Press Briefing Tony Snow 07/25/07 VIDEO PODCAST

Press Briefing by Tony Snow, FULL STREAMING VIDEO. file is windows media format, running time is 31:10. James S. Brady Briefing Room. White House Press Secretary Tony Snow briefs the press and answers questions. 07 25 2007: WASHINGTON, DC: 12:43 P.M. EST.

PODCAST OF THIS ARTICLE, and Press Briefing Slides (PDF, 1.2 mb, 5 pages)

MR. SNOW: Hello, everybody. As you probably know, the House Judiciary Committee has just voted along partisan lines to have a criminal contempt of Congress referral against White House legal counsel and the White House Chief of Staff. For our view, this is pathetic. What you have right now is partisanship on Capitol Hill that quite often boils down to insults, insinuations, inquisitions and investigations rather than pursuing the normal business of trying to pass major pieces of legislation, such as appropriations bills, and to try to work in such a way as to demonstrate to the American people that Congress and the White House can work together.

I want to remind people that this White House, on a number of occasions, has reached out to the House Judiciary Committee and offered accommodations: First, we offered anybody at the Department of Justice who was of interest to testify under oath and on Capitol Hill, which many did. We supplied 8,500 pages of documents, including some between the Justice Department and the White House. The Attorney General, himself, and senior members of his team also went up to testify on Capitol Hill.

In addition, we offered further that we would make available any persons of interest at the White House for full interviews by members of the committees -- they'd be able to ask whatever questions they wanted to do. In each and every one of these cases, the efforts of the White House were rebuffed.

And so now we have a situation where there is an attempt to do something that's never been done in American history, which is to assail the concept of executive privilege, which hails back to the administration of George Washington, and in particular, to use criminal contempt charges against a White House chief of staff and the White House legal counsel. Ironically, this comes as the very same committee is marking up the attorney-client privilege protection act, apparently not believing that attorney-client privilege applies to the President and his own lawyer.

In any event, it's worth putting this in perspective in terms of the accomplishments of the present Congress. If you take a look at the 110th Congress right now, which had promised to have all of its appropriations bills done this month, here's what we have seen since the beginning of the Congress: More than 300 executive branch investigations or inquiries; 400 requests for documents, interviews, or testimony; we've had more than 550 officials testify; we've had more than 600 oversight hearings; 87,000-plus hours spent responding to oversight requests; and 430,000 pages made available to Congress for oversight. That's pretty significant.

In fact, the 87,000 hours that we mentioned that have been used in document production -- that's equal to more than nine-and-a-half years -- and here's your graphic of the day, ladies and gentlemen -- if you took those 430,000 pages and stack them on top of each other, they would reach a height twice that of the executive mansion, itself.

Now, this White House remains committed to the principle that we are willing to accommodate members of Congress. They have legitimate oversight interest, and we have made available any individuals and any facts that would be necessary for them to conduct their deliberations. Interestingly enough, nobody has cited or recited anything that they think they've been denied. Instead, there has been constantly, and it seems, a desire to provoke a confrontation.

We think a confrontation of this sort is neither constructive, nor necessary. As I said, we maintain our position of accommodation toward the House of Representatives. But make no mistake, based on legal precedent this is something that the drafters of this particular referral know has very little chance of going anywhere. And so the question is, why are they doing this rather than the people's business?

Questions.

Q Tony, how can you cite as a sign of cooperation sending the Attorney General to Capitol Hill, when every time he seems to go there he contradicts what he said before, to the point that you have Republicans like Arlen Specter saying they don't think he can effectively serve any more?

MR. SNOW: I will let you do the characterizations. In point of fact --

Q That's what Arlen Specter said.

MR. SNOW: I understand what Arlen Specter said --

Q These are not my characterization.

MR. SNOW: Well, your characterization was, he contradicts himself every time, I think is what you said.

Q But he has contradicted himself repeatedly.

MR. SNOW: Well, no -- I don't want to parse too much here, and I'm not going to serve as the fact witness, so we're not going to get too deep into what he said, when and where. But I will remind you that when one is being called in an open session to talk about classified matters, it becomes very difficult to walk the line about what is permissible and what is not permissible to say in public. We continue to believe that the Attorney General has testified truthfully. He has also testified behind closed doors in considerably greater detail. Neither you nor I have heard that.

Q -- he testify under oath last year, under oath, and say that there was no disagreement within the Bush administration over the terrorist surveillance program, and yet, James Comey, who was the acting Attorney General, come out and say, actually there was a major disagreement.

MR. SNOW: James Comey did not mention the terrorist surveillance program.

Q But has it reached the point, Tony, where --

MR. SNOW: We'll go here, then -- go ahead, Jennifer.

Q On the citations, rhetoric aside, you all will have to choose a response. And so is that response going to be to enforce them, or to go to court?

MR. SNOW: No, we don't choose a response. The Department of Justice will handle the referral. If you take a look at opinions that have been handed out by prior Departments of Justice, and including the quote that I used last week from Senator Leahy, who seemed to believe that it would be a fruitless endeavor, given separation of powers doctrines and opinions that had been written by Democratic and Republican administrations in the past, that this is not likely to go anywhere -- but nevertheless, that is a decision to be made by the Department of Justice and will do so.

Q The Department of Justice works for the President, so that decision will involve him and will involve the White House.

MR. SNOW: No, it does not. No, in this particular case --

Q What is the preference, going to court or enforcing them?

MR. SNOW: -- the decision-making authority in this falls to the Department of Justice. They'll make the decision.

Q With absolutely no input from the White House? We can hold you to that, when that decision is made, that the White House will have zero input into it?

MR. SNOW: Well, at this point it's being done out of the Department of Justice.

Q Tony, the White House has already informed the committee, the Judiciary Committee, that it would perhaps instruct federal prosecutors not to prosecute contempt citations if they're issued.

MR. SNOW: No, what it did was recite -- what was provided was an opinion written by Ted Olson that explained why it would be inappropriate to do such referrals -- this was a 1984 opinion -- and also some opinions written by Walter Dellinger during the Clinton administration.

Q But has it reached the point, Tony, for the Attorney General to -- he's lost his effectiveness and his credibility?

MR. SNOW: Well, what's interesting is that there have been all these hearings on the Attorney General and yet nobody has really laid a glove on him. What you do is you have complaints, but there is yet to be any specific allegation. Instead what you have is a demand for more and more intrusive looks into the internal workings of the White House. Again, look at all the pages here, look at all the hearings. It is as if they keep throwing mud against the wall, hoping something is going to stick.

Frankly, if you have something solid and you think you do, invite the people up, ask the questions. Everybody has been made available. You have not been denied a shred of information. I've yet to hear anybody say any piece of information that they have been denied. Instead, this looks like an attempt to provoke something that falls more into the area of political theater than respectful, good governance and trying to do oversight.

Q If Justice is going to be determining the course, what kind of time frame are we talking about?

MR. SNOW: That I don't know.

Q Is it the kind of thing where they just may kind of let the clock run out on the administration?

MR. SNOW: No, I -- no, no, no. I mean, again, you look at past precedent; they will be putting together -- but I would refer you to Justice. But, no, this is not something where somebody is going to say, hmmm, can I stretch this out for 18 months? Nobody would stand for that and that would be an improper way to proceed.

Q What's the President's objection to taking the oath? He has taken the oath, himself.

MR. SNOW: The President's objection in this particular case is going in and trying to open up the issue of executive privilege. You may recall that in this administration, the first time we went to bat for executive privilege it was on behalf of executive privilege for the Clinton administration. It is very important to be able to protect the confidentiality of conversations.

I guarantee you if somebody went before any member of the Senate and said, we want to know everything anybody said in this deliberative process, they wouldn't stand for it for a minute, nor should they. If you did the same thing to the judicial branch, nobody would stand for it. This is, in fact, a central principle of our government and it has been held since the administration of George Washington. And we have done -- I listed a whole series of accommodations, which have not been met at any juncture by reaching out by members of the House or the Senate, in terms of saying, we're giving you everything you could possibly need to render a decision; what more do you want? And the answer seems to be --

Q They want them to take an oath and they want transcription. You also said --

MR. SNOW: I'm sorry, the second word?

Q Transcripts.

Q Having a transcript.

MR. SNOW: Oh, a transcript. Okay.

Q The whole thing is you also said, on this question of classified information -- the President had no trouble yesterday in declassifying anything he wanted to, selectively.

MR. SNOW: Well, but when you -- no, what the President was doing was declassifying the names of some of the people who have been involved in killing Americans. That's a far different thing than talking operationally about ongoing efforts to try to save Americans.

April, first of all --

Q How about declassifying more to save America?

MR. SNOW: We will classify as is appropriate. We will not declassify in such a --

Q As you wish.

MR. SNOW: Well, no, there is, I think, Helen, a pretty sensible way of going about this. We are certainly not going to declassify things that say, hey, al Qaeda, here's what we're doing; hey, al Qaeda, here's what we're working with; here are the people going out, please go and kill them.

Q No, no, no -- tell the American people why they attacked us in the first place on 9/11, and what we know about bin Laden.

MR. SNOW: Are you arguing that we were somehow responsible for being attacked on September 11th?

Q No, no, no. Don't twist that. I'm asking you why --

MR. SNOW: Okay, then the answer, why did they attack us on September 11th, it goes back to a fatwah --

Q -- and what information have you gotten through your harsh interrogations.

MR. SNOW: Well, we will not talk about -- number one, there's no -- you are characterizing an interrogation; those are interrogations that are conducted by --

Q No, torture is on the record.

MR. SNOW: No, torture is not on the record. It's against the law. I'm just not going to get into spin cycle.

Go ahead, April.

Q Tony, this country -- if I'm correct from out history books, wasn't this country based on the system of checks and balances? You say they're not doing the people's business, but isn't that the people's business? If there is something in question -- granted, there might have been 400 investigations, but if there was something in question, isn't that the people's business?

MR. SNOW: That's a very good question. But what if there isn't anything in question and somebody is going on a --

Q There are things in question.

MR. SNOW: April, at this point, we have hundreds of hearings that have produced bupkis. And what has happened is that there is generated this idea of, let's go on a fishing expedition and let's haul somebody up, and let's make insinuations without having firm proof. And what that does is it creates a toxic atmosphere.

Let me mention to you that a system of checks and balances also has checks. And part of the checks are that branches of government may not raid the powers or the principles and authorities of other branches of government. They need to remain separate and equal. What we're talking about here is an attempt to take the principle of confidentiality and strip it away from the executive branch while maintaining it for the legislative and the judicial branches. That hardly qualifies as checks and balances.

Q But, Tony, can you concede when there is not transparency under oath, there leads -- it's not innuendos, it leads to the fact that something is not right --

MR. SNOW: Well, wait a minute. You've already had all the key members under oath from the Justice Department. You've had 8,500 pages of documents. You've also had an offer to bring people up under --

Q The White House even said that if it's under oath it could be a problem with perjury. Your White House has said this.

MR. SNOW: No, what we have said is that we don't think it's appropriate. But furthermore, you do have, in fact, you have laws that deny anybody the right to lie before Congress; that applies to anybody who testifies before them. There is, in fact, a guarantee that people go up and testify truthfully.

What we have been trying to avoid appears to be the one thing that is most devoutly sought by some on Capitol Hill, which is an entertainment event, rather than a calm, deliberative and respectful attempt to take a look at things that may be of concern to members of Congress.

Q A couple on different topics, if I can. First, the Italian Foreign Minister said it was time to wrap up Enduring Freedom and wrap it under ISAF in Afghanistan. Is the United States open to that? And second, the Iraqi Ambassador is complaining about the pace of U.S. arms transfers to the government in Baghdad.

MR. SNOW: Well, I will back up on the second one. We continue to work with the Iraqis to try to make sure that we make all arms and equipment available, and in fact have been doing that as rapidly as possible. It is in many ways -- those are the kinds of signs that you want to see, which is an Iraqi government saying, we want to be fully equipped and trained. We're doing it as rapidly as we can. We understand the frustrations. We continue to have frustrations. We have a Congress who can't even get through a defense appropriations bill at a time when we're looking at things like MRAPs for our own forces.

So the point is we do understand that and we continue to work with it. These are matters that the President discusses regularly with the Prime Minister and obviously are discussed on a regular basis with others.

As for Afghan operations, I really don't have anything for you at this juncture on the recommendation.

Martha.

Q Tony, can I go back to the intel that the President was talking about yesterday?

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q Can we assume there is other intelligence analysis that does not see such a strong connection? Or is he quoting analysis that shows a definite connection between al Qaeda central and local?

MR. SNOW: No, I think it's pretty clear -- if you take a look at "al Qaeda central" and "local," for one thing you have --

Q No, just the question -- is there a variety of intelligence, or did the President choose the intelligence that showed the strongest connection?

MR. SNOW: I'm sure the President -- I don't know what all the intelligence is so I can't answer your question. Do you --

Q That would go to people wondering whether he just cherry-picked, or whether there's other intelligence out there, saying --

MR. SNOW: As you know also -- let me put it this way: When a speech like that gets put together, it is vetted by, among other things, the CIA, the DNI, and other agencies. And they are loath to have people cherry-picking and trying to misrepresent the overall consensus. So I can --

Q So that would be overall consensus --

MR. SNOW: I'm just telling you, Martha, that that is the way the vetting process works, and if there were concerns about cherry-picking, they would have been known during the vetting process. If you have -- what you're doing is you're putting together an insinuation. If you have a specific charge that you would like me to respond to, I will do this. But to do this in a hypothetical way doesn't serve much of a purpose.

Q The National Intelligence Estimate said there was an affiliation between the two. The President was much harder on this, saying it was public enemy number one, that there was a connection, that these are the same people who want to attack us here.

MR. SNOW: Right. Well, let's take a look at what the President talked about, and these are things that have been made available both in Baghdad and in public. If you take a look at senior leadership in al Qaeda in Iraq, it is not Iraqi, and it hasn't been. The highest we have had, at this point, was Mr. Mashadani, who was essentially the minister of propaganda. But if you take a look at what was the case under Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian, or al-Masri, an Egyptian, what you have is a cadre of people who come from places like Egypt, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. So what you have are folks who are hand-picked. And in some cases, there is evidence that they were, in fact, dispatched by the center al Qaeda core to go fight in Iraq to try to assist in the efforts.

That seems to me to set up a pretty clear operational tie. Also, you go back to some of the communications -- and I've mentioned this many times -- communications directly between Zarqawi, who had pledged his loyalty to bin Laden -- had been named the "prince of Iraq," I believe, by bin Laden -- his conversations with Zawahiri, the number two -- Zawahiri was unhappy with beheadings, at the same time he was asking for a $100,000 in aid from Zarqawi. That gives you a pretty clear sense of some operational ties between the two.

So the idea that they're completely separate and distinct and operating on completely different agendas seems to be belied by the fact -- furthermore, if you go back and even take a look at the Zawahiri videos that --

Q I'm not saying completely separate, and I don't think people are saying completely separate, there's clearly some ties there, Tony. But to say -- to tie them in as the same sort of threat to the United States -- do you have evidence that there are kind of attacks being planned out of Iraq right now?

MR. SNOW: Well, what you do have evidence of is that the one place that it said that it would be willing to try to be mounting attacks on the United States, at the encouragement of al Qaeda core, was what? Was al Qaeda in Iraq. That intelligence has been available. That wasn't declassified just for yesterday's speech.

Q Okay, membership, Tony, membership in al Qaeda in Iraq, is that Iraqi?

MR. SNOW: There is considerable al Qaeda membership in Iraq. Also, it does seem to be eroding. If you take a look, for instance, again at the comments that were made by Mr. Mashadani, there seems to be a lot of chafing at this point, because the foreigners are apparently not terribly respectful. Also, if you take a look at some of the data that have been coming out, not only from Anbar and elsewhere, it seems that not merely the presence, but also the methods that have been adopted by al Qaeda have turned considerably unpopular. Yes, there are Iraqis involved.

Q But the majority membership is Iraqi?

MR. SNOW: Yes, I think that's -- I will double-check, but I think that's probably accurate to say. Having said that, you do have the leadership and the cadres, and furthermore, the most lethal activities are being done not by Iraqis, but by foreign fighters, many of whom are making their way through Syria, through the Damascus airport in particular.

So the point here is, yes, you've got a lot of Iraqis, but the guys who are mounting the high-value threats, the guys who are working the big actions, especially the most deadly ones, they tend not to be -- they in fact, as a general rule, are not Iraqis. And furthermore, again, what you're seeing -- and this is a significant development -- is that the Iraqis are beginning to get fed up by them. Are there Iraqis in al Qaeda in Iraq? Absolutely.

Q But there's no real evidence now that anyone in Iraq is trying to stage an Iraq on the United States?

MR. SNOW: I don't know -- I don't want to get into that intelligence. And again, I want to remind you that --

Q Do you know the intelligence?

MR. SNOW: No, I don't. And furthermore, if I did, I wouldn't tell you, because it would be totally inappropriate. But let me just put it this way: Again, if you take a look at what had been discussed, in terms of the means, methods --

Q Even though the President said it was a threat?

MR. SNOW: The President says it's a threat because the NIE, itself, mentions the fact that al Qaeda in Iraq, itself, said it wanted to kill Americans, and that it wanted to be involved in mounting attacks on American soil. That creates a heightened threat environment. Whether they've got cells or activities going on, that's the sort of thing for our intelligence people to know, and I certainly hope to foil, as well.

Victoria.

Q Tony, you said you've made everybody available and everything available, when it comes to the intelligence. But you haven't made everybody available. You've made them available if they go without the oath, if they go without the transcript, and if they go in private. But you haven't even made the documents available; you've only made the documents available that aren't the documents that they want. You won't make the documents available that they do want.

MR. SNOW: Wait, because the documents they do want violate executive privilege. You're absolutely right, those that violate the privilege we're not going to share with them.

Q You say that they're the ones that violate executive privilege, but that's not what the executive branch says -- that's what the executive branch says, that's not what the legislative branch says.

MR. SNOW: Well, the legislative branch is making characterizations of documents it has not seen. On the other hand, it has had plenty of opportunities to review documents. And as you know, there have been a number of cases where people are called up to the Hill, and people say, wow, this is going to be the big one. And it turns out, nothing. They get a new tranche of documents -- man, I bet I'm going to see all sorts of names in here, and it turns out to be a bunch of nothing.

So what you're saying is that on the basis of suspicion, rather than fact, some people think that there may be smoking guns in items that in fact pass for executive privilege. I will tell you that this White House looks very carefully at documents to try to figure out which ones properly qualify as being covered by executive privilege. It is something that we take seriously, because we understand that the way in which these things are handled -- and not just for us, but subsequent White Houses -- you have to preserve the privilege, you have to preserve it in a credible way.

Back to what you said originally -- there is no fact that the would not have access to, and furthermore, there is no situation under which somebody testifying before members of Congress would not be compelled to tell the truth. If there was no transcript, they could ask the same question 48 times; they could tell them to slow down and write it on the wall in crayon if they so decided. But the fact is that you would have the opportunity to get a full hearing of what anybody said; you could vet it, you could cross-reference it against other statements. You could do a completely full investigation. And what's being deprived is a little bit of political theater.

What we've been trying to do is to create a little air of dignity in this town, where at the very beginning of this Congress there was a lot of talk about getting work done, setting a new tone. And instead what have we gotten? We have got insults, insinuations, investigations and inquisitions. This is not the kind of thing --

Q They're trying to find out why these prosecutors were fired. It's a simple --

MR. SNOW: Actually, the real question is, does the President have the authority to do it? Yes. And was anything improperly done? The answer is, no.

Q The lack of a transcript seems to be the one area in which you could all agree. It seems to be one thing that is, frankly, just silly. Everybody knows that the lack of a transcript is something that --

MR. SNOW: You know what's silly, Victoria, is after we have made all these offers, Congress doesn't step forward with anything. That's silly.

Q -- that leads to this question --

Q Conyers says he has something.

MR. SNOW: Well, he has something -- would you characterize "something"?

Q Conyers says he has uncovered serious evidence of wrongdoing by retaliation for the improper firings. What do you have to say about that -- other than a pregnant pause?

MR. SNOW: Look forward to hearing what he has -- (laughter.) Let me ask you, how credible do you consider that? Do you consider that a credible reasoned argument, or an attempt to roll a grenade down the aisle?

Q It's not for me to say.

MR. SNOW: Okay, well, it's not for me to say, either.

Q You said the Democrats seem to want confrontation --

MR. SNOW: Seem?

Q Well, I'm paraphrasing, obviously. They say the same thing about the White House, of course.

MR. SNOW: But wait a minute. I cannot let them get away with that. We have talked about -- we've talked about a whole series of things where we have reached out and we have had a series of escalating proffers in terms of making people and information available. You simply cannot say that that is stubbornness on the part of the White House when we have made available all these documents, when we've made the people available, and the Congress itself has said, nope, we're just going to push this story to confrontation.

I think that the attitudes and approaches are significantly different. Proceed.

Q Well, that leads me to this question: How much negotiation went on, and do you think it was in good faith?

MR. SNOW: Yes, it was absolutely in good faith on our part. I mean, Fred Fielding went up --

Q On their part.

MR. SNOW: I don't know. I'm not going to characterize on their part. But I'll tell you what has happened is that there has been no demonstration that they've been willing to say -- to take up the offer, to get access to all the facts.

Here's the interesting thing. Suppose you do get these people in and we're writing on crayon or we're taking the notes and we're doing whatever we can to record each and every syllable that has been given in testimony, and somebody finds something that looks like a smoking gun -- well, what does Congress do? They go in and ask for more. That's perfectly possible. The kind of offer we have made does not serve as an endpoint, it serves as an opportunity for Congress to do a full investigation and if they have other questions, to ask us whether, in fact, we have other items that might come to bear on this.

We have made it possible for them to proceed down the road to gather information and to try to assess the situation, and they've just basically rebuffed it.

John.

Q With so many contempt possibilities out there now in the House and in the Senate, where there's actually bipartisan discussion of contempt citations --

MR. SNOW: Right.

Q -- don't you feel like you're kind of rolling the dice on what is, as you say, an important constitutional principle?

MR. SNOW: You don't roll a dice on a constitutional principle, you stand by it. And you do it for the sake of the institution. Keep in mind, again, the first assertion of executive privilege in this White House was on behalf of the Clinton administration. This is an administration that believes it is important to maintain that kind of confidentiality. Normally, if you lose it you lose the ability to recruit the kind of people you need, to bring folks in who are going to be able to give their best advice and counsel to a President. And let me repeat, if you did the same thing to Congress, they would consider that completely crippling; and if you did it in the court system, it would be even more crippling because it would profoundly compromise their independence.

So I will repeat, it is not rolling the dice, and in fact, is an acknowledgment that no matter how much political heat people may want to try to generate, or how many colorful statements they may have to make, this is about preserving the institution so it can work effectively and, in fact, have checks against the other branches of government so that they remain separate and co-equal.

Q Can I follow up? If the Senate Judiciary Committee decides to do a contempt proceeding on its own, what they call I think, inherent contempt, would the White House participate? Would you have lawyers --

MR. SNOW: We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. I'm not going to get into procedures. Let's just see what goes on. We still hope, because the House is not going to have a full vote on contempt at least until next week, we still hope cooler heads may prevail and people will think, okay, we'll take up an offer, we'll look at what you've got. I mean, that would make sense. That would show that, in fact, the real purpose here is not to try to create a big public furor, but to get at the facts and find out whether there was anything wrong in the President doing what Presidents may do, which is to fire people who serve at their privilege.

Q What do you mean when you say that nobody has really laid a glove on Gonzales? Isn't the President troubled by senators questioning his truthfulness and by Specter saying that he doesn't think he has any credibility?

MR. SNOW: Well, what's happened on a number of occasions is that people have hauled him up and there have been insinuations and, yet, in the end, what is the specific charge? What is the specific charge of malfeasance?

Q Well, for one thing, his truthfulness has been questioned.

MR. SNOW: But again, the President stands --

Q Isn't the President bothered by that?

MR. SNOW: The President is bothered sometimes by the tone of debate in Washington. He understands it can be bruising and he stands by the Attorney General.

Q Thank you, Tony. Two questions. The AP reports that Sydney, Australia's Lord Mayor, Clover Moore, is leading a campaign urging all residents to pack an emergency survival kit in preparation for any terrorist attack or other disaster in Australia's largest city. And my question -- does the White House believe that this is a campaign U.S. cities should be launching, or not?

MR. SNOW: That would be something that I would not be privy to comment on. And, Les, let me just -- before we get back into a situation where it will be more difficult to get called on, let me just point out that you need to ask questions that bear on the President's responsibilities. I saw the piece you wrote the other day, that has been thoroughly twisting out of context the answer I gave you when I told you that the President, in fact, was --

Q That's what --

MR. SNOW: I don't care. What you did --

Q They wrote it out there.

MR. SNOW: You know what, I don't care, okay, because the fact is, if somebody is going to take questions about things that do not fall under the President's purview -- and I answered that question -- and it gets twisted, that is a disservice to this White House and to the craft of journalism. So if I were you, I'd pick up the phone and tell them to start cleaning up or writing corrections.

What's your next question?

Q Since Article II, Section III of the Constitution says that the President may or on extraordinary occasions convene both houses or either of them, my question is, is the President considering so convening a lame duck session after next year's election to try to have them pass his comprehensive immigration reform legislation?

MR. SNOW: Oh my goodness. It is way, way, way too early to start talking about after the election of 2008. I think what the President would like is in the year 2007 for members of Congress who had promised to get all their appropriations bills done at this time to get cracking and get them done.

Q Thank you.

MR. SNOW: Thank you.

END 1:12 P.M. EDT. For Immediate Release, Office of the Press Secretary, July 25, 2007

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House or Tony Snow and VIDEO, or House Judiciary Committee and Department of Justice, or MRAPs, or Nano Propellers Pump with Proper Chemistry and Ford Crown Victoria Police (car) Interceptor and President Discusses War on Terror 07/24/07 VIDEO

President Discusses War on Terror 07/24/07 VIDEO

President Bush Discusses War on Terror in South Carolina, FULL STREAMING VIDEO, Charleston Air Force Base, Charleston, South Carolina Fact Sheet: Al Qaeda in Iraq and In Focus: National Security, 11:50 A.M. EDT. GALLERY

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Please be seated. Thank you, Colonel. Thanks for the hospitality and kind introduction. I'm proud to be with the men and women of the Air Force, the Navy, the Marines, the Army and the Coast Guard. Thanks for serving. Thanks for wearing the uniform of the United States of America.

I'm proud to be back here in the great state of South Carolina. I'm proud to be with some of the Palmetto State's finest citizens. I'm glad to be eating lunch with you. The food is pretty good, Colonel. (Laughter.) I always like a good barbecue.

I also am proud to be with the military families. You know, our troops are obviously engaged in a tough struggle, tough fight, a fight that I think is noble and necessary for our peace. And so are our families. Our military families endure the separations. They worry about their loved ones. They pray for safe return. By carrying out these burdens, our military families are serving the United States of America, and this country is grateful to America's military families. (Applause.)

I appreciate Colonel Millander leading the 437th Airlift Wing here at the Charleston Airbase. Thank you for the tour. Nice big airplanes carrying a lot of cargo. And it's good to see the amazing operations that take place here to keep our troops supplied.

I'm honored here to be with Deb, as well. That's Red's wife. I call him Red; you call him Colonel. He did a smart thing; he married a woman from Texas. (Applause.) So did I. (Laughter.) And Laura sends her very best to you all.

I'm proud to be here with Mark Bauknight -- Colonel Bauknight -- Acting Commander of they're 315th Airlift Wing, and his wife Leslie.

I am traveling today with one of the true stalwarts of freedom, a man who understands the stakes of the war we're in, and a man who strongly supports the military in accomplishing the mission that we've sent you to do, and that's Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. (Applause.)

This base is represented by Congressman Henry Brown, of South Carolina. (Applause.) He understands what I understand; when we have somebody in harm's way, that person deserves the full support of the Congress and the President. And you'll have the full support of the President of the United States during this war against these radicals and extremists.

I appreciate the Lieutenant Governor of this state, Andre Bauer. Thanks for coming, Governor. I'm proud to be here with the Speaker of the House of Representatives for South Carolina, State Representative Bobby Harrell. Mr. Speaker, thanks for coming.

We've got some mayors with us, and I appreciate the mayors being here today: Mayor Riley, Mayor Hallman, Mayor Summey. I'm honored that you all would take time out of your busy schedule to come by and pay tribute to these men and women who serve our nation so ably.

I'm proud to be with Chairman Tim Scott of the Charleston County Council. I'm proud to be with other state and local officials. And I'm really glad to be with you all. Thank you for your courage.

Since the attacks of September the 11th, 2001, the Airmen of Team Charleston have deployed across the globe in support in the war on terror. During the liberation of Afghanistan, air crews from Team Charleston flew hundreds of sorties to transport troops and deliver supplies, and help the liberation of 25 million people.

Team Charleston is playing a crucial role in Iraq. Every day C-17s lift off from Charleston carrying tons of vital supplies for our troops on the front lines. Your efforts are saving lives and you're bringing security to this country. Every member of Team Charleston can take pride in a great record of accomplishment. And America is grateful for your courage in the cause of freedom. And your courage is needed.

Nearly six years after the 9/11 attacks, America remains a nation at war. The terrorist network that attacked us that day is determined to strike our country again, and we must do everything in our power to stop them. A key lesson of September the 11th is that the best way to protect America is to go on the offense, to fight the terrorists overseas so we don't have to face them here at home. And that is exactly what our men and women in uniform are doing across the world.

The key theater in this global war is Iraq. Our troops are serving bravely in that country. They're opposing ruthless enemies, and no enemy is more ruthless in Iraq than al Qaeda. They send suicide bombers into crowded markets; they behead innocent captives and they murder American troops. They want to bring down Iraq's democracy so they can use that nation as a terrorist safe haven for attacks against our country. So our troops are standing strong with nearly 12 million Iraqis who voted for a future of peace, and they so for the security of Iraq and the safety of American citizens.

There's a debate in Washington about Iraq, and nothing wrong with a healthy debate. There's also a debate about al Qaeda's role in Iraq. Some say that Iraq is not part of the broader war on terror. They complain when I say that the al Qaeda terrorists we face in Iraq are part of the same enemy that attacked us on September the 11th, 2001. They claim that the organization called al Qaeda in Iraq is an Iraqi phenomenon, that it's independent of Osama bin Laden and that it's not interested in attacking America.

That would be news to Osama bin Laden. He's proclaimed that the "third world war is raging in Iraq." Osama bin Laden says, "The war is for you or for us to win. If we win it, it means your defeat and disgrace forever." I say that there will be a big defeat in Iraq and it will be the defeat of al Qaeda. (Applause.)

Today I will consider the arguments of those who say that al Qaeda and al Qaeda in Iraq are separate entities. I will explain why they are both part of the same terrorist network -- and why they are dangerous to our country.

A good place to start is with some basic facts: Al Qaeda in Iraq was founded by a Jordanian terrorist, not an Iraqi. His name was Abu Musab al Zarqawi. Before 9/11, he ran a terrorist camp in Afghanistan. He was not yet a member of al Qaida, but our intelligence community reports that he had longstanding relations with senior al Qaida leaders, that he had met with Osama bin Laden and his chief deputy, Zawahiri.

In 2001, coalition forces destroyed Zarqawi's Afghan training camp, and he fled the country and he went to Iraq, where he set up operations with terrorist associates long before the arrival of coalition forces. In the violence and instability following Saddam's fall, Zarqawi was able to expand dramatically the size, scope, and lethality of his operation. In 2004, Zarqawi and his terrorist group formally joined al Qaida, pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden, and he promised to "follow his orders in jihad."

Soon after, bin Laden publicly declared that Zarqawi was the "Prince of Al Qaida in Iraq" -- and instructed terrorists in Iraq to "listen to him and obey him." It's hard to argue that al Qaida in Iraq is separate from bin Laden's al Qaida, when the leader of al Qaida in Iraq took an oath of allegiance to Osama bin Laden.

According to our intelligence community, the Zarqawi-bin Laden merger gave al Qaida in Iraq -- quote -- "prestige among potential recruits and financiers." The merger also gave al Qaida's senior leadership -- quote -- "a foothold in Iraq to extend its geographic presence ... to plot external operations ... and to tout the centrality of the jihad in Iraq to solicit direct monetary support elsewhere." The merger between al Qaida and its Iraqi affiliate is an alliance of killers -- and that is why the finest military in the world is on their trail.

Zarqawi was killed by U.S. forces in June 2006. He was replaced by another foreigner -- an Egyptian named Abu Ayyub al-Masri. His ties to the al Qaida senior leadership are deep and longstanding. He has collaborated with Zawahiri for more than two decades. And before 9/11, he spent time with al Qaida in Afghanistan where he taught classes indoctrinating others in al Qaida's radical ideology.

After Abu Ayyub took over al Qaida's Iraqi operations last year, Osama bin Laden sent a terrorist leader named Abd al-Hadi al Iraqi to help him. According to our intelligence community, this man was a senior advisor to bin Laden, who served as his top commander in Afghanistan. Abd al-Hadi never made it to Iraq. He was captured, and was recently transferred to the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay. The fact that bin Laden risked sending one of his most valued commanders to Iraq shows the importance he places on success of al Qaida's Iraqi operations.

According to our intelligence community, many of al Qaida in Iraq's other senior leaders are also foreign terrorists. They include a Syrian who is al Qaida in Iraq's emir in Baghdad, a Saudi who is al Qaida in Iraq's top spiritual and legal advisor, an Egyptian who fought in Afghanistan in the 1990s and who has met with Osama bin Laden, a Tunisian who we believe plays a key role in managing foreign fighters. Last month in Iraq, we killed a senior al Qaida facilitator named Mehmet Yilmaz, a Turkish national who fought with al Qaida in Afghanistan, and met with September the 11th mastermind Khalid Shaikh Muhammad, and other senior al Qaida leaders.

A few weeks ago, we captured a senior al Qaida in Iraq leader named Mashadani. Now, this terrorist is an Iraqi. In fact, he was the highest ranking Iraqi in the organization. Here's what he said, here's what he told us: The foreign leaders of Al Qaida in Iraq went to extraordinary lengths to promote the fiction that al Qaida in Iraq is an Iraqi-led operation. He says al Qaida even created a figurehead whom they named Omar al-Baghdadi. The purpose was to make Iraqi fighters believe they were following the orders of an Iraqi instead of a foreigner. Yet once in custody, Mashadani revealed that al-Baghdadi is only an actor. He confirmed our intelligence that foreigners are at the top echelons of al Qaida in Iraq -- they are the leaders -- and that foreign leaders make most of the operational decisions, not Iraqis.

Foreign terrorists also account for most of the suicide bombings in Iraq. Our military estimates that between 80 and 90 percent of suicide attacks in Iraq are carried out by foreign-born al Qaida terrorists. It's true that today most of al Qaida in Iraq's rank and file fighters and some of its leadership are Iraqi. But to focus exclusively on this single fact is to ignore the larger truth: Al Qaida in Iraq is a group founded by foreign terrorists, led largely by foreign terrorists, and loyal to a foreign terrorist leader -- Osama bin Laden. They know they're al Qaida. The Iraqi people know they are al Qaida. People across the Muslim world know they are al Qaida. And there's a good reason they are called al Qaida in Iraq: They are al Qaida ... in ... Iraq.

Some also assert that al Qaida in Iraq is a separate organization because al Qaida's central command lacks full operational control over it. This argument reveals a lack of understanding. Here is how al Qaida's global terrorist network actually operates. Al Qaida and its affiliate organizations are a loose network of terrorist groups that are united by a common ideology and shared objectives, and have differing levels of collaboration with the al Qaida senior leadership. In some cases, these groups have formally merged into al Qaida and take what is called a "bayaat" -- a pledge of loyalty to Osama bin Laden. In other cases, organizations are not formally merged with al Qaida, but collaborate closely with al Qaida leaders to plot attacks and advance their shared ideology. In still other cases, there are small cells of terrorists that are not part of al Qaida or any other broader terrorist group, but maintain contact with al Qaida leaders and are inspired by its ideology to conduct attacks.

Our intelligence community assesses that al Qaida in Iraq falls into the first of these categories. They are a full member of the al Qaida terrorist network. The al Qaida leadership provides strategic guidance to their Iraqi operatives. Even so, there have been disagreements -- important disagreements -- between the leaders, Osama bin Laden and their Iraqi counterparts, including Zawahiri's criticism of Zarqawi's relentless attacks on the Shia. But our intelligence community reports that al Qaida's senior leaders generally defer to their Iraqi-based commanders when it comes to internal operations, because distance and security concerns preclude day-to-day command authority.

Our intelligence community concludes that -- quote -- "Al Qaida and its regional node in Iraq are united in their overarching strategy." And they say that al Qaida senior leaders and their operatives in Iraq -- quote -- "see al Qaida in Iraq as part of al Qaida's decentralized chain of command, not as a separate group."

Here's the bottom line: Al Qaida in Iraq is run by foreign leaders loyal to Osama bin Laden. Like bin Laden, they are cold-blooded killers who murder the innocent to achieve al Qaida's political objectives. Yet despite all the evidence, some will tell you that al Qaida in Iraq is not really al Qaida -- and not really a threat to America. Well, that's like watching a man walk into a bank with a mask and a gun, and saying he's probably just there to cash a check.

You might wonder why some in Washington insist on making this distinction about the enemy in Iraq. It's because they know that if they can convince America we're not fighting bin Laden's al Qaida there, they can paint the battle in Iraq as a distraction from the real war on terror. If we're not fighting bin Laden's al Qaida, they can argue that our nation can pull out of Iraq and not undermine our efforts in the war on terror. The problem they have is with the facts. We are fighting bin Laden's al Qaida in Iraq; Iraq is central to the war on terror; and against this enemy, America can accept nothing less than complete victory. (Applause.)

There are others who accept that al Qaida is operating in Iraq, but say its role is overstated. Al Qaida is one of the several Sunni jihadist groups in Iraq. But our intelligence community believes that al Qaida is the most dangerous of these Sunni jihadist groups for several reasons: First, more than any other group, al Qaida is behind most of the spectacular, high-casualty attacks that you see on your TV screens.

Second, these al Qaida attacks are designed to accelerate sectarian violence, by attacking Shia in hopes of sparking reprisal attacks that inspire Sunnis to join al Qaida's cause.

Third, al Qaida is the only jihadist group in Iraq with stated ambitions to make the country a base for attacks outside Iraq. For example, al Qaida in Iraq dispatched terrorists who bombed a wedding reception in Jordan. In another case, they sent operatives to Jordan where they attempted to launch a rocket attack on U.S. Navy ships in the Red Sea.

And most important for the people who wonder if the fight in Iraq is worth it, al Qaida in Iraq shares Osama bin Laden's goal of making Iraq a base for its radical Islamic empire, and using it as a safe haven for attacks on America. That is why our intelligence community reports -- and I quote -- "compared with [other leading Sunni jihadist groups], al Qaida in Iraq stands out for its extremism, unmatched operational strength, foreign leadership, and determination to take the jihad beyond Iraq's borders."

Our top commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, has said that al Qaida is "public enemy number one" in Iraq. Fellow citizens, these people have sworn allegiance to the man who ordered the death of nearly 3,000 people on our soil. Al Qaida is public enemy number one for the Iraqi people; al Qaida is public enemy number one for the American people. And that is why, for the security of our country, we will stay on the hunt, we'll deny them safe haven, and we will defeat them where they have made their stand. (Applause.)

Some note that al Qaida in Iraq did not exist until the U.S. invasion -- and argue that it is a problem of our own making. The argument follows the flawed logic that terrorism is caused by American actions. Iraq is not the reason that the terrorists are at war with us. We were not in Iraq when the terrorists bombed the World Trade Center in 1993. We were not in Iraq when they attacked our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. We were not in Iraq when they attacked the USS Cole in 2000. And we were not in Iraq on September the 11th, 2001.

Our action to remove Saddam Hussein did not start the terrorist violence -- and America withdrawal from Iraq would not end it. The al Qaida terrorists now blowing themselves up in Iraq are dedicated extremists who have made killing the innocent the calling of their lives. They are part of a network that has murdered men, women, and children in London and Madrid; slaughtered fellow Muslims in Istanbul and Casablanca, Riyadh, Jakarta, and elsewhere around the world. If we were not fighting these al Qaida extremists and terrorists in Iraq, they would not be leading productive lives of service and charity. Most would be trying to kill Americans and other civilians elsewhere -- in Afghanistan, or other foreign capitals, or on the streets of our own cities.

Al Qaida is in Iraq -- and they're there for a reason. And surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaida would be a disaster for our country. We know their intentions. Hear the words of al Qaida's top commander in Iraq when he issued an audio statement in which he said he will not rest until he has attacked our nation's capital. If we were to cede Iraq to men like this, we would leave them free to operate from a safe haven which they could use to launch new attacks on our country. And al Qaida would gain prestige amongst the extremists across the Muslim world as the terrorist network that faced down America and forced us into retreat.

If we were to allow this to happen, sectarian violence in Iraq could increase dramatically, raising the prospect of mass casualties. Fighting could engulf the entire region in chaos, and we would soon face a Middle East dominated by Islamic extremists who would pursue nuclear weapons, and use their control of oil for economic blackmail or to fund new attacks on our nation.

We've already seen how al Qaida used a failed state thousands of miles from our shores to bring death and destruction to the streets of our cities -- and we must not allow them to do so again. So, however difficult the fight is in Iraq, we must win it. And we can win it.

Less than a year ago, Anbar Province was al Qaida's base in Iraq and was written off by many as lost. Since then, U.S. and Iraqi forces have teamed with Sunni sheiks who have turned against al Qaida. Hundreds have been killed or captured. Terrorists have been driven from most of the population centers. Our troops are now working to replicate the success in Anbar in other parts of the country. Our brave men and women are taking risks, and they're showing courage, and we're making progress.

For the security of our citizens, and the peace of the world, we must give General Petraeus and his troops the time and resources they need, so they can defeat al Qaida in Iraq. (Applause.)

Thanks for letting me come by today. I've explained the connection between al Qaida and its Iraqi affiliate. I presented intelligence that clearly establishes this connection. The facts are that al Qaida terrorists killed Americans on 9/11, they're fighting us in Iraq and across the world, and they are plotting to kill Americans here at home again. Those who justify withdrawing our troops from Iraq by denying the threat of al Qaida in Iraq and its ties to Osama bin Laden ignore the clear consequences of such a retreat. If we were to follow their advice, it would be dangerous for the world -- and disastrous for America. We will defeat al Qaida in Iraq.

In this effort, we're counting on the brave men and women represented in this room. Every man and woman who serves at this base and around the world is playing a vital role in this war on terror. With your selfless spirit and devotion to duty, we will confront this mortal threat to our country -- and we're going to prevail.

I have confidence in our country, and I have faith in our cause, because I know the character of the men and women gathered before me. I thank you for your patriotism; I thank you for your courage. You're living up to your motto: "one family, one mission, one fight." Thank you for all you do. God bless your families. God bless America. (Applause.)

END 12:19 P.M. EDT. For Immediate Release, Office of the Press Secretary, July 24, 2007

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House or War on Terror and Osama bin Laden or Plasmonics, On a Wire or in a Fiber, a Wave is a Wave and Political Party Symbols, Democrat donkey, Republican elephant and Provincial Initiatives Outpace National Government in Iraq

Provincial Initiatives Outpace National Government in Iraq

General: Provincial Initiatives Outpace National Government in Iraq, By Tim Kilbride Special to American Forces Press Service

BAGHDAD, July 23, 2007 – The slow pace of legislation and political compromise at Iraq’s national level should not belie the potential for economic and political progress in the country’s provinces, a coalition commander said.

With security surge operations in and around Baghdad gradually clearing a path for business development and the growth of governance capacity, a window is open to transform progress in those areas into longer-term stability, Army Brig. Gen. Edward Cardon, deputy commander of Task Force Marne, said July 20.

“The importance of the economic and political progress in Iraq, if we do this right, generates a stability such that we won't need as much military power,” Cardon explained.

Efforts toward that end frequently are eclipsed in the public’s awareness by details of Iraq’s security situation; however, movement on all fronts is inextricably linked, the general said.

In his area of responsibility -- Najaf, Karbala, Babil and Wasit provinces -- Cardon said his forces and representatives of the State Department-led provincial reconstruction teams are working to draft and implement 100-day plans. These plans, he explained, “provide a focus and some benchmarks to improve both security and local governance.”

Toward those ends, he described himself as an enabler, forging relationships among Iraqi leaders to address common problems and solutions.

“What we really do is try and link the provincial government to the national government, the local government to the provincial government, working on plans for security and cooperation and coordination,” Cardon explained. “That is the hard work of personal engagement.”

Success at the local level is in relative contrast to the national government’s progress, the general pointed out. “Right now I'm somewhat disappointed with the political progress, in that it hasn't been as rapid as the security progress we've made just over the last few weeks,” he said.

“If you go back to the purpose of the surge, it was to get the security situation to a point where you could have political growth,” Cardon continued. “I think we're doing that pretty well. But the political progress right now is moving much slower than expected, although it is moving, especially at the lower levels.”

Contributing to stability in the provinces, he explained, is the expansion of tribal opposition to terrorist and insurgent presence, a phenomenon similar to what is occurring in Anbar province, Cardon said.

While the Iraqi army continues to grow in capabilities and effectiveness, the performance of the national and local police has been a “mixed bag” over the past two years, the general noted. Now though, Cardon said, shortcomings in the security forces are increasingly being filled by locally mustered vigilante groups, organized along tribal lines.

“Some of these areas that we're clearing out, we have cleared just to a point that we can hold,” Cardon said. “And what's starting to fill the gap with the Iraqi security units are these concerned citizens that are … tired of al Qaeda, of these extremist groups, and have … (decided to) protect their own neighborhoods.”

These groups are neither armed nor paid by coalition forces, Cardon clarified. “But we do acknowledge that they can secure their own areas, and in some areas that's having a real impact on the enemy,” he said.

The success of Anbar has continued to spread across belts of southern Baghdad and is even starting to swing all the way around to the east side, Cardon said. “That's buying some time for some political development if we can get the political development to move a little bit quicker,” he added.

At the provincial level, such development entails generation of program-management capabilities and movement away from a state-run economic mindset, Cardon explained.

Regarding the economy, stimulating enterprise growth and diversification is already a challenge, further complicated by a flood of Iranian imports into the areas south and east of Baghdad, the general said.

“The bigger problem now is the Iranian economic influence in Iraq, … because there's no tariffs, and the borders basically are wide open,” Cardon said. “They're importing … low-cost goods into Iraq, which then compete against Iraqi business, and it's hard for Iraqi business to compete against mass production.”

One avenue being pursued to boost the economy is the resumption of certain state-owned enterprises to push Iraqi-made niche products to in-country consumers and foreign markets, Cardon said. That task is being taken on by the Defense Department’s Task Force for Business and Stabilization Operations, he said. Other expertise comes from the State Department’s provincial reconstruction teams.

Despite progress, the sectarian radicalization of some areas is an obstacle to freedom of movement and prevents goods from getting to market, Cardon said. And while the number of “spectacular attacks” that exacerbate sectarianism has been reduced by the surge, they do still take place, he said.

Business and security issues will be discussed in an upcoming provincial governors’ conference facilitated by his office, Cardon said. The appropriate ministers from Baghdad are expected to attend to hash out disconnects between the regional and national governments.

“One of the complaints of the governors is that they're disconnected from the national government,” Cardon said. “So, you know, this is a great opportunity to … develop government capacity by just getting them together.”

(Tim Kilbride is a writer assigned to Task Force Marne Public Affairs.)

Technorati Tags: Army Brig. Gen. Edward Cardon and Najaf, Karbala, Babil and Wasit or Anbar province and Multinational Force Iraq or Speed bumps less important than potholes for graphene and Emergency Medical Service Vehicles, Ambulance and Harry Potter and the terrorist attacks

Harry Potter and the terrorist attacks

Does Harry Potter parody government response to terror?

Could Harry Potter be guarding the secrets of the British government's post 9/11 response to the terrorist threat" Judith Rauhofer of the University of Central Lancashire seems to think so.

Rauhofer has made a study of JK Rowling's fictional child wizard and suggests, in a research paper published today in Inderscience's International Journal of Liability and Scientific Enquiry, that the author draws several subtle parallels with contemporary society. She believes this is part of the adult appeal of the books.

Book five in the series was the first Harry Potter book to be written entirely after the terrorist attacks in New York City, Pennsylvania, and Washington on September 11, 2001. "Until then, the Harry Potter series could be seen as nothing more than a simple story of good versus evil," says Rauhofer, a Research Fellow in Law. "JK Rowling's work then evolved into something more after 9/11, a social commentary on current events, in fact."

Rauhofer believes that with the Harry Potter series Rowling has created a parallel world highlighting many of the steps taken by the British government, which she says are mostly unfair and unjustifiable, in the name of the war on terror. For instance, in the fifth book, "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix", all wizards are issued with emergency pamphlets. "Most people who received the UK government’s “Preparing for an-emergency” pamphlet through their letterbox in 2004 will recognize the irony of Rowling's plot detail here," says Rauhofer.

Several key plot features hint at parallels between the wizard world and our muggle world, says Rauhofer. The marginalizing of an ethnic group, for instance, by the muggles themselves, identity issues with Death Eaters masquerading as others, detention without trial of Knight Bus conductor Stanley Shunpike on suspicion of Death Eater activity, interception of Arthur and Molly's post while in The Burrow in the name of safety, and many other examples.

Since the publication of the fourth book, "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire", the publishers, Bloomsbury, has acknowledged that a large part of the readership is among adults, by publishing an adult edition alongside the children's version. Many commentators suspect that one possible rationale for this is to allow adults to read the book in public without embarrassment.

Jon Howells of Waterstone's says, "Based on our pre-order statistics we estimate that some 45 per cent of Harry Potter book 7 sales will be of the adult edition, which is up on about 23 per cent for the last book." Book 7 - Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - goes on sale Saturday 21st July.

Marketing machinations aside, Rauhofer says that part of the attraction for the Harry Potter series among adults could lie in the possibility that they reflect contemporary society so well. "Rowling’s description of an alternative society and its government traces recent events in contemporary society," she says, "The political thread going through the series largely focuses on the way in which the Ministry of Magic deals with Lord Voldemort's return."

If Voldemort, who really should not be named, is the real terrorist threat in disguise, then the anti-Voldemort security measures taken by the Wizards could be seen to reflect various legal and political changes that have occurred in the UK since 9/11. ###

Technorati Tags: Harry Potter and terrorist attacks or University of Central Lancashire and JK Rowling or EPA foregoes opportunity to improve nanotechnology oversight and Fire Engine Ladder Truck and Presidential Podcast 07/21/07

Freedom Calendar 07/21/07 - 07/28/07

July 21, 1896 African-American Republican activist Mary Terrell elected first president of the National Association of Colored Women.

July 22, 1993, Death of Roscoe Robinson, first African-American four-star general in the U.S. Army; promoted in 1982 by President Ronald Reagan.

July 23, 1840, Birth of African-American Republican John Hyman; sold eight times as a slave, became U.S. Rep. from North Carolina (1875-77).

July 24, 1867, Republican Party established in South Carolina; at convention, 76 of 124 delegates were African-American.

July 25, 2001, California Republican Gaddi Vasquez nominated by President George W. Bush as first Hispanic to be Director of the Peace Corps.

July 26, 1990, President George H. W. Bush signs Americans with Disabilities Act, world’s first comprehensive civil rights law for people with disabilities.

July 27, 1960, At Republican National Convention, Vice President and eventual presidential nominee Richard Nixon insists on strong civil rights plank in platform.

July 28, 1866, Republican Congress authorizes formation of the Buffalo Soldiers, two regiments of African-American cavalrymen.

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

From section 1 of the 14th Amendment, written in 1866 by Rep. John Bingham (R-OH), one of the founders of the Republican Party

Technorati Tags: President Bush and Freedom Calendar or Dwight Eisenhower and Republicans or African-Americans and Ronald Reagan or Ronald Reagan and Civil Rights or Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass or 40 acres and a mule or Martin Luther King and Buffalo Soldiers or Dred Scott and New lens device will shrink huge light waves to pinpoints and Ferrari 328 GTS Targa and Program of Detention and Interrogation by the CIA VIDEO PODCAST

Presidential Podcast 07/21/07

Presidential Podcast 07/21/07 . In Focus: Renewal in Iraq and In Focus: National Security, 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 National Intelligence Estimate and President Musharraf New lens device will shrink huge light waves to pinpoints and Ferrari 328 GTS Targa and Program of Detention and Interrogation by the CIA VIDEO PODCAST

Bush radio address 07/21/07 full audio, text transcript

bush radio address 07/21/07 full audio, text transcript. President's Radio Address . In Focus: Renewal in Iraq and In Focus: National Security

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. On Friday, I met with a group of veterans and military families who support our troops and our mission in Iraq. These men and women know the tremendous sacrifices that our troops and their families are making. And I appreciate the good work their organizations are doing to support our men and women in uniform in their important mission to protect the United States.

This week Americans saw more evidence of how difficult that mission is -- and how central it is to our security. The Director of National Intelligence released a summary of an important document called the National Intelligence Estimate on the Terrorist Threat to the U.S. Homeland. This assessment brings together the analysis of our entire intelligence community and provides policymakers with an up-to-date picture of the threat we face.

I know you are hearing a lot about this document. Some of its assessments are encouraging, and others are cause for concern. Most importantly, this document reminds us that America faces "a persistent and evolving" threat from Islamic terrorist groups and cells -- especially al Qaeda.
Since al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11, the United States has taken many steps to keep the American people safe. We've gone on the offense, taking the fight to the terrorists around the world. We've worked with partners overseas to monitor terrorist movements, disrupt their finances, and bring them to justice. Here at home, we've strengthened security at borders and vital infrastructure like power plants and airports and subways. We have given intelligence and law enforcement professionals new tools like the Patriot Act, and we continue to work with Congress to modernize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

The actions we and our partners around the world have taken have helped disrupt plots and save lives. Here's how the NIE report put it -- quote -- "We assess that greatly increased worldwide counterterrorism efforts over the past five years have constrained the ability of al Qaeda to attack the U.S. homeland again and have led terrorist groups to perceive the homeland as a harder target to strike than on 9/11."

The NIE report also cites some setbacks. One of the most troubling is its assessment that al Qaeda has managed to establish a safe haven in the tribal areas of Pakistan bordering Afghanistan. Last September, President Musharraf of Pakistan reached an agreement that gave tribal leaders more responsibility for policing their own areas. Unfortunately, tribal leaders were unwilling and unable to go after al Qaeda or the Taliban.

President Musharraf recognizes the agreement has not been successful or well-enforced and is taking active steps to correct it. Earlier this month, he sent in Pakistani forces to go after radicals who seized control of a mosque, and then he delivered a speech vowing to rid all of Pakistan of extremism. Pakistani forces are in the fight, and many have given their lives. The United States supports them in these efforts. And we will work with our partners to deny safe haven to the Taliban and al Qaeda in Pakistan -- or anywhere else in the world.

Nearly six years have passed since 9/11. And as time goes by, it can be tempting to think that the threat of another attack on our homeland is behind us. The NIE report makes clear that the threat is not behind us. It states that al Qaeda will continue to -- and I quote -- "focus on prominent political, economic, and infrastructure targets with the goal of producing mass casualties, visually dramatic destruction, significant economic aftershocks, and/or fear among the U.S. population." It goes on to say that al Qaeda will continue to seek chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear material to use in these attacks.

The men who run al Qaeda are determined, capable, and ruthless. They would be in a far stronger position to attack our people if America's military, law enforcement, intelligence services, and other elements of our government were not engaged in a worldwide effort to stop them. We will meet the responsibility that history has given us; we will adapt to changing conditions, and we will not let up until our enemies are defeated and our people are secure.

Thank you for listening.

END For Immediate Release, Office of the Press Secretary, July 21, 2007

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House radio address or National Intelligence Estimate and President Musharraf New lens device will shrink huge light waves to pinpoints and Ferrari 328 GTS Targa and Program of Detention and Interrogation by the CIA VIDEO PODCAST

Discurso Radial del Presidente a la Nación 07/21/07

forre el audio de la dirección de radio 07/21/07 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. El viernes, me reuní con un grupo de veteranos y familiares de miembros de las fuerzas armadas que apoyan a nuestras tropas y nuestra misión en Iraq. Estos hombres y mujeres conocen los tremendos sacrificios que están haciendo nuestros soldados y sus familias. Y aprecio la buena labor que realizan sus organizaciones para respaldar a los hombres y mujeres de uniforme en su importante misión para proteger Estados Unidos.

Esta semana, los estadounidenses vieron más evidencia de cuán difícil es esa misión y cuán importante es para nuestra seguridad. El Director de Inteligencia Nacional dio a conocer el resumen de un importante documento denominado Cálculo de Inteligencia Nacional de Amenaza Terrorista contra el Territorio de Estados Unidos (National Intelligence Estimate o NIE). Esta evaluación reúne la capacidad de análisis de toda nuestra comunidad de inteligencia y proporciona a los responsables de la política una visión actualizada de la amenaza a la que nos enfrentamos.

Sé que están escuchando mucho acerca de este documento. Algunos de sus cálculos son alentadores, y otros son motivo de inquietud. Lo más importante es que este documento nos recuerda que Estados Unidos se enfrenta a una amenaza "persistente y en evolución" por parte de los grupos y células terroristas islámicos, particularmente Al Qaida.

Desde que Al Qaida nos atacó el 11 de septiembre, Estados Unidos ha dado muchos pasos para preservar la seguridad del pueblo estadounidense. Hemos tomado la ofensiva, llevando la lucha a los terroristas alrededor del mundo. Hemos trabajado con aliados en el extranjero para vigilar movimientos terroristas, desbaratar sus finanzas y llevarlos ante la justicia. Aquí en nuestro país, hemos reforzado la seguridad en fronteras e infraestructura vital como plantas de energía, y aeropuertos y trenes subterráneos. Les hemos dado nuevas herramientas a los profesionales en el ámbito de inteligencia y de la ley, como la Patriot Act, y continuaremos trabajando con el Congreso para modernizar la Ley de Vigilancia de Inteligencia Extranjera (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act).

Las medidas que hemos tomado junto con nuestros aliados alrededor del mundo han ayudado a desbaratar complots y salvar vidas. Como lo puso el informe NIE, y cito: "Nuestra evaluación es que el incremento considerable de los esfuerzos antiterroristas en todo el mundo en los últimos cinco años han limitado la capacidad de Al Qaida de atacar el territorio de Estados Unidos nuevamente y han llevado a que los grupos terroristas perciban nuestro territorio como un blanco más difícil de atacar que en el 11 de septiembre".

El NIE también cita algunos aspectos adversos. Uno de los más preocupantes es la evaluación de que Al Qaida ha establecido un refugio en las zonas tribales de Pakistán, en la región de la frontera con Afganistán. En septiembre pasado, el Presidente Musharraf de Pakistán llegó a un acuerdo que les dio a los líderes tribales mayor responsabilidad de vigilancia sobre sus propias regiones. Desafortunadamente, los líderes tribales no quisieron o no pudieron perseguir a Al Qaida ni al Talibán.

El Presidente Musharraf reconoce que este acuerdo no ha tenido éxito ni ha sido puesto en práctica debidamente, y está tomando medidas correctivas. Este mes, envió a fuerzas pakistaníes en pos de radicales que se habían apoderado de una mezquita, y luego pronunció un discurso en el que prometió erradicar todo extremismo de Pakistán. Soldados pakistaníes están en la lucha y muchos han perdido la vida. Estados Unidos los respalda en estos esfuerzos. Y nos esforzaremos junto con nuestros aliados por negar refugio al Talibán y Al Qaida en Pakistán y otros lugares del mundo.

Han pasado casi seis años desde el 11 de septiembre. Y con el transcurso del tiempo, puede ser tentador pensar que la amenaza de otro ataque en nuestro territorio quedó atrás. Pero el informe NIE deja en claro que la amenaza no ha quedado atrás. Dice que Al Qaida continuará, y cito, "centrándose en blancos que tengan un gran significado político, económico y como infraestructura, con el objetivo de producir bajas masivas, destrucción visualmente dramática, consecuencias económicas considerables o temor en la población estadounidense". Y a continuación dice que Al Qaida seguirá procurando obtener material químico, biológico, radioactivo o nuclear para usarlo en estos ataques.

Los líderes de Al Qaida son hombres decididos, capaces y crueles. Y estarían en una posición mucho mejor para atacar a nuestro pueblo si las fuerzas armadas, agentes de la ley, servicios de inteligencia y otros funcionarios del gobierno estadounidense no se hubieran enfrascado en un esfuerzo mundial para detenerlos. Cumpliremos con la responsabilidad que la historia puso en nuestras manos, nos adaptaremos a circunstancias cambiantes y no nos rendiremos hasta que nuestros enemigos hayan sido derrotados y nuestro pueblo esté seguro.

Gracias por escuchar.

### Para su publicación inmediata, Oficina del Secretario de Prensa, 21 de julio de 2007

Etiquetas De Technorati: Discurso Radial del Presidente a la Nación, y Presidente Bush and New lens device will shrink huge light waves to pinpoints and Ferrari 328 GTS Targa and Program of Detention and Interrogation by the CIA VIDEO PODCAST

Program of Detention and Interrogation by the CIA VIDEO PODCAST

President Bush Discusses Global War on Terror, Thanks Troops, FULL STREAMING VIDEO PODCAST This afternoon, the President signed an Executive Order that interprets for the United States "Common Article 3" of the Geneva Conventions, as authorized in the Military Commissions Act. The Order interprets the meaning and application of Common Article 3 with respect to certain detentions and interrogations.

Specifically, the interpretation of Common Article 3 set forth in this Order is applied to the Central Intelligence Agency's detention and interrogation program whose purpose is to question captured Al Qaeda terrorists who have information on attack plans or the whereabouts of the group's senior leaders.

The Order requires that any CIA interrogation program that might go forward comply with all relevant federal statutes, including the prohibition on "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" in the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, the federal prohibition on torture, and the War Crimes Act, all of which protect against violations of Common Article 3. The Order imposes other explicit limitations on interrogation techniques and conditions of confinement in a CIA program. It bars, "acts of violence serious enough to be considered comparable to murder, torture, mutilation, and cruel and inhuman treatment." It also prohibits "willful and outrageous acts of personal abuse done for the purpose of humiliating or degrading the individual in a manner so serious that any reasonable person, considering the circumstances, would deem the acts beyond the bounds of human decency." And the Order forbids acts intended to denigrate detainees' religion, religious practices, or religious objects.

Last September, the President explained how the CIA's program had disrupted attacks and saved lives, and that it must continue on a sound legal footing. The President has insisted on clear legal standards so that CIA officers involved in this essential work are not placed in jeopardy for doing their job - and keeping America safe from attacks. This Order was signed after an extensive interagency process of review and coordination. By providing these clear rules, the Order has clarified vague terms in Common Article 3, and its interpretation is consistent with the decisions of international tribunals applying Common Article 3, including the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. # # #

Standing with veterans and military family members, President George W. Bush delivers remarks on the Global War on Terror Friday, July 20, 2007, in the Rose Garden.

"When Congress returns after Labor Day, there will be less than one month before the fiscal year ends and current funds for Defense Department operations run out," said the President. "Congress still has an opportunity to do right by our men and women in uniform -- and our national security. So today I call on Congress to take action and get this vital piece of legislation to me to sign -- on budget and on time." White House photo by Joyce N. Boghosian

Executive Order: Interpretation of the Geneva Conventions Common Article 3 as Applied to a Program of Detention and Interrogation Operated by the Central Intelligence Agency

By the authority vested in me as President and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107 40), the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Public Law 109 366), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. General Determinations. (a) The United States is engaged in an armed conflict with al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces. Members of al Qaeda were responsible for the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, and for many other terrorist attacks, including against the United States, its personnel, and its allies throughout the world. These forces continue to fight the United States and its allies in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere, and they continue to plan additional acts of terror throughout the world. On February 7, 2002, I determined for the United States that members of al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces are unlawful enemy combatants who are not entitled to the protections that the Third Geneva Convention provides to prisoners of war. I hereby reaffirm that determination.

(b) The Military Commissions Act defines certain prohibitions of Common Article 3 for United States law, and it reaffirms and reinforces the authority of the President to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions.

Sec. 2. Definitions. As used in this order:

(a) "Common Article 3" means Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.

(b) "Geneva Conventions" means:

(i) the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, done at Geneva August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3114);

(ii) the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, done at Geneva August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3217);

(iii) the Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, done at Geneva August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3316); and

(iv) the Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, done at Geneva August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3516).

(c) "Cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

Sec. 3. Compliance of a Central Intelligence Agency Detention and Interrogation Program with Common Article 3. (a) Pursuant to the authority of the President under the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including the Military Commissions Act of 2006, this order interprets the meaning and application of the text of Common Article 3 with respect to certain detentions and interrogations, and shall be treated as authoritative for all purposes as a matter of United States law, including satisfaction of the international obligations of the United States. I hereby determine that Common Article 3 shall apply to a program of detention and interrogation operated by the Central Intelligence Agency as set forth in this section. The requirements set forth in this section shall be applied with respect to detainees in such program without adverse distinction as to their race, color, religion or faith, sex, birth, or wealth.

(b) I hereby determine that a program of detention and interrogation approved by the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency fully complies with the obligations of the United States under Common Article 3, provided that:

(i) the conditions of confinement and interrogation practices of the program do not include:

(A) torture, as defined in section 2340 of title 18, United States Code;

(B) any of the acts prohibited by section 2441(d) of title 18, United States Code, including murder, torture, cruel or inhuman treatment, mutilation or maiming, intentionally causing serious bodily injury, rape, sexual assault or abuse, taking of hostages, or performing of biological experiments;

(C) other acts of violence serious enough to be considered comparable to murder, torture, mutilation, and cruel or inhuman treatment, as defined in section 2441(d) of title 18, United States Code;

(D) any other acts of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment prohibited by the Military Commissions Act (subsection 6(c) of Public Law 109 366) and the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (section 1003 of Public Law 109 148 and section 1403 of Public Law 109 163);

(E) willful and outrageous acts of personal abuse done for the purpose of humiliating or degrading the individual in a manner so serious that any reasonable person, considering the circumstances, would deem the acts to be beyond the bounds of human decency, such as sexual or sexually indecent acts undertaken for the purpose of humiliation, forcing the individual to perform sexual acts or to pose sexually, threatening the individual with sexual mutilation, or using the individual as a human shield; or

(F) acts intended to denigrate the religion, religious practices, or religious objects of the individual;

(ii) the conditions of confinement and interrogation practices are to be used with an alien detainee who is determined by the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency:

(A) to be a member or part of or supporting al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated organizations; and

(B) likely to be in possession of information that:

(1) could assist in detecting, mitigating, or preventing terrorist attacks, such as attacks within the United States or against its Armed Forces or other personnel, citizens, or facilities, or against allies or other countries cooperating in the war on terror with the United States, or their armed forces or other personnel, citizens, or facilities; or

(2) could assist in locating the senior leadership of al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces;

(iii) the interrogation practices are determined by the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, based upon professional advice, to be safe for use with each detainee with whom they are used; and

(iv) detainees in the program receive the basic necessities of life, including adequate food and water, shelter from the elements, necessary clothing, protection from extremes of heat and cold, and essential medical care.

(c) The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency shall issue written policies to govern the program, including guidelines for Central Intelligence Agency personnel that implement paragraphs (i)(C), (E), and (F) of subsection 3(b) of this order, and including requirements to ensure:

(i) safe and professional operation of the program;

(ii) the development of an approved plan of interrogation tailored for each detainee in the program to be interrogated, consistent with subsection 3(b)(iv) of this order;

(iii) appropriate training for interrogators and all personnel operating the program;

(iv) effective monitoring of the program, including with respect to medical matters, to ensure the safety of those in the program; and

(v) compliance with applicable law and this order.

Sec. 4. Assignment of Function. With respect to the program addressed in this order, the function of the President under section 6(c)(3) of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 is assigned to the Director of National Intelligence.

Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Subject to subsection (b) of this section, this order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity, against the United States, its departments, agencies, or other entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.

(b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to prevent or limit reliance upon this order in a civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding, or otherwise, by the Central Intelligence Agency or by any individual acting on behalf of the Central Intelligence Agency in connection with the program addressed in this order.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE, July 20, 2007. # # #

For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary July 20, 2007

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House or CIA interrogation program and VIDEO, or Detainee Treatment Act and Common Article 3, or Military Commissions Act, and Historical Photographs: 1918 Vintage Car and State Department Daily Press Briefing, 07/19/07 (VIDEO, PODCAST)