid and I got it.

QUESTION: What year was that?

MR. BENNETT: I just returned five hours ago, so I just finished serving a one-year tour.

QUESTION: And what was your main responsibility while you were over there?

MR. BENNETT: Mainly, the responsibility is all-encompassing. As a senior regional security officer, I have responsibility for all official Americans in the country of Iraq and that includes not just Baghdad, but our regional operations in Irbil, Kirkuk, Tallil, Hilla, and Basra.

QUESTION: You've gained a bit of notoriety due to one particular act in -- while you were in Iraq. Can you tell us a little bit about that?

MR. BENNETT: In Iraq or in Karachi?

QUESTION: In Karachi.

MR. BENNETT: When I was serving in Karachi as the regional security officer there for the Diplomatic Security Service, the Daniel Pearl case came about. I received a phone call at 7:10 in the morning from a woman named Asra Nomani. And Asra was working with Daniel Pearl. Daniel's wife, Mariane, was at the house where Asra and Danny worked for the Wall Street Journal. They were interested in getting an interview with Richard Reed -- actually, the person that Richard Reed had stayed with in Lahore, Pakistan, a gentleman by the name of Sheikh Gilani. Sheikh Gilani was allegedly the head of a less-known terrorist organization that was actually taken off the terrorist list in 2000 named ul-Fuqra.

So I received a phone call at 7:10 and they said that Danny had not returned the night before. The day prior, Danny had come to visit me for a security briefing. He had advised me that he was going to be meeting with this Sheikh Gilani at the Village restaurant which is attached to the Metropole Hotel a couple of blocks from the consulate general. And he wanted to know what I knew about ul-Fuqra and about Sheikh Gilani. We knew nothing about them and that's what bothered me when I first spoke to him because a well-known terrorist organization would be something that would be on my list and something that I would follow on a daily basis. The fact that his name had not come up and his organization had not come across my desk in any reporting led me to be concerned that he was being drawn into something that wasn't appropriate.

So he asked if I felt that it was reasonable for him to go to the interview and I told him that it would be, but that he needed to meet with him in a public place and that public place was the Village restaurant at the Metropole Hotel, very public. He agreed that that would be the case, but he asked me -- he said, "He's the leader of a madrasah," and a madrasah is a religious school. And he -- Danny said, "He might want me to go visit his school. What do you think?"

And I told him that that was definitely a no-go. All madaris, the plural for madrasah, are essentially in dangerous locations. They typically have affiliations to the more radical elements. And for Danny to go to one of those means he's completely cut off from his communication and any safe haven or recourse. When I told Danny this, he seemed to understand. He seemed to accept it. And as we finished our interview, the understanding we had between the two of us was that he did not intend to do that; he would hold the interview at the Village restaurant, which was the original intent, and that was it.

The Daniel Pearl Murder -- Part 2: The Meeting. PODCAST OF THIS ARTICLE MR. BENNETT: Unfortunately, what occurred was that over a two-week period, Sheikh Omar, who has quite a history involved in the kidnapping -- the hijacking of airplanes out of India and affiliations with various

hard core Jihadi organizations had very carefully plotted and planned this kidnapping of Danny. He had set it up where he had given Danny information and promised this interview with Sheikh Gilani which Sheikh Gilani, as it turned out, had no idea this -- his name was even being used.

But he would throw the bait out and he would reel it back in. So over a period of two weeks, Danny was enticed and then lost the opportunity for the interview. And this interview was something that Danny had been looking forward to and it was a very hot item. The Richard Reed shoe bomber incident was extremely hot news. So when it came time, after two weeks of baiting and switching, Danny was at the Metropol Hotel standing outside the Village restaurant. His meeting was at 1900 hours, 7:00 p.m.

At 1911, he received a phone call. The phone call lasted till 1916, so in that five minutes, the investigation later revealed that Sheikh Omar, who was using the name of Bashir at this time, told Danny that "I'm sorry, he cannot come to see you again." This was maybe the sixth or seventh time they had baited and switched Danny on a meeting. They said, "He just cannot get away and we've tried and tried and it just hasn't worked out. If you want the interview, he's at the madrasah. We'll pick you up and bring you here and then we'll take you back, but he's not going to be able to come and see you there."

And I guess at that moment, Danny had a tough decision to make and he made the decision that he was going to go and do the interview. But you have to remember that Sheikh Omar was a professional at this. This is what he did for a living. He tricked people. He was a terrorist who prided himself on his ability over a particular period of time to bring somebody into a level of trust and confidence where he could carry out his act and that appears to be the case.

QUESTION: Was there ever any consideration given to having one of your agents watch the Village restaurant at the time Daniel Pearl was there?

MR. BENNETT: I did have a surveillance detection team, all Pakistanis, and the truth is that I gave it some thought only because I liked Danny. We didn't carry out this function, we didn't provide these assets or resources for private citizens. This program was designed and still is designed to watch over the official Americans that are in-country who are high profile. I thought about it because I liked Danny and as we finished our interview earlier in the day, he and I had even discussed our two wives getting together and that we would get together for dinner. And I thought maybe just as a precaution, I would do it, but it wouldn't have been appropriate and the decision was made not to do it, not to use U.S. Government resources for private interests.

QUESTION: How do you know that the sheikh called him and told him to go to the madrarar?

MR. BENNETT: The madrasah?

QUESTION: Madrasah.

MR. BENNETT: Because later, as we started the investigation, we captured certain people. They had knowledge of the phone call and what had taken place.

QUESTION: So it's fair to say you were one of the last people to see Daniel Pearl alive?

MR. BENNETT: Yes. There were several that followed me, but I was one of the last.

QUESTION: What had been your relationship to Daniel Pearl prior to him coming to see you in Karachi the day before his murder to talk about the security system?

MR. BENNETT: We had actually had no relationship before.

QUESTION: So it was the first time --

MR. BENNETT: This was the first time that we had gotten together, but in the hour interview, we just sort of hit it off. He had a really great smile, a good personality, good character, a good-hearted guy who was trying to do what was right. And so we liked each other and we had made plans to get together after.

The Daniel Pearl Murder -- Part 3: The Capture. PODCAST OF THIS ARTICLE, QUESTION: Following the murder of Daniel Pearl, when you knew he had gone missing the next day, how did the investigation unfold after that and what was the lynchpin that led to the actual capture of the sheikh?

MR. BENNETT: That's a long story, but immediately following the telephone call from Asra Nomani, in the week prior to this event occurring, there had been three different Americans that had been kidnapped in Karachi through several organizations that we as a group co-opted and affiliated with each other.

We would -- by phone calls to each other, we would eventually -- we would very quickly, in fact, shut down all the highways leading out of the city. And that would allow the police, who was one of the parties that were involved -- it was the Pakistani police, it was a group called Citizen Police Liaison Committee and myself, we -- and my surveillance detection team, coincidentally. We would shut the streets down and then we would begin a complete search of the area. And in each of those three cases, we had recovered the Americans within 24 hours.

We had the same hopes that it would happen for Danny. Unfortunately, it had been 12 hours since he had been taken, and as it turned out he was taken outside the circuit of the city. And so by shutting down the streets, it really didn't benefit us the way it did when we had quicker notification of kidnappings.

QUESTION: Describe the moment of capture of Sheikh Omar.

MR. BENNETT: Well, Sheikh Omar -- actually, we had gone to see his family. He had some relatives in Karachi. As it turned out, he was in Rawalpindi, which is a sister city of Islamabad. And we had gone to his family and we had brought his family to the police station where we were detaining them, asking them questions about where Sheikh Omar might be. We obtained a phone number for him and we called him. And believe it or not, he answered. And we said, "We have your family here and it would be the proper thing for you to do to turn yourself in and let's talk over the events of the kidnapping and let's get this thing straight."

He hung up the phone immediately, without a response, and he went to Lahore, where he turned himself in without the knowledge of anyone to a family member who had previously been with the Pakistan intelligence. And for a week, without any of us knowing it, he was essentially under house detention, so to speak, of his relative.

After a week, we did discover it and he was turned over to the police and, of course, we let the family go back to their house immediately. But that was how the capture came about of Sheikh Omar. We had already captured the three others that helped him plan and carry out the e-mails and the notifications and the kidnapping itself prior to that.

QUESTION: Did you have the opportunity to interrogate Sheikh Omar?

MR. BENNETT: Yes, I did, on a number of different occasions.

QUESTION: What was he like?

MR. BENNETT: Arrogant. Sheikh Omar was -- he was arrogant, self-righteous, and in some discussions with him he actually made statements to the effect that because he felt that his cause was just that he would have no problem with killing a busload of children in order to get a point across. When you interview somebody who is of such a strict mindset that they would take innocent lives to make a point, it really comes clearly across how dangerous the fundamental terrorists are.

QUESTION: What was his point, per the sheikh?

MR. BENNETT: His point was simply exposure and to make a point. It was to show that infidels had no business dealing in their business. There's really no justification to it, and the point is never clear with terrorism. It's a symbolic point that they're trying to make.

QUESTION: Did he show any remorse for the actual killing of Daniel Pearl when he started to understand that he had a family and what kind of a man he was?

MR. BENNETT: Sheikh Omar never showed an ounce of remorse, even through the trial.

QUESTION: Did Marianne Pearl have an opportunity to confront him?

MR. BENNETT: To the best of my recollection, I don't believe so. We were trying to keep her from any additional trauma.

QUESTION: Did you then develop a friendship with Marianne Pearl following the death of her husband during her interrogation?

MR. BENNETT: You know, the significance and the emotional bonding that goes on during an investigation of this nature, it wasn't just between Marianne and I, but yes, our friendship has become stronger. But it's with the senior superintendent of police, the deputy inspector general, the intelligence elements, the FBI elements that were -- agents that were involved. Everybody became very tight.

In fact, after we had discovered that he had been killed and Marianne had been advised, a couple of days passed and we were all feeling kind of low. Marianne, with the type of strength that he contained, which has always amazed me, and still amazes me today, she planned a dinner for all of us to thank us for the work that we did. And he threw a dinner at the house that had become our operational center. We were crushed that we had not been able to get Danny back for her, and yet two days after she found out this has happened, she pulled herself together and threw a thank you dinner for everybody who had been involved.

QUESTION: With the release of "A Mighty Heart," this story is about to take on -- you know, about to become very commercial and extremely public. How do you feel about that, having a story of something that is so security oriented in some ways, so diplomatically oriented in some ways? How do you feel having it be made commercial?

MR. BENNETT: I think it's time. I think the time has come that this story is told publicly, and I think that film is a good way to carry it out. From what I've been told, because I haven't seen the film yet, it's done in a relatively accurate manner, and I'm sure it must be very difficult for actors to portray the type of emotion that goes on in an actual investigation of that complexity. But I'm told that they do it very well.

So I think this is good for Marianne. Perhaps it's even a point of closure. She has indicated that this is something that she wants her son Adam to be able to see an understand about his father. And I think it's an important thing and I believe it's going to carry over beyond just what we will see from the film. I think it will create a better understanding about terrorism for the entire world.

QUESTION: What are you wearing to the premiere?

MR. BENNETT: Black.

QUESTION: Have you met Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie?

MR. BENNETT: I have not met either of those and I'm not sure that I ever will, but it would be nice if I got the chance at the premiere.

QUESTION: Thank you so much.

MR. BENNETT: Thank you.

# # #

Technorati Tags: Daniel Pearl and Bureau of Diplomatic Security or Mariane and VIDEO, or PODCAST and Wall Street Journal, or Pakistan, and Silicon Nanowires Upgrade Data-Storage Technology or Flag Day Star Spangled Banner PODCAST and Press Briefing Tony Snow 06/14/07 (VIDEO)

Press Briefing Tony Snow 06/14/07 (VIDEO)

Press Briefing by Tony Snow, FULL STREAMING VIDEO. file is windows media format, running time is 26:19. White House Conference Center Briefing Room. PODCAST OF THIS ARTICLE White House Press Secretary Tony Snow briefs the press and answers questions. 06 14 2007: WASHINGTON, DC: 12:46 P.M. EST.

MR. SNOW: All right, a couple of notes up front. Is Chris here?

Q He's in the building.

MR. SNOW: Remind me when he comes here, and I'll make proper comments about him at the time.

The President today met with, as you know, with General Martin Dempsey, where they talked about ongoing efforts in Iraq. We are a little bit concerned about some reports on the Internet that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, in a conversation with liberal bloggers, had referred to General Pete Pace, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, as incompetent, and apparently, again according to the reports, had said disparaging things also about General David Petraeus. We certainly hope it's not true, because in a time of war, for a leader of a party that says it supports the military, it seems outrageous to be issuing slanders toward the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and also the man who is responsible for the bulk of military operations in Iraq.

Indeed, Senator Reid has, at some point, declared the war lost, and also has declared the surge a failure, even though it has not yet been fully enacted. I don't know if it's true or not. If it is true, I certainly hope he does apologize.

Q How come you didn't wait to find out? Why the preemptive strike?

MR. SNOW: Well, I just think it's appropriate to comment on it.

Q Whether or not it's true?

Q That things are outrageous, but you don't know whether they are or not they are true.

MR. SNOW: Well, do you trust the Politico? I don't know. We'll give a call, but --

Q You never like to comment on things that we hear --

Q Hypotheticals.

Q -- but you say are hypothetical.

MR. SNOW: You got me.

Q The President said in his speech that -- to expect many more casualties. How many more Americans is he willing to sacrifice to keep this war going?

MR. SNOW: You know, what's interesting, Helen, is if you ask the people who are -- if you take a look at what's going on in recruitment right now, the people who are most likely to sign up are the people who are involved in combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. And if you talk to a number of them, they feel that they are part of something very special, which is something that is certainly a difficult mission, but it also reflects the finest traditions of the United States of America, which is what people are fighting for -- to liberate others and to extend the boundaries of liberty, and to create the possibility for allies who are going to be not only allies in the war on terror, but examples of exactly the power of freedom.

The President wishes that nobody had to die. This is something that is deeply personal. He quite often meets with families of those who have been wounded and killed. On the other hand, the real question is, what happens if the United States walks away? And the answer is that many, many more people will be washed away in needless bloodshed as forces of terror draw confidence and encouragement from the fact that we will not have finished the job.

Q I have one follow-up. Are there any members of the Bush family or this administration in this war?

MR. SNOW: Yes, the President. The President is in the war every day.

Q Come on. That isn't my question.

MR. SNOW: If you ask any President who is a Commander-in-Chief --

Q On the front lines --

MR. SNOW: The President.

Q Tony, you say that you're outraged by Senator Reid's comments, whatever they were, about --

MR. SNOW: Let's say, if it's true.

Q -- about General Pace, but yet the President chose not to stand up for General Pace in the face of senators who said they didn't want to go through a hearing, that would be tough on Iraq and he would be an easy target. So how can you --

MR. SNOW: No, that would be your characterization. In fact, what the President did is he accepted the recommendation of the Secretary of Defense, who thought at the time that the nation's interests would not best be served by a spectacle like that. And, instead, what he ended up doing, after conversations with General Pace, decided to make some changes.

Q But isn't that what Secretary Gates recommended, is that -- not to stick up for General Pace, even --

MR. SNOW: I don't think that's -- I don't think General Pace or Secretary Gates would put it that way. What they decided to do was to spare the General, and also the American public, the kind of spectacle that I think in some ways explains the low esteem with which people regard the entire political class in Washington, especially Congress. So if you want to get the proper characterization of motives, I would direct you to Secretary Gates.

Q I'm just saying it seems like you're having it both ways. You call these comments outrageous, but, yet, you didn't stand up for General Pace.

MR. SNOW: No, I think the President has constantly stood up for General Pace and has also made it clear that he values his 40 years of service to this country. I don't think that is at all the case.

Q You went ahead with the hearing for General Casey, and that was a difficult hearing. Why not General Pace?

MR. SNOW: Again, I will direct you to -- number one --

Q What kind of spectacle are you talking about? What did you expect?

MR. SNOW: I don't know. I was not privy to the conversations. I'm repeating to you what Secretary Gates has said, and if you want further detail on that, I'd direct you to him.

Q I'm sorry, I interrupted my own questioning here. What about General Casey? He stood up for General Casey, he went ahead with that hearing. That was a difficult hearing -- why not General Pace?

MR. SNOW: Again, I would direct you to Secretary Gates, but at least based on the characterizations I've seen, I think he was talking about something that would be far nastier than what we saw with General Casey.

Q Since you're dealing with the issue of "ifs" today --

MR. SNOW: I'm sorry, what?

Q Since you're dealing with the issue of "ifs" today, what would be the reason for Lewis "Scooter" Libby to get a pardon?

MR. SNOW: Look, at this point, the President has said -- not "at this point" -- what the President has said is let the legal process work itself out. We're just not engaging in that right now.

Q Is he worthy of a pardon? He was not convicted. He was not convicted on leaking, but other issues. Is he worthy --

MR. SNOW: I understand. That is an interesting "if," and it's not something that's appropriate to discuss.

Q Tony, two questions. One, FBI Director Robert Mueller was speaking at the global nuclear conference in Miami, Florida. And as far as FBI is concerned, so far they have done a good job -- not any major terrorism. But he was concerned -- he said that it's not a matter of time but when the terrorism attacks the U.S. again, but also he said that there is enough loose nuclear material around the globe which al Qaeda and others who hate the U.S. might get it. My question is what he said, that we need a unity among global law enforcement and also global friends. What President is doing about this -- any further attack or nuclear material by the terrorism?

MR. SNOW: Well, Goyal, surely you know that there's been extensive cooperation, continues to be, between police agencies and intelligence organizations throughout the world. The administration also has been pushing for non-proliferation. The entire GNEP program is designed also to say to nations, those of you who want to have civilian nuclear power, we want to do it, but we don't want you to have the capability of developing nuclear weapons. So there are vigorous efforts, either on the law enforcement side or also the diplomatic side to try to halt the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

What Mr. Mueller was really talking about, Director Mueller, is the obvious thing, which is that if al Qaeda could get a nuke, it would love to get its hands on one. Well, everybody knows that. And what we want to do is to make sure that they can't.

Q Second, if I may. There's a disturbing report, as far as illegal immigrants are concerned in this country, but many of them are living like slaves, captive by their captors, like taken advantage or they have been like slaves in this country, many of them.

MR. SNOW: Well, I don't know about that, but two things. Number one, the President obviously has made clear on a number of occasions his own opposition to this kind of treatment to anybody anywhere. Number two, one of the key items in comprehensive immigration reform is to make sure that everybody gets a tamper-proof ID. Why? Not only can you get an accounting of who's here, but you can also hold accountable all employers. We have said that one of the problems in the present law is that it absolutely lacks any kind of credible mechanism for punishing employers who knowingly hire illegals or exploit them.

Under the new law, if you have a requirement for a tamper-proof ID -- an employee verification system, then employers cannot say, oh, you know, how do I know if it's a fake Social Security card, or how do I know if it's a fake driver's license? Here you know because it's got a biometric marker. They no longer have excuses, and the full force of the law will be applied to them. And unlike the 1986 statute, we're talking about very serious sanctions against employers who knowingly break the law. This serves not only as a protection in terms of trying to make sure that we know who's here legally and illegally, but also it serves as a protection for the workers themselves for precisely the reasons you've cited.

Olivier.

Q Tony, the situation in Gaza, Ban Ki-moon says that in separate phone calls with Olmert and Abbas there's a possibility of an international force. Is that -- what does the President think of the possibility of --

MR. SNOW: We're aware of some of the conversations, but the most important thing right now is, number one, Hamas has to stop terrorizing the Palestinian people. And, number two, we want to get back to the situation where the Palestinians can get something that they've been robbed of too many times, which is peace in their streets, democracy in their government, and the ability to move toward what everybody in the region ought to hope for, which is two nations, sovereign, living peacefully and side by side.

Q On immigration, because we were on that subject, could you talk to us a little bit about what the President is endorsing today? This $4.4 billion measure --

MR. SNOW: Yes, thank you. Let me walk you --

Q Right, give us some clarification.

MR. SNOW: Sure, that's a good question, because I was a little fuzzy on it this morning.

What we're talking about is an immediate appropriation out of the general fund of $4.4 billion. The CBO estimates that the thousand dollar fines for heads of household and the $500 fines for dependents will yield over two years $4.4 billion, at a minimum. Now what is going to happen is -- so you would appropriate that money, and then as the fine money comes through you would basically repay the account.

Now, all of this money would be spent on the trigger mechanisms in the legislation. So just to give you a sense -- and there would still be some money left over for additional border enforcement activities. Just looking at what OMB has put together for us, what you have -- I'll just give you a sense; and what I'll give you is the most expensive proposal right now, which is the so-called Gregg amendment. The Gregg amendment would call for 200,000 increase in Border Patrol agents*, 300 additional miles of vehicle barriers, 105 radar and camera towers, an increase in detention beds to 31,500. You put all those factors together and you get about $2 billion. Now, that does not include the cost of establishing the employee verification system or adjudicating the temporary worker program applications in a timely manner. We've got some, sort of, back-of-the-envelope calculations there, too, but it's less than $2 billion.

So that's what we're talking about here. We are talking about an immediate -- think of it, a direct deposit right now on border security, a surge toward the border of people and technology, because we understand a lot of people are skeptical about whether the government can actually provide security.

Now, as the President also pointed out in his remarks today, Operation Jump Start has demonstrated that when you put people and technology on the border you can have quick results. And with a fraction of what we're talking about by the end of the next calendar year, by the end of 2008, we've already seen -- I think it's 1.15 million apprehensions and returns of people at the border; you have seen greatly stepped-up enforcement, in terms of illegals -- and you all know a lot of the stories about employers, where you've had big actions, fines against employers; and end of catch and release, so that people who are now caught are returned; you have an increase in the ability to detain folks right now. You put all those pieces together, there are estimates that the attempts to cross the border have declined by as much as 25 percent just in the last year.

So we think that we have already established a basis for understanding that a real commitment does make a difference. And, furthermore, if you go ahead and meet the benchmarks that are incorporated in the Senate bill, that you're going to have a basis, really, for demonstrating to the public that you're absolutely serious, and not only serious, but effective in achieving that goal of border security.

Q Tony, do you think that the President endorsing this amendment, though, will be enough to persuade reluctant Republicans to vote for it?

MR. SNOW: I've said this many times, we think we've got enough votes to get cloture and passage.

Q How do you get to the $4.4 billion when the administration isn't sure how many illegal immigrants are in the country, really has no idea how many would come forward with the means to pay the fines and fees that would add up to it?

MR. SNOW: Well, again, this is a CBO estimate, so it's not something that we have done. CBO is estimating that you get about 60 percent compliance, and furthermore, the way the program works, as you know, is that in some cases, what you end up doing is paying it on the installment plan, where you essentially have something where funds are automatically transferred so that people pay off, again, $1,000 for head of household, $500 for others.

Some people actually think -- some of our folks think that that may be too modest, or certainly a conservative estimate, but that's probably the proper way to do it -- go ahead with a conservative estimate on revenues so that you make sure that you're going to be able to recapture those revenues over time.

And by the way, nobody knows exactly how much taxes you're going to collect next year, but on the other hand, as you know, what we try to do is to put together the best estimates we can based on the information available. Keep in mind that there are very powerful incentives under this bill to declare yourself. If you're caught and you don't have that tamper-proof ID, you get sent away. But on the way out, you get fingerprinted; that's gets entered into a system that is far more comprehensive in terms of the communication between law enforcement agencies, federal, state and local. And therefore, the possibility of getting apprehended when you try to cross the border are far higher and the punishments are far more significant. So there are a lot of encouragements and inducements for people to bring themselves forward.

Again, you're absolutely right, no hundred percent guarantee here, but it is based on the best estimates that people have been able to come forward with.

Q On this issue, the President has been very confident. I mean, he predicted the bill signing when he was overseas. And the other day he was confident. But yet, the polls show that there's unanimity on the other side on opposition and that there are Republicans who really weren't persuaded the other day. Are you seeing something, or is the President seeing something different than what we're seeing?

MR. SNOW: Well, first, when you say unanimity on the other side, I'm looking at the LA Times poll the other day, and it says 65 percent of Republicans back it. As a matter of fact, if you ask, do you think there ought to be a path to citizenship for people who pay a fine, that's 65, 75 percent; do you think there ought to be a temporary worker program, that enjoys widespread support. If you say, do you think people ought to be required to learn English, that's wildly popular. If you say, should we have a significant commitment to border security, people agree with that.

So I disagree with the contention that, in fact, among the public at large, that you've got unanimity against it, and as a matter of fact, when you start laying out what the provisions are and ask people what they think about it, they're for it. Nevertheless, we think that there -- it's pretty obvious that there is enormous skepticism in the public because they've seen this before. I mean, we went through a 1986 immigration reform that promised a lot and it didn't deliver. So what people want are deliverables.

Now, what I'm saying is that we've already demonstrated in the last year with Operation Jump Start that we've had some significant changes in the way things are going, and people are going to be able to see it and judge it as they see things going up on the border over the next 15 or 16 months.

When it comes to the vote counting, look, we understand that there are going to be some Republicans -- and Democrats -- let's keep in mind that a lot of Democrats have been opposed to this for different reasons. But the fact is that we believe that there are enough votes, again, to get cloture, Democrats and Republicans, and to pass the bill. And furthermore, we believe that you start explaining what the bill tries to do -- border security, make the rule of law mean something, have a law that punishes people who came here illegally in the first place, punishes employers who are knowingly hiring them, and has real punishment for people who, going forward, break the law -- that's something that the previous law didn't have. If you crossed the border, it was a misdemeanor that wasn't punishable by any fine or penalty.

Furthermore, if you stayed here, if you were an overstay on a visa, that wasn't even a misdemeanor, that was a civil infraction, like dropping gum on the sidewalk. So the point is -- and when you tried to go with employer sanctions, those were toothless, as well. There's no reason for anybody -- it basically said, break the law, who cares.

Now what you have is you restore the rule of law by having real and enforceable sanctions. And finally, when it comes to citizenship, we set up a system where those who wish to become American citizens have to admit they broke the law, they have to pay fines, they have to pay taxes, they have to stay employed, they cannot break the law in the future, they have to learn English, they have to pass the citizenship test, they have to wait a long time in order to do all these things -- in other words, they will have worked harder, stayed longer, and demonstrated good behavior and love the culture far more thoroughly than any other generation of immigrants has been required to do.

And that's the kind of thing that will build confidence that citizenship is not simply a give-away, but in fact, is an earned privilege.

Q Tony, why do you think you have enough votes for passage? Why do you think that now? And is there a new --

MR. SNOW: We've thought it all along. We thought -- no, no, we thought it all along. Again -- it's the same old nose count. But you keep confusing last week's vote as rejection of the bill. There were a number of people last week who voted against cutting off debate because they didn't want to cut off debate. And that includes -- so you had some people who supported the bill saying, you know, now, wait a minute, we have measures here that we think are certainly worthy of enactment, or at least consideration; we think you ought to have the full debate.

We went through an almost identical exercise last year, where you had failure to gain cloture because people wanted more debates. Later on Bill Frist brought it up, you had the debates, you had the amendments, and you finally got passage. And we see the same sort of pattern prevailing this year.

Q Have you gotten any confirmation on the North Korea money transfer?

MR. SNOW: No, we haven't. We have -- we continue to check on that. We know that -- we, again, are grateful to the Russian government for trying to help with this. We do not have any confirmation that the transfers have yet been made.

Q The Russians seem to be saying that the U.S. gave some sort of sanctions guarantee.

MR. SNOW: Again, I'm not going to go into details until -- let's make sure we've got everything done before we start characterizing. And, at this juncture, again, right before we came here we tried to get confirmation. We don't have it yet.

Q On immigration --

MR. SNOW: Okay, one more.

Q One more, just clarification.

MR. SNOW: All right.

Q So, you listed these improvements, the border security improvements, as totaling $2 billion. What would go out initially under the Graham amendment that the President supports, would be $4.4 million. So do you envision it --

MR. SNOW: Billion.

Q Billion, excuse me -- billion in both cases. So do you envision it covering the expenses for two years, and then at that point, everything else being generated by the fines, that that would kick in?

MR. SNOW: Well, let's -- what also -- what happens also is that there are provisions where fines and other collections go in -- go to the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Labor for related activities. So that's also set up in the law. So what we're really talking about is setting aside this $4.4 billion -- this is kind of the one time for this surge -- so that you meet all the benchmarks in the law. And once you get to $4.4 billion, if there are extra monies, then they go into those DHS and DOL funds.

Q Tony, back on General Pace, how do you reconcile the administration's tenacity and persistence in supporting General Gonzales -- Attorney General Gonzales in the face of contentious, and some are saying politically motivated hearings, and the unwillingness to do the same for General Pace? Is there a difference in confidence level?

MR. SNOW: No, I don't -- no. And, again, this is -- the recommendation was made by the Secretary of Defense. And I don't know what all went into it, but I know that, as he said, he went in intending and wanting to renominate General Pace and also Ambassador [sic] Giambastiani. And he thought that what he was hearing from the Hill would have led to a spectacle that he did not think was going to be useful to the country. I really can't add much to that, Ken.

But there is no -- there is no lack of confidence or affection or respect for General Pace. I mean, this is a guy who has served the country for 40 years. And we all would have liked to have seen him able to serve another term as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. I can't really go any further than the Secretary of Defense, because it was his recommendation.

Q It sounds like the President uncharacteristically stepping away from a fight.

MR. SNOW: No. No, it's just -- no. What the President has done quite often is he also abides by the recommendations of Cabinet secretaries on such matters.

Q Thank you, Tony. Two questions. The New York Post has noted with concern that New York's Senator Clinton has named as co-chairman of her Florida presidential campaign Congressman Alcee Hastings. And my question: As the leader of the Republican Party, what is the President's reaction to Hillary's appointment of this same man that House leaders Pelosi, Hoyer, Conyers and Rangel and 409 more members of the House voted to impeach, and the Senate voted to remove from a judgeship for bribery and perjury?

MR. SNOW: The President does not spend a lot of time reviewing personnel decisions by the junior senator from New York, nor any others who are running for the Democratic presidential nomination. He will let them make their own choices.

Q This morning, The Washington Post bitterly attacked in an editorial Dr. Holsinger, the President's nominee for Surgeon General. My question, is there still no defense of Dr. Holsinger from the press secretary of the President who nominated him?

MR. SNOW: We understand the controversy about Dr. Holsinger. We also know that, for instance, two major papers in Kentucky have -- both of which are pretty liberal papers, the Louisville Courier Journal and The Lexington Herald Leader -- both have been supportive of him, as have a number of other people. So there's a record. And, obviously, he is going to be talking to members of the Senate and hoping to get a fair hearing and a vote.

Q Thank you. You have answered some of my question.

MR. SNOW: Go ahead, Sarah.

Q Thank you. A Pentagon report says violence has increased in Iraq in spite of the surge. Does the President intend to send more U.S. troops to Iraq?

MR. SNOW: Actually, the 90-10 report says that the overall levels have been high, but if you take a look at some of the metrics which have been taking place in Baghdad, you have a seen a decrease in sectarian violence, and you've also seen a number of other metrics, for instance, 34 percent decrease in violence in Anbar. Nevertheless, we've seen al Qaeda moving to other places and also using more deadly means, such as explosively formed projectiles.

So what the President does is he looks at the 90-10, and you look at it in terms of what's going on not merely throughout the nation, but keep in mind that the Baghdad security plan understands that the first thing you've got to do is secure the capital. There have been some encouraging signs, but, again, we will reiterate, the surge is not complete, forces are just now, this next couple of weeks flowing in so that you've have the full complement of forces, and it's going to be another month or two before they're completely up and running at full speed.

The 90-10 report also cuts off right in the middle of May, which was the bloodiest month. But, nevertheless, these are useful reports and it's very interesting, if you go through and take a look -- for instance, you take a look at the sectarian violence chart in there, and you see very high levels last year -- it's dipped down considerably, it's a little bit up the last couple of months. Those are important signals. But it also notes, for instance, that it is very important for the Iraqis to step forward and go ahead and complete a lot of the important political benchmarks: oil law, redistribution of income, political reform, constitutional reform and so on.

So the report is what it is, but it is not a blanket condemnation of what's going on.

Terry.

Q Thank you.

MR. SNOW: Oh, wait a second. Everybody stop, stop, stop -- one more piece of business, ladies and gentlemen, I apologize. A quick round of applause for Chris Edwards, please. (Applause.) Tomorrow marks his last day on the job. He's been with the administration since 2002, and the White House since 2003, volunteered on the 2000 campaign and, I daresay, has played an important role in the lives of each and every one of us at some juncture in this room, and we're going to miss you. And you're going to go goof off for some months, is that correct?

Of each and every one of us at some juncture in this room. And we're going to miss you. And you're going to go goof off for some months, is that correct?

MR. EDWARDS: Yes, for a few months, and then family business.

MR. SNOW: Wouldn't we all like the option of doing that. Okay --

MR. EDWARDS: Everybody eat chocolate. (Laughter.)

MR. SNOW: All right. (Applause.)

END 1:11 P.M. EDT

* The Gregg amendment, which was adopted by the U.S. Senate, would increase the number of Border Patrol agents to a total of 20,000.

For Immediate Release, Office of the Press Secretary, June 14, 2007

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House or Tony Snow and VIDEO, or Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and United States Senate, or temporary worker program, and Fluorescent nanotubes opens door to clinical uses or 4th of July 1776 Washington and President Bush Announces Ed Gillespie as New Counselor to the President VIDEO