Initial Benchmark Assessment Report COMPLETE TEXT

This report to Congress is submitted consistent with Section 1314 of the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007 (Public Law 110-28) (the “Act”). It includes an assessment of how the sovereign Government of Iraq is performing in its efforts to achieve a series of specific benchmarks contained in the Act, as well as any adjustments to strategy that may be warranted in light of that performance.

This is the first of two reports to be submitted consistent with the Act and has been prepared in consultation with the Secretaries of State and Defense; Commander, Multi-National Forces-Iraq; the United States Ambassador to Iraq; and the Commander of United States Central Command, consistent with Section 1314(b)(2)(B) of the Act. This assessment complements other reports and information about Iraq provided to the Congress and is not intended as a single source of all information about the combined efforts or the future strategy of the United States, its Coalition Partners, or Iraq.

Introduction

Section 1314 of the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007 (Public Law 110-28) states that the President is to submit to Congress two reports assessing the status of each of the 18 benchmarks contained in the Act and declaring whether, in the President’s judgment, satisfactory progress is being achieved with respect to those 18 benchmarks.

These benchmarks relate to Government of Iraq actions believed to be important to advance reconciliation within Iraqi society, to improve the security of the Iraqi population, to provide essential services to the population, and to promote its economic well-being. These efforts complement other U.S. and Iraqi collaborative actions as part of the New Way Forward.

COMPLETE TEXT IN PDF FORMAT

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House or Initial Benchmark Assessment Report and the New Way Forward or Nanospheres revolutionize biodiesel production or Seven Wonders of the World Mausoleum of Halicarnassus and President Unveils Renovated Press Briefing Room VIDEO PODCAST

Passing of Lady Bird Johnson

President and Mrs. Bush Mourn the Passing of Lady Bird Johnson Lady Bird Johnson: Final Tribute

Laura and I mourn the passing of our good friend, and a warm and gracious woman, Lady Bird Johnson. Those who were blessed to know her remember Mrs. Johnson's lively and charming personality, and our Nation will always remember her with affection. Mrs. Johnson became First Lady on a fateful day in November 1963 - and was a steady, gentle presence for a mourning Nation in the days that followed.

In the White House, Mrs. Johnson shared her love of the environment and nature with our entire country. The native wildflowers that bloom along roadsides today are part of her lasting legacy. She joined President Johnson in the struggle for civil rights, inspiring millions of Americans. Her commitment to early education gave many children a head start in life.

President Johnson once called her a woman of "ideals, principles, intelligence, and refinement." She remained so throughout their life together, and in the many years given to her afterward. She was much-loved in our home State of Texas, and the Bush family is fortunate to have known her.

Lady Bird Johnson leaves behind her devoted daughters, Lynda and Luci, their fine families, and a Nation that joins them in honoring a good life of kindness and service. # # #

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House or Lady Bird Johnson and President Johnson or The first heat transistor, remote controlled nanomachines or Seven Wonders of the World Statue of Zeus and State Department Daily Press Briefing, 07/10/07 (VIDEO, PODCAST)

President Unveils Renovated Press Briefing Room VIDEO PODCAST

President Bush Unveils Renovated Press Briefing Room, FULL STREAMING VIDEO James S. Brady Briefing Room 8:05 A.M. EDT PODCAST OF THIS ARTICLE

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. I like a good, short introduction. (Laughter.)

Q -- (inaudible) --

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. (Laughter.) After all, it is your room. (Laughter.) Welcome back to the West Wing. We missed you -- sort of. (Laughter.)

I can already tell this place has improved; the last time I was in here to hold a press conference I broke out into a sweat -- not because of your questions, but because of the climate. The air-conditioner seems to work well. I hope the facility is -- suits your needs. I really do.

The relationship between the President and the press is a unique relationship, and it's a necessary relationship. I enjoy it. I hope you do. As I say, sometimes you don't like the decisions I make, and sometimes I don't like the way you write about the decisions. But nevertheless, it's a really important part of our process. And the fact that you were working in substandard conditions just wasn't right. It really wasn't.

And so my White House worked with Steve and Ann, worked with Mark Smith to get it right. And I think it's going to benefit future Presidents and future White House press corps, to be working in modern conditions,

conditions where a fellow like me will feel comfortable coming in here answering a few questions without losing 20 pounds. (Laughter.)

It was really hot in here. As a matter of fact, I can't imagine how Snow could handle it on a regular basis. But now it's modern, and it's going to enable you to do a better job. And I'm glad that's the case.

I want to thank Peter Doherty -- where is he? Yes, Peter, thanks for working hard here. You get a lot of credit for making sure this thing works. And one of these days Laura and I are looking forward to coming and actually see what it's like working here.

I've never toured -- I've never even been able to get beyond the podium -- (laughter) -- if you know what I mean. As a matter of fact, I've always felt comfortable behind the podium in front of you, kind of as a shield. (Laughter.) But I would like a tour.

Q Bullet-proof --

THE PRESIDENT: Well, it's not exactly bullet-proof. Some of your bullets are able to -- verbal bullets -- (laughter) -- are able to penetrate. But you've been around a long time, see, you know what it's like to query Presidents. You've been -- you're kind of an older fellow. (Laughter.)

Q -- (inaudible) --

THE PRESIDENT: Yes -- proudly so. Thanks for the birthday greeting, too. I appreciate that thoughtful gesture.

But, anyway, we're glad to join you for this ribbon-cutting, and we thank you very much for working with Hagin and the bunch to make sure this thing -- deal works. And it's going to. And it's going to make your life better and, frankly, it's going to make the lives of future Presidents better, as well. And so it's a good contribution that you all have left behind. And we're glad to have been a part of it. And so -- wait --

Q What, do you think I'm going to ask a question?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I did think you were going to ask me a question, yes. (Laughter.)

Q I am. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: Well, maybe some other time.

Q Oh, but do you think you open --

THE PRESIDENT: See what I'm saying? (Laughter.)

Q You can't come to the press room, especially a modern press room --

THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute, let's do this -- let me cut the ribbon, and --

Q You think anything has changed?

THE PRESIDENT: Let me cut the ribbon -- are you going to cut it with me, Steve -- and then why don't you all yell simultaneously? (Laughter.) Like, really loudly. (Laughter.) And that way you might get noticed.

Q It doesn't sound like you're going to answer --

THE PRESIDENT: No, I will. I'll, like, listen --

Q And leave?

THE PRESIDENT: -- internalize, play like I'm going to answer the question, and then smile at you and just say, gosh -- (laughter) -- thanks, thanks for such a solid, sound question.

Here we go, ready? I'm going to cut the ribbon. (Laughter.) Then you yell. I cogitate -- and then smile and wave. (Laughter.)

Are you going to come, Laura? Here we go.

(The President and Mrs. Bush cut the ribbon.) (Applause.)

Q -- (inaudible) --

THE PRESIDENT: Brilliant question.

Q -- (inaudible) -- cogitating that, right?

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. See you soon.

Q We look forward to seeing you come and do a little --

THE PRESIDENT: I will see you soon, thank you.

Q Y'all come back. (Laughter.)

END 8:12 A.M. EDT

For Immediate Release, Office of the Press Secretary, July 11, 2007

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House or Renovated Press Briefing Room and video and podcast or The first heat transistor, remote controlled nanomachines or Seven Wonders of the World Statue of Zeus and State Department Daily Press Briefing, 07/10/07 (VIDEO, PODCAST)

State Department Daily Press Briefing, 07/10/07 (VIDEO, PODCAST)

Daily Press Briefing, Spokesman Sean McCormack, FULL STREAMING VIDEO file is windows media format, running time is 33:13, PODCAST of Briefing mp3 format for download. Washington, DC, July 10, 2007, 12:35 p.m. EST. Streaming Audio of briefing mp3 in m3u format for online listening.

MR. MCCORMACK: Good afternoon, everybody. We don't have -- I don't have any opening statements, so we can get right to your questions. QUESTION: Can you expand any more on what Tom said this morning about Chris Hill's travel plans?

MR. MCCORMACK: No.

QUESTION: No, okay.

(Laughter.)

QUESTION: Thank you. All right, well --

(Laughter.)

MR. MCCORMACK: I certainly do, but I'm not telling you.

(Laughter.)

MR. MCCORMACK: No, Tom -- let me run through the basic schedule once again for those who might have missed it. Chris Hill, our Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, not just the six-party talks, is going to be traveling to the region on Thursday, beginning Thursday, July 12th for consultations with counterparts regarding six-party talks. He'll be in Tokyo July 13th and 15th for those of you who wish to stalk him. (Laughter.) And on -- Seoul July 15th through the 17th and he'll arrive in Beijing on the 17th.

Now he's going to be having consultations with Chinese authorities. I think one might presume that if there were to be six-party talks, that he would be in place to have those six-party talks, but the Chinese Government has not yet made any official announcements in that regard and I think we're also still looking for what kind of momentum we can build up in terms of meeting the February agreement before we have an official announcement.

QUESTION: But you don't feel that it's necessary for the North Koreans to actually take some steps to shut down Yongbyon?

MR. MCCORMACK: We'll see. This is -- again, the 18th would be after, presumably, they have talked about the timeframe that they might shut down Yongbyon. They've talked about timing the shutdown of Yongbyon to the arrival of that first small tranche of the 50,000 tons of fuel oil. That is scheduled to happen, I think, this weekend on Saturday. So we'll see. We'll see what the timing is and we'll see if it is appropriate to have those discussions. As I said, Chris would be in place in the case that there were those discussions and in any case, it's useful for him to go out to the region in anticipation of some future six-party talks, whether that is next week or sometime thereafter.

QUESTION: But you continue to say that there's no link necessarily between the two; in other words, they can stiff you on Yongbyon and you might still have six-party talks?

MR. MCCORMACK: As I have said before, I'm not going to tie our hands diplomatically, but everybody agrees, I believe, among the five parties certainly, that it would be good to have that next envoys level meeting actually build on some momentum that was already there instead of relying upon just the meeting to develop some momentum.

QUESTION: Another subject.

MR. MCCORMACK: Sure.

QUESTION: Sean, you have any comments on the standoff that is now over* in Pakistan? And also, well, this is similar to -- in India, the Golden Temple in Amritsar in 1984. The terrorists entered the Golden Temple, now the terrorists are in the mosque here. So what is now the future as for terrorism, dealing with terrorism is concerned entering the religious places and terrifying the innocent people?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, Goyal, I'm not going to try to make any linkage between these two events. I think you have to deal with them in their own right and their own unique circumstances. As I understand it, it still is an ongoing matter with respect to the Red Mosque. The Pakistani security forces have gone in there after exercising a great deal of patience and restraint in offering every possible opportunity for innocents that may still be in the mosque to leave, as well as offering those who have threatened to use violence and, in fact, have used violence in an opportunity to resolve the situation peacefully. And I understand that there have been 40 to 50 deaths of violent extremism -- violent extremists who were in the mosque, as well as about eight Pakistani soldiers and certainly, we mourn the loss of innocent life and those brave people who are trying to bring law and order -- maintain law and order in Pakistan.

Of course, everybody wants to see these kinds of situations resolved peacefully. It's everybody's optimal solution. But it is fundamentally a matter of the -- for the government to decide when negotiations end and when action needs to take place to bring some sort of resolution to the situation. My understanding, it was a situation where they had exercised any number of opportunities for these individuals to resolve peacefully, yet they persisted and they persisted to the point of using children as human shields. So in terms of any update on the situation, as it stands -- operational update -- I think the Pakistan authorities can offer that to you. And if there's anything finally to say about it, any sort of lessons learned, if any, then certainly, we'll offer those if we think it's appropriate.

QUESTION: And just a quick follow-up. If U.S. played any role in the stand -- or in ending this or (inaudible) ask for any help?

MR. MCCORMACK: Not that I know of. I don't -- I doubt it.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Sean, do you have any update on mortar fire inside the Green Zone?

QUESTION: I have a follow-up to this.

QUESTION: Oh, yeah, sorry.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: Were there any -- can you give us a list of contacts between the Pakistanis in this building, regarding the mosque incident? Were there any at all?

MR. MCCORMACK: With us?

QUESTION: Yeah, with-- out of the building or just out of the embassy?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I mean, it's not really an accurate measure. I mean, you know, contacts with them, asking them what happens to be going on, I'm sure occurred, just to get a status update, so people could report back. But, I am not aware of any sort of operational linkages and certainly, we are not in the business of telling the Pakistani Government when they should or should not end negotiations.

QUESTION: But you are concerned about attacks, future attacks. You want to elaborate on that Peshawar?

MR. MCCORMACK: There's a Warden Message that we just put out. We can -- if you all don’t have it, then we can make it available to you. It went out from Islamabad, I believe, today. And to boil it down, it asked -- recommended American citizens limit their movement in the Peshawar area for several days, due to non-specific public announcements by terrorists elements in the Bajaur, B-a-j-a-u-r, tribal agency, that they plan to unleash attacks on Pakistani Governmental police and army institutions in retaliation for recent events at the Lal Masjid complex in Islamabad.

QUESTION: Sean.

MR. MCCORMACK: What's that -- oh, okay, sure.

QUESTION: Could you just find out if our Ambassador in Islamabad has spoken with his Chinese counterpart on this mosque incident?

MR. MCCORMACK: Sure. We can track that down for you. Yeah.

QUESTION: Can I go to Iraq?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: Did you have any update on the mortar fire inside the Green Zone?

MR. MCCORMACK: Nothing that I can offer right now. Let me see if there is anything that we can offer. Typically, we tend not to get into too many details when there is indirect fire that comes into the Green Zone that may affect U.S. personnel, simply for the reason we don't want to give those who are using this indirect fire a sense of what they have or have not done. But I'll see what we can offer. Right now, I can't offer you anything.

QUESTION: You say this is indirect fire? My understanding was that it was, you know, a dozen mortar shot directly into the --

MR. MCCORMACK: It's a term of art; indirect fire, meaning it's lobbed in from elsewhere, not point blank. Mortars, rockets, that sort of thing.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: And when you say there's no Americans who are hurt --

MR. MCCORMACK: I didn't say that. I said that typically in these situations where you have indirect fire incidents, we don't get into a lot of details about who may have been --

QUESTION: But you wouldn't rule that out, right?

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm not going to point you in any particular direction right now. Let's --

QUESTION: (Inaudible) functioning (inaudible)?

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm not trying to -- look, this happens on a not irregular basis, so any details that we might offer you on this -- these particular incidents, I'll try to get those for you. But I just wanted to put that caveat up front that in case you're looking for, sort of, fine-grained detail on this, you're usually not going to find it from us for the reasons I talked about.

QUESTION: Mr. McCormack, on FYROM. Anything to say about this --

MR. MCCORMACK: (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: FYROM.

MR. MCCORMACK: Okay, okay.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.) Anything to say about the -- today's meeting between Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the Foreign Minister of FYROM Antonio Milososki?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah. They had a good meeting and they talked about a wide range of topics. They talked about the neighborhood. They talked about Kosovo. They talked about bilateral relations between Macedonia and Greece. And one of the things the Secretary underlined was the importance of Macedonia working in the UN process to resolve the name issue, including Greece. As you know, we have made our own decision on that, as have other countries, but it's an important issue to resolve.

QUESTION: She emphasized?

MR. MCCORMACK: Excuse me?

QUESTION: She -- the Secretary emphasized that --

MR. MCCORMACK: It is one among a number of different things. She -- and look, there is no pushback from the Foreign Minister. He said that this was something that they are engaged in, they are willingly engaged in, and actively engaged in.

They also talked about the fact that Macedonia has contributed troops and is contributing troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Secretary thanked him for those contributions.

What else? That was basically it. It was mostly neighborhood issues, Afghanistan, Iraq and bilateral relations between Greece and Macedonia.

QUESTION: Mr. McCormack, who asked for the meeting -- the Secretary or Mr. Milososki? And how long lasted?

MR. MCCORMACK: It lasted half an hour, as they typically do, as these foreign minister meetings do. I can't tell you who asked for the meeting. It's a mutual consent. I mean, she -- Secretary Rice wanted to see him.

QUESTION: Okay. And the last one. Did he invite the Secretary to visit Skopje, and how soon?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't think that there was a specific invitation during this meeting, but the Secretary at some point, I am sure, looks forward to visiting Macedonia.

QUESTION: Another subject? In the Palestinian territories, President Abbas called for the deployment of an international force in the Gaza Strip. Do you think it's a good idea and how he’d work and --

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm not sure that we’ve taken a hard look at that. Anything that President Abbas proposes with regard to maintaining law and order, I think people have to take a look at though. I'm not sure that you're going to find too many forces willing to go into what I expect is a non-permissive environment.

The focus should be on building up functioning, capable, responsible Palestinian security forces that are capable of functioning in both areas. Now, I know that right now that's a difficult proposition with respect to the Gaza, but that's really where the main weight of our focus is and the main weight of our effort.

QUESTION: But it's not the first time this subject comes up --

MR. MCCORMACK: It's an idea that has been circulating. I'm not sure it's gotten a lot of traction at this point. But look, people, serious people, come up with ideas and they float them. Of course, we'll take a look at them. I can tell you where the main weight of our effort is right now, and I think where the focus of our efforts will be. The Palestinians want to see Palestinians help maintain law and order. They want to have their own state. They want to have their own institutions that function. They want to be able to take pride in the fact that those institutions are functioning on behalf of the Palestinian people. So that's really where our focus is, and I think for President Abbas as well as the Palestinians—Palestinian leadership.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes.

QUESTION: Speaking of the Palestinians, we have a report out of Jerusalem saying that Tony Blair is pushing for a broader mandate and role in his, you know, newly announced position as the Quartet envoy, that he doesn't want to be limited just to the sort of technical matter of capacity building among the Palestinians and that he wants a more explicitly political role to try to help negotiate on issues of peace.

Are you open to former Prime Minister Blair having a bigger role in this?

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm not sure we've heard that from Prime Minister Blair. People sort of dismiss this idea of merely working with the Palestinians to build up their institutions. Well, let me tell you, that is as important as -- what goes in the container is as important as defining what the container is of the Palestinian state, if you want to look at it that way.

So from our perspective, the idea of helping to -- helping the Palestinians to build up respected, functioning, democratic institutions is one of the necessary conditions for a Palestinian state. Of course, we've talked about the political track and that is very important as well, and I expect that Secretary Rice and President Bush are going to remain focused on that.

Of course, Secretary Rice is going to talk to Prime Minister Blair about his thoughts, his insights. I think that's only natural. But I think all in the region and around the world are really going to look to the United States and Secretary Rice for leadership on pushing forward the political tracks, whether that's between the Israelis and the Palestinians or between the Israelis and the Arabs.

QUESTION: You said you're not sure you heard that from Prime Minister or former Prime Minister Blair that he wants a wider role. Can you check whether you've heard that from him?

MR. MCCORMACK: Sure, I'd be happy to. To my knowledge, we haven't. But I'd be happy to.

QUESTION: And then just so it's clear, I mean, the way I read your comments is that even if he was pushing, as we understand him to be, for a wider role, you're not that, sort of, hot on that, you feel like the main emphasis is the institution-building or did I misunderstand you?

MR. MCCORMACK: I think if you go back and look at the transcript to what I said, it's pretty clear.

QUESTION: Wait a minute, no, I'm sorry. It's not clear to me. So you like the idea of him having a wider role or you don't like the idea of him having a wider role?

MR. MCCORMACK: I think I've given you the answer I'm going to give you.

QUESTION: Ukrainian President Victor Yushchenko is visiting Hungary today and one of the discussions is going to be on the NATO membership. Besides that, Ukraine is hoping that Hungary and Poland is going to support its membership. In addition to that, Russia noted that it's concerned about having a NATO expansion and a base close to its borders. What is the United States' stand on that?

QUESTION: Is the United States --

MR. MCCORMACK: Our view, first of all, is that Ukraine needs to decide its own policies and politics. There's a debate within Ukraine about Ukraine's orientation and relationship with Europe and with NATO; the EU as well as NATO. And our view, whenever this question comes up concerning any state that has, in any -- expressed aspirations for NATO membership or interest in exploring NATO membership is that the door to NATO is open.

Now there are certain standards that countries have to meet and then there are formal steps along the way. I think, checking memory here, if it serves, is that Ukraine has not entered into any formal pathway to membership, although there is a NATO-Ukraine Council. So fundamentally, it's going to be up to both sides. The Ukraine Government is going to have to decide for itself how it wants to proceed and what relationship it wants with Europe, what relationship with -- it wants with NATO.

QUESTION: But just to follow up.

MR. MCCORMACK: Sure.

QUESTION: Would the United States support the membership?

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm not sure the question has come up. That would be a question that would come up after you've proceeded multiple steps down the way through a formal process. So I don't think anybody's talking about that at this point.

Yeah, Samir.

QUESTION: Is the Secretary planning another -- a separate trip to the Middle East after the -- next week's visit?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, Samir, we will keep you up to date on her travel schedule. It's hard enough to get out one travel announcement, so -- you know, we're still recovering from that process.

QUESTION: Is the --

MR. MCCORMACK: We'll -- so we'll keep you up to date on her travel, Samir. She's going to be in the Middle East quite a bit during the next 16 months, so --

QUESTION: Can you give us a readout on the talks with the Egyptian Foreign Minister yesterday? Did you reach any understanding on any security arrangements on the border between Egypt and Gaza?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I'll let the Egyptian Government speak for themselves as to what steps that they are going to take along that border. They understand that it's an issue. They understand, for their own security, that it is an issue. So they understand that there is a responsibility for the Egyptian Government to take every effort that they possibly can to stop the smuggling along that strip. But I will let them speak for themselves about decisions they themselves have arrived at.

Yeah.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) a ministerial meeting? Do you still expect that to happen at the end of the month or early next month?

MR. MCCORMACK: We'll see. We are a few steps away from that. I think you want to see the February 13th accord fully implemented, which was a condition that was outlined back when Chris signed the agreement on our behalf. I expect it -- I expect that it's going to be happening, that it's going to happen. I can't tell you when. But in order for it to happen, we're going to have to have that February 13th accord fully implemented.

Yeah, Matt.

QUESTION: Can I go back to Iraq for a second? There is apparently a draft of this July 15th report floating around the town, getting commented on before it goes -- I don't know if that's true or not, but if it is, can you tell us what the --

MR. MCCORMACK: They didn't hand out your (inaudible) yet?

QUESTION: No, I keep waiting for it. But you know, what exactly was the -- or is the Secretary's and Department's role in putting that together, or any revisions to it? And then after that -- you answer that question, which I'm sure I'll be satisfied with the answer, you can perhaps tell us what's in there --

MR. MCCORMACK: It’s a boring answer. Well, on the second, the second of those, I'll let the White House talk about that. It's going to be a report that they themselves issue. We'll talk about it at that point, but I think the focal point would be over at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

The answer to the first part is actually pretty boring interagency process stuff where you have a focal point at the NSC, they collect the information from the Department of Defense, the intelligence community, the Department of State comes in both from here, C Street, as well as the embassy and the regional offices and the PRTs. That all gets fed in. The information gets racked up against the various benchmarks that are required -- the required elements to this report that were put in place by Congress. There's drafts. I can't tell you how many drafts it's gone through. And we comment on the drafts. I'm not sure if the Secretary has seen a draft yet. I think she's talked quite a bit about its major elements. I know other senior members of the staff here have seen it. It's really the standard process that one goes through in writing reports here in Washington.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?

MR. MCCORMACK: Sure.

QUESTION: Ambassador Crocker gave an interview to the New York Times on Saturday, which they wrote up in today's paper. Probably the most striking comment that he made was comparing the timing on decisions about U.S. deployments in Iraq to movies and in Washington it's as if you're in the third reel of a three-reel movie; whereas in Baghdad, it looks like you're in the first half of the first reel of a five-reel movie, and regardless of how ugly that first reel has been, the next four are going to be even uglier. A pretty harsh and pessimistic analogy for him to use. Does the Department subscribe to that view that you're only 20 percent of the way through here in Iraq and that the next 80 percent is going to look even worse than the violence that one has witnessed in the past four years?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I'm going to let Ryan speak for himself. I think the -- basically, what he is saying here is that the Washington clock and the Baghdad clock are not synched up. I think that is not a secret. And that the work in Iraq is hard work fighting against violent, determined enemies, fighting against al-Qaida elements that are determined to stoke sectarian tensions. And you're also working with a relatively new government, and not only a relatively new government but people in a political system who are in the process of defining how their political system works. So this is all very difficult work. I think that is the main point of what he is trying to say. I'm not trying to walk anything back that he said, but I'd prefer to let him speak for himself.

He also talked a lot in that interview -- and I haven't seen the full transcript of the interview -- about how there's been a lot of progress in areas that aren't necessarily measurable or measured by the benchmarks that the Congress has put out. For example, the fact that you now have many of these Sunni groups that are allied -- allying themselves with the efforts of those who are fighting al-Qaida and turning against al-Qaida. It happened in Anbar Province. It's happening in Diyala Province as well. And that's very promising. As well as some of the positive political ferment that's happening at the local level, some of the bottom-up things that we had hoped would occur. And some of the area of focus that our PRTs devote energy to in terms of working with local governance councils down at the neighborhood level. So he talked a lot about that.

So you know, we're all going to get an assessment of where we are here in July. This was always meant as a, as I understand it, sort of the midway point assessment of where we are on the way towards a more significant September assessment at which General Petraeus and Ryan would weigh in in a formal way with their assessment of how the surge is going.

I think Ryan also made the point too that you're really now -- we are really now only at the point where all the elements of the surge are in place and they have only been in place for a couple of weeks, so I think his argument would be let's look and see where we are in September as something that was agreed upon in the law.

QUESTION: I was also struck by his comments about benchmarks because he was essentially questioning the utility of benchmarks for -- of the benchmarks in the legislation, but also benchmarks that the President himself emphasized in his January speech in terms of measuring progress in Iraq. And it makes me wonder if it is the State Department's view that those benchmarks, as enunciated by Congress and by the President earlier this year, are really just not that useful in terms of figuring out what's happening with the direction of the country.

MR. MCCORMACK: As I understand it, his comment was more by way of emphasizing there are other developments that are very difficult to measure, by benchmarks that are very difficult to get your hands on or touch or feel without being there on the ground and to see the progress that is being made. I don't think he was arguing against the benchmarks. I mean, these are things the Iraqi Government has laid out for themselves and that are enshrined* by Congress that we talked about as well.

And more important, they're -- it's important that the Iraqis meet these benchmarks for -- if not for a political measurement in Washington, for their own sake, in terms of allocation of resources, coming to some sort of reconciliation over the division of assets and how that gets distributed, coming to terms with a very ugly past, recent past in terms of de-Baathification and how that's going to work. It's a very emotional issue. So, I mean, put aside the political discussions here in Washington for their own sake. These are important benchmarks. I don't think Ryan would argue with that.

QUESTION: It would seem to me like he was questioning them or their utility. I mean, he said you could miss every benchmark and have the country actually be heading in the right direction in terms of its eventual return to security or you could make every benchmark conversely -- he used the word "conversely" -- you could have them make every benchmark and still have it be going in the wrong direction.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, it's -- again, it gets to the point I was talking about. It's -- you have a lot of these benchmarks that are very top level, that are, you know, very national level assessments of where you are in terms of passing laws that measure political arrangements at a capital level. But there is -- I think what he is saying -- and again, I don't want to speak for Ryan, but I think what I understand him to be saying is that while you have discussions that are going on in a capital and a national capital, there is also, separate from that -- we understand this from our own system -- going on out in provinces and cities and town councils that are actually very positive that are -- unless you have a set of benchmarks that looks like the New York City telephone book, it's very difficult to measure.

And what he's saying is that there is -- so he sees some progress on the ground in those areas. And again, you've seen a lot reporting coming out of Iraq over the past couple months in this regard, you know, what's happening in Anbar, what's happening in Diyala, what people hope might happen in Baquba. So I think that's what he's referring to. I don't think he's -- he's not throwing out the benchmarks that are already there. Those are benchmarks the Iraqis have laid down, it's benchmarks that Congress has laid down. I think what he's making an argument for is that there are also other measures of progress that may be difficult to measure in a political document or in a set of easily digestible benchmarks that actually matter. I think -- you know, I think that's the argument that he's making.

QUESTION: Sean, just looking at where we are today, which is, what, the 10th, what benchmarks have the Iraqi Government met? Have they -- what have they met?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, no, no --

QUESTION: I just want to know, you know, as you stand there right now, and forget about the fact that there's a report that's supposed to be coming out on the 15th or in September, which ones -- which --

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah. Well, I can't. I can't forget that, Matt.

QUESTION: Well --

MR. MCCORMACK: I can't. That is a reality. There is a report. There is a formal -- a formal process that we're going to go through.

QUESTION: Right.

MR. MCCORMACK: You can -- again, you -- these things are publicly available. You can take a look at what the Iraqis have done, what they haven't done. They have made progress on an oil law. It's not done yet. They have made progress on the revenue sharing law. It's not done yet. De-Baathification is farther behind. And they're -- I can't tell you where they stand with respect to provincial elections, which is sort of the big three that people talk about, but there are others as well. But you'll have a formal assessment from the U.S. Government.

QUESTION: But --

MR. MCCORMACK: At two points here in July as well as September.

QUESTION: Exactly. But what you've just said now is that none of those that you've just mentioned have been met. You said that there have been progress made on them, but they haven't been met.

I'm not saying that they were expected to meet them by this mid-term* date, but --

MR. MCCORMACK: No. I'm giving you very rough cut. There are a lot of people who spend every single waking hour dealing with the Iraq issue, both here in the U.S. Government in Washington and in Baghdad as well. And I think I owe it to them an opportunity to lay out in a formal, considered way, in a document that everybody can use as a common reference point, where we stand. So I can give you those very rough-cut assessments, but I would point you to the more formal assessment that is going to be coming out here at the end of this week as well as in September.

QUESTION: But if, as you say, and I believe it is true that all of this stuff is out there, it's public knowledge, I don't -- I'm not sure I understand why -- your reluctance to -- you know, to say right now, from the point of view of July 10th, which of the benchmarks have been --

MR. MCCORMACK: Because -- because you can't remove me from the overall process that is going on here. I mean, that's just not the way it works. You know, I can't speak in isolation from a process that is ongoing, that has been mandated by Congress, that the Administration is applying a lot of thought and energy to. So I would advise all to stand by, take a look and see what the White House has to say about it, the Administration has to say about it, in a few days.

QUESTION: Well, is it your -- in answering Arshad's question, is it your feeling or the Administration's feeling or the Department's feeling that progress, significant progress on items at the provincial level, small -- things that are not set-out benchmarks, is equally as important as --

MR. MCCORMACK: You know, I'm going to let -- I'm going to let the report speak for itself, and then we can have people like Secretary Rice and the President and Secretary Gates talk to those issues, let Ryan talk to those issues.

Okay. Better wrap this up here. Yes.

QUESTION: Another question about Ambassador Crocker. Has Ambassador Crocker recently told Secretary Rice that he doesn't feel that the Embassy is adequately staffed with well-qualified Foreign Service members?

MR. MCCORMACK: What are you getting at?

QUESTION: Is the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad adequately staffed, and in the next cycle of postings will you have to move beyond using just volunteers to actually assigning well-qualified --

MR. MCCORMACK: I haven't checked recently. I know this was an issue that came up -- it came up, I don't know, was it about a month ago?

QUESTION: A couple of months ago.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, a couple months ago. And we talked about it then. You know, I know that there are people who like to selectively leak things, like to cast the worst possible shadow on our efforts in Iraq. The bottom line -- the bottom line is that you have a lot of people in Baghdad who are doing a great job under very difficult circumstances. And not only are they doing a good job, but they're well-qualified people. And you know, I don't have the statistics here in front of me or off the top of my head, but if you look at the top-level management of the Embassy, they're all staffed by ambassadors or former ambassadors. You have, I think -- what is it? Eight-five percent are mid-level and senior-level officers. There's always a mix: senior-level officers, mid-level officers and junior officers. And if Ryan wants something else, he's going to get it. It's as simple as that. He made a request to beef up the political and economic sections. We're going to do it.

So it's not a matter of contention. Secretary Rice has said that if he needs it, he makes the legitimate case, he's going to get it. That's how the President operates with his commanders in the field. That's how Secretary Rice operates with her ambassador in the field.

I'm going to take one more question, but I've got to go.

QUESTION: On Turkey.

MR. MCCORMACK: Okay.

QUESTION: Mr. McCormack, your office said yesterday on the following quote, "Secretary Rice spoke by phone with Foreign Minister Gul Friday. They discussed Turkish concern about the PKK and its operation based in northern Iraq. Secretary Rice restated U.S. commitment to working with both Turkey and Iraq to counter the PKK," unquote. My question, Mr. McCormack, is as follows for the counter*. Prior or after the elections of July 22nd in Turkey?

MR. MCCORMACK: What are you talking about, Lambros? All right, thanks a lot.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:07 p.m.)

DPB # 121 Released on July 10, 2007

Technorati Tags: State Department and video or podcast and Raid on Red Mosque or New, invisible nano-fibers conduct electricity, repel dirt or Seven Wonders of the World Temple of Artemis and Communication to Congress on President's Assertion of Executive Privilege

Communication to Congress on President's Assertion of Executive Privilege

Dear Chairman Leahy and Chairman Conyers: (This document in PDF format (153kb, 3 pages)

I write in response to your letter of June 29, 2007.

Let me begin by conveying a note of concern over your letter's (This document in PDF format 245kb 4 pages) tone and apparent direction in dealing with a situation of this gravity. We are troubled to read the letter's charge that the President's "assertion of Executive Privilege belies any good faith attempt to determine where privilege truly does and does not apply." Although we each speak on behalf of different branches of government, and perhaps for that reason cannot help having different perspectives on the matter, it is hoped you will agree, upon further reflection, that it is incorrect to say that the President's assertion of Executive Privilege was performed without "good faith."

As the letter from the Acting Attorney General explained in considerable detail, the assertion of Executive Privilege here is intended to protect a fundamental interest of the Presidency: the necessity that a President receive candid advice from his advisors and that those advisors be able to communicate freely and openly with the President, with each other, and with others inside and outside the Executive Branch. In the present setting, where the President's authority to appoint and remove U.S. Attorneys is at stake, the institutional interest of the Executive Branch is very strong. The Acting Attorney General's letter clearly identifies the subject matter of the deliberations and communications at issue and provides an extensive treatment of the issues implicated by the subpoenas and the legal basis for the President's assertion of Executive Privilege.

Your letter does not dispute these principles. It does not take issue with the practical fact that, in order to fulfill his constitutional functions, the President, no less than Members of Congress and federal judges, needs the protection of a principle that shields his close advisors from open-ended inquiry by another branch of government. The letter does not challenge the exclusive character of the President's appointment and removal power, nor does the letter attempt to establish a constitutional basis for the Committees' inquiry into this matter. Although the letter sets forth certain generalizations relating to Congress's investigatory authority, it does not explain how that authority extends to White House communications about the possible dismissal and replacement of U.S. Attorneys. And, even if Congress's authority might be deemed to extend that far, the question remains whether the Committees have demonstrated that the information sought here is demonstrably critical to the responsible fulfillment of the Committees' legislative functions.

In response to your inquiry concerning the mechanics of the President's assertion of the privilege, you may be assured that the President's assertion here comports with prior practices in similar contexts, and that it has been appropriately documented. I do hope that your Committees will appreciate that I write on behalf of the President and therefore understand that my letter of June 28, 2007 precisely expresses the President's position on this matter.

Your letter also "direct[s]" the President to provide certain additional information to the Committees before 10:00 a.m. on July 9, 2007. The letter goes on to say that a very detailed "privilege log" is necessary "to facilitate ruling on" claims of Executive Privilege and your letter thereafter announces an intention to "take the necessary steps to rule on [the President's executive] privilege claims." We are aware of no authority by which a congressional committee may "direct" the Executive to undertake the task of creating and providing an extensive description of every document covered by an assertion of Executive Privilege. Given the descriptions of the materials in question that have already been provided, this demand is unreasonable because it represents a substantial incursion into Presidential prerogatives and because, in view of the open-ended scope of the Committees' inquiry, it would impose a burden of very significant proportions.

One final observation underscores the preordained futility of any White House compliance with this demand. When your letter states that your Committees "will take the necessary steps to rule on [the President's] privilege claims and appropriately enforce our subpoenas" and that the Committees will enforce their subpoenas "[w]hether or not [they] have the benefit of the information" (emphasis added), only one conclusion is evident: the Committees have already prejudged the question, regardless of the production of any privilege log. In such circumstances, we will not be undertaking such a project, even as a further accommodation.

As noted in my previous letter, as we remain at the present impasse, the President feels compelled to assert Executive Privilege with respect to the testimony sought from Sara M. Taylor and Harriet E. Miers covering White House consideration, deliberations or communications, whether internal or external, relating to the possible dismissal or appointment of United States Attorneys, including consideration of possible responses to congressional and media inquiries on the United States Attorneys matter, consistent with the advice provided by the Acting Attorney General. The President has instructed me to notify you and the counsel for Ms. Taylor and Ms. Miers of his decision and to inform counsel of his direction to Ms. Taylor and Ms. Miers not to provide this testimony.

I renew again the President's offer: in the absence of subpoenas he remains willing to provide you with information as previously offered. And I likewise convey the President's request that further interbranch relations in this matter be distinguished by respect for the constitutional principles of both institutions and marked by a presumption of goodwill on all sides.

Respectfully yours,

Fred F. Fielding
Counsel to the President

The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
United States House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House radio or Assertion of Executive Privilege and John Conyers, Jr. or Patrick Leahy and Fred F. Fielding

We Can Remember it for You Wholesale Post-traumatic stress disorder

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is an anxiety disorder that some people develop after seeing or living through an event that caused or threatened serious harm or death. Symptoms include flashbacks or bad dreams, emotional numbness, intense guilt or worry, angry outbursts, feeling “on edge,” or avoiding thoughts and situations that remind them of the trauma.

In PTSD, these symptoms last at least one month.

Currently, many scientists are focusing on genes that play a role in creating fear memories. Understanding how fear memories are created may help to refine or find new interventions for reducing the symptoms of PTSD. For example, PTSD researchers have pinpointed genes that make:

Stathmin, a protein needed to form fear memories. In one study, mice that did not make stathmin were less likely than normal mice to “freeze,” a natural, protective response to danger, after being exposed to a fearful experience. They also showed less innate fear by exploring open spaces more willingly than normal mice.

GRP (gastrin-releasing peptide), a signaling chemical in the brain released during emotional events. In mice, GRP seems to help control the fear response, and lack of GRP may lead to the creation of greater and more lasting memories of fear.

Researchers have also found a version of the 5-HTTLPR gene, which controls levels of serotonin — a brain chemical related to mood-that appears to fuel the fear response. Like other mental disorders, it is likely that many genes with small effects are at work in PTSD.

Studying parts of the brain involved in dealing with fear and stress also helps researchers to better understand possible causes of PTSD. One such brain structure is the amygdala, known for its role in emotion, learning, and memory. The amygdala appears to be active in fear acquisition, or learning to fear an event (such as touching a hot stove), as well as in the early stages of fear extinction, or learning not to fear.

Storing extinction memories and dampening the original fear response appears to involve the prefrontal cortex (PFC) area of the brain, involved in tasks such as decision-making, problem-solving, and judgment. Certain areas of the PFC play slightly different roles. For example, when it deems a source of stress controllable, the medial PFC suppresses the amygdala an alarm center deep in the brainstem and controls the stress response. The ventromedial PFC helps sustain long-term extinction of fearful memories, and the size of this brain area may affect its ability to do so.

"Is an extra-factual memory that convincing?" Quail
asked. "More than the real thing, sir. Had you really gone to Mars
as an Interplan agent, you would by now have forgotten a
great deal; our analysis of true-mem systemsauthentic rec-
ollections of major events in a person's lifeshows that a
variety of details are very quickly lost to the person. Forever.
Part of the package we offer you is such deep implantation of
recall that nothing is forgotten. The packet which is fed to
you while you're comatose is the creation of trained experts,
men who have spent years on Mars; in every case we verify
details down to the last iota. And you've picked a rather easy
extra-factual system; had you picked Pluto or wanted to be
Emperor of the Inner Planet Alliance we'd have much more
difficulty . . . and the charges would be considerably greater."
Reaching into his coat for his wallet, Quail said, "Okay. It's
been my life-long ambition and I can see I'll never really do
it. So I guess I'll have to settle for this."
"Don't think of it that way," McClane said severely.
"You're not accepting second-best. The actual memory, with
all its vagueness, omissions and ellipses, not to say distortions
that's second-best." He accepted the money and pressed a
button on his desk. "All right, Mr. Quail," he said, as the door
of his office opened and two burly men swiftly entered.
"You're on your way to Mars as a secret agent."

- - - Philip K. Dick, We Can Remember it for You Wholesale

Individual differences in these genes or brain areas may only set the stage for PTSD without actually causing symptoms. Environmental factors, such as childhood trauma, head injury, or a history of mental illness, may further increase a person's risk by affecting the early growth of the brain.7 Also, personality and cognitive factors, such as optimism and the tendency to view challenges in a positive or negative way, as well as social factors, such as the availability and use of social support, appear to influence how people adjust to trauma.8 More research may show what combinations of these or perhaps other factors could be used someday to predict who will develop PTSD following a traumatic event.

Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) teaches different ways of thinking and reacting to the frightening events that trigger PTSD symptoms and can help bring those symptoms under control. There are several types of CBT, including

exposure therapy — uses mental imagery, writing, or visiting the scene of a trauma to help survivors face and gain control of overwhelming fear and distress

cognitive restructuring — encourages survivors to talk about upsetting (often incorrect) thoughts about the trauma, question those thoughts, and

In a small study, NIMH researchers recently found that for people already taking a bedtime dose of the medication prazosin (Minipress), adding a daytime dose helped to reduce overall PTSD symptom severity, as well as stressful responses to trauma reminders.

Another medication of interest is D-cycloserine (Seromycin), which boosts the activity of a brain chemical called NMDA, which is needed for fear extinction. In a study of 28 people with a fear of heights, scientists found that those treated with D-cycloserine before exposure therapy showed reduced fear during the therapy sessions compared to those who did not receive the drug. Researchers are currently studying the effects of using D-cycloserine with therapy to treat PTSD.

Propranolol (Inderal), a type of medicine called a beta-blocker, is also being studied to see if it may help reduce stress following a traumatic event and interrupt the creation of fearful memories.

Early studies have successfully reduced or seemingly prevented PTSD in small numbers of trauma victims.

Propranolol (INN) (IPA: [proˈprænəloʊl]) is a non-selective beta blocker mainly used in the treatment of hypertension. It was the first successful beta blocker developed. Propranolol is commonly marketed by Wyeth under the trade name Inderal.

Scottish scientist James W. Black successfully developed propranolol in the late 1950s. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine for this discovery in 1988.

Propranolol developed from the early β-adrenergic antagonists dichloroisoprenaline and pronethalol. The key structural modification, which was carried through to essentially all subsequent beta blockers, was the insertion of an oxymethylene bridge into the arylethanolamine structure of pronethalol thus greatly increasing the potency of the compound. This also apparently eliminated the carcinogenicity found with pronethalol in animal models.

Curbing Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder with a Pill Dr. Margaret Altemus, an associate professor of psychiatry at Weill Cornell Medical College and an associate attending psychiatrist at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center,

is exploring – in a clinical research trial – if propranolol, a drug currently approved by the FDA to treat high blood pressure, can be used to soften the painful memories in patients with post-traumatic stress disorder.

When a person with PTSD recalls a traumatic memory, the body releases a surge of adrenaline which causes an overwhelming sense of emotion – typically, fear, anxiety, and helplessness. From here, Dr. Altemus and colleagues suspect that the traumatic memory and the current emotional experience mingle and "reconsolidate" into a memory even more strongly linked to the sense of fear and helplessness. And, as episodes build upon themselves, the patient's illness intensifies.

Dr. Altemus theorizes that if propranolol is taken immediately after a memory is recalled, it will block adrenaline from reaching receptors in the brain and break the reconsolidation cycle linking the traumatic memory to the recurrence of fear and helplessness. The reconsolidation process will be weakened, and allow the person's fear reaction to the memory to increasingly diminish instead of intensify.

"We do not expect to mimic Hollywood’s ‘Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind,'" says Dr. Altemus. "Instead, we hope that participants with PTSD will remember the details of the trauma, but will no longer be paralyzed by intense fear or helplessness each time the memory is recalled."

This is the first trial, based on the theory of reconsolidation, which is investigating if PTSD can be treated with propranolol. Other investigators have had some success preventing PTSD by treating accident victims with propranolol for the first 10 days after an accident.

References:

• Common drug, given promptly, reduces incidence of post-traumatic stress disorder
• Curbing Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder with a Pill
• WE CAN REMEMBER IT FOR YOU WHOLESALE
• Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Research Fact Sheet
• Propranolol From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Technorati Tags: Post-traumatic stress disorder and propranolol or Philip K. Dick and beta blocker or Nanotech hitchhikers in blood or Seven Wonders of the World Great Pyramid of Giza and Presidential Podcast 07/07/07

Freedom Calendar 07/07/07 - 07/14/07

July 7, 1981, President Ronald Reagan appoints first woman to U.S. Supreme Court, former Arizona Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor; as Republican legislator in Arizona, she was first woman to serve as Majority Leader in any state.

July 8, 1970, In special message to Congress, President Richard Nixon calls for reversal of policy of forced termination of Native American rights and benefits.

July 9, 1955, Republican attorney E. Frederic Morrow becomes first African-American executive in White House; served as advisor to President Dwight Eisenhower.

July 10, 1805, Birth of U.S. Senator Jacob Howard (R-MI), co-author of the 14th Amendment; wrote first state Republican Party platform, condemning Democrats’ pro-slavery policies.

July 11, 1952, Republican Party platform condemns “duplicity and insincerity” of Democrats in racial matters.

July 12, 1974, Republican National Chairman George H. W. Bush establishes Republican National Hispanic Assembly.

July 13, 1868, Louisiana Republican Oscar Dunn, a former slave, becomes nation’s first African-American Lt. Governor.

July 14, 1884, Republicans criticize Democratic Party’s nomination of racist U.S. Senator Thomas Hendricks (D-IN) for vice president; he had voted against the 13th Amendment banning slavery.

"And one thing I can tell, Mr. President, your freedom agenda does, indeed, work. I mean, you can see it in Georgia. We are seeing it in Iraq. And please stay there, please fight there until the end. We will stay with you there, whatever it takes, because your success in Iraq is success for countries like Georgia. It's a success for every individual that loves freedom, every individual that wants security, to live in more secure world for himself, herself or their children. And whatever it takes to help you,"

President of Georgia Mikheil Saakashvili, Wednesday, July 05, 2006

Technorati Tags: President Bush and Freedom Calendar or Dwight Eisenhower and Republicans or African-Americans and Ronald Reagan or President of Georgia Mikheil Saakashvili and Civil Rights or Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass or 40 acres and a mule or Martin Luther King and Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schüssel or Dred Scott

Presidential Podcast 07/07/07

Presidential Podcast 07/07/07 . In Focus: Jobs & Economic Growth , 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 Jobs & Economic Growth and Jim Nussle or Pairing Nanoparticles with Proteins or Famous People Mark Twain (Samuel Langhorne Clemens) and Happy Birthday President Bush

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

bush radio address 07/07/07 full audio, text transcript. President's Radio Address . In Focus: Jobs & Economic Growth

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, we received more good news showing that our economy is strong and growing. The Department of Labor reports that our economy has now created jobs for 46 consecutive months. America added 132,000 jobs in June, and that means our economy has added more than 8.2 million new jobs since August of 2003. Unemployment is low, consumer confidence is high, incomes are rising, and opportunity is growing across America.

Our Nation's strong economy is no accident. It is the result of the hard work of the American people and pro-growth policies in Washington. Starting in 2001, my Administration delivered the largest tax relief since Ronald Reagan was in the White House. Our tax relief has left $1.1 trillion in the hands of citizens like you to save, and spend, and invest as you see fit.

Over the past three years, we have also held the growth of annual domestic spending close to one percent -- well below the rate of inflation. The result is a thriving and resilient economy that is the envy of the world.
Over the past six years, our economy has overcome serious challenges: a stock market decline, recession, corporate scandals, an attack on our homeland, and the demands of an ongoing war on terror. Despite these obstacles, our economy recovered and tax revenues soared, and America is now in a position to balance the Federal budget. To achieve this goal, I sent Congress a budget plan this February that would keep taxes low, restrain Federal spending, and put us in surplus by 2012.

Next week, my Administration will release a report called the Mid-Session Review, which will provide you with an update on our Nation's progress in meeting the goal of a balanced budget. We know from experience that when we pursue policies of low taxes and spending restraint, the economy grows, tax revenues go up, and the deficit goes down.

Democratic leaders in Congress want to take our country down a different track. They are working to bring back the failed tax-and-spend policies of the past. The Democrats' budget plan proposes $205 billion in additional domestic spending over the next five years and includes the largest tax increase in history. No nation has ever taxed and spent its way to prosperity. And I have made it clear that I will veto any attempt to take America down this road.

Democrats in Congress are also behind schedule passing the individual spending bills needed to keep the Federal government running. At their current pace, I will not see a single one of the 12 must-pass bills before Congress leaves Washington for the month-long August recess. The fiscal year ends September 30th. By failing to do the work necessary to pass these important bills by the end of the fiscal year, Democrats are failing in their responsibility to make tough decisions and spend the people's money wisely.

This moment is a test. Under our Constitution, Congress holds the power of the purse. Democratic leaders are in control of Congress. They set the schedule for when bills are considered. They determine when votes are held. Democrats have a chance to prove they are for open and transparent government by working to complete each spending bill independently and on time. I urge Democrats in Congress to step forward now and pass these bills one at a time.

As they do, I will insist they restrain spending so we can keep our government running -- while sustaining our growing economy and getting our budget into balance. And to help achieve these goals, I call on the Senate to act on my nomination of Jim Nussle as Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Jim is a former Chairman of the House Budget Committee, and he will be a strong advocate for protecting your tax dollars here in Washington.

By setting clear budget priorities and maintaining strong fiscal discipline, we can promote economic growth and bring our budget into balance. Our Nation has the most innovative, industrious, and talented people on the face of the Earth. And when we unleash the entrepreneurial spirit of our country, there is no limit to what the American people can achieve, or the hope and opportunity we can pass on to future generations.

Thank you for listening.

For Immediate Release, Office of the Press Secretary, July 7, 2007

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House radio address or Jobs & Economic Growth and Jim Nussle or Pairing Nanoparticles with Proteins or Famous People Mark Twain (Samuel Langhorne Clemens) and Happy Birthday President Bush

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

forre el audio de la dirección de radio 07/07/07 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 recibimos más buenas noticias que muestran que nuestra economía está fuerte y creciendo. El Departamento del Trabajo informa que nuestra economía ha creado empleos durante 46 meses consecutivos. Estados Unidos ha añadido 132,000 empleos más en el mes de Junio - y eso significa que nuestra economía ha añadido más de 8.2 millones de nuevos empleos desde agosto del 2003. El desempleo está bajo, la confianza de los consumidores está alta, los ingresos están subiendo - y las oportunidades están creciendo en todo Estados Unidos.

La fuerte economía de nuestra Nación no es un accidente. Es el resultado del trabajo duro del pueblo estadounidense - y de las políticas pro-crecimiento en Washington. Comenzando en el 2001, mi administración ofreció el alivio tributario más grande desde que Ronald Reagan ocupó la Casa Blanca. Nuestro alivio tributario ha dejado 1.1 trillones de dólares en manos de ciudadanos como ustedes para ahorrar y gastar e invertir como mejor les parezca. En los últimos tres años también hemos mantenido el crecimiento de los gastos domésticos anuales en cerca del un por ciento - muy por debajo de la tasa de inflación. El resultado es una economía floreciente y fuerte que es la envidia del mundo.

En los últimos seis años nuestra economía ha vencido serios desafíos: una baja en el mercado de valores, recesión, escándalos corporativos, un ataque a nuestro territorio nacional y las exigencias de una guerra continua contra el terror. A pesar de estos obstáculos, nuestra economía se recuperó y los ingresos tributarios crecieron vertiginosamente - y Estados Unidos ahora está en posición de equilibrar el presupuesto federal.

Para lograr este objetivo, envié al Congreso en febrero un plan presupuestario que mantendría bajos impuestos, limitaría los gastos federales y nos pondría en superávit para el año 2012.

La próxima semana mi Administración emitirá un informe llamado el Análisis a Media-Sesión - que les ofrecerá un estado actualizado del progreso de la Nación en cumplir con la meta de un presupuesto equilibrado.

La experiencia nos dice que cuando perseguimos políticas de bajos impuestos y gastos limitados la economía crece, los ingresos por impuestos suben - y el déficit disminuye.

Los líderes Demócratas en el Congreso quieren llevar a nuestro país por un camino diferente. Ellos se están esforzando por volver a las políticas fracasadas del pasado de tributar y gastar. El plan presupuestario de los Demócratas propone 205 mil millones de dólares en gastos domésticos adicionales durante los próximos cinco años - e incluye el aumento en los impuestos más grande de la historia. Ninguna nación jamás ha logrado la prosperidad tributando y gastando. Y yo he dejado muy en claro que vetaré cualquier intento de conducir a Estados Unidos por este sendero.

Los Demócratas en el Congreso también están atrasados en aprobar los proyectos de ley individuales para gastos que se necesitan para que el gobierno federal siga funcionando. A su paso actual, yo no veré uno solo de los 12 proyectos de ley que deben ser aprobados antes de que el Congreso se ausente de Washington para el receso de un mes en Agosto. El año fiscal termina el 30 de septiembre. Al no cumplir con el trabajo necesario para aprobar estos importantes proyectos de ley antes del fin del año fiscal, los Demócratas están fallando en su responsabilidad de tomar decisiones duras y gastar prudentemente el dinero del pueblo.

Este momento es una prueba. Bajo nuestra Constitución, el Congreso tiene el poder de la cartera. Los líderes Demócratas tienen el control del Congreso. Ellos fijan el calendario para considerar los proyectos de ley. Ellos determinan cuando se celebran las votaciones. Los Demócratas tienen la oportunidad de comprobar que ellos favorecen un gobierno abierto y transparente esforzándose por completar cada proyecto de ley para gastos de manera independiente y a tiempo. Les pido a los Demócratas en el Congreso que ahora den un paso adelante y aprueben estos proyectos de ley uno por uno.

Yo insistiré que, al hacerlo, limiten los gastos de modo que podamos mantener en operación a nuestro gobierno - al mismo tiempo que sostengamos una economía creciente y logremos equilibrar nuestro presupuesto. Y para ayudar a lograr estas metas, pido al Senado que actúe con respecto a mi nominación de Jim Nussle como Director de la Oficina de Administración y Presupuesto. Jim es un ex - Presidente del Comité de Presupuesto de la Cámara de Representantes - y será un fuerte defensor aquí en Washington para proteger sus dólares tributarios.

Al fijar prioridades presupuestarias claras y mantener una fuerte disciplina fiscal podemos promover el crecimiento económico y equilibrar nuestro presupuesto. Nuestra Nación tiene la gente más innovadora, trabajadora y talentosa sobre la tierra. Y cuando desatamos el espíritu empresarial de nuestro país, no hay límite a lo que el pueblo Estadounidense puede lograr - o la esperanza y las oportunidades que podemos dejar a las generaciones futuras.

Gracias por escuchar.

Para su publicación inmediata, Oficina del Secretario de Prensa, 7 de julio de 2007

Etiquetas De Technorati: Discurso Radial del Presidente a la Nación, y Presidente Bush and Pairing Nanoparticles with Proteins or Famous People Mark Twain (Samuel Langhorne Clemens) and Happy Birthday President Bush

Happy Birthday President Bush

Technorati Tags: Happy Birthday and President Bush or White House and Transparent transistors to bring future displays, 'e-paper' or Famous People Britney Spears and The Forgotten Man