Thursday, August 23, 2007

President VFW Convention War on Terror PODCAST VIDEO

President George W. Bush waves to the crowd as he is introduced by Veterans of Foreign Wars National Commander Gary Kurpius Wednesday, Aug. 22, 2007, to the Veterans of Foreign Wars National Convention in Kansas City, Mo. White House photo by Chris GreenbergPresident Bush Attends Veterans of Foreign Wars National Convention, Discusses War on Terror, FULL STREAMING VIDEO, Kansas City Convention and Entertainment Center, Kansas City, Missouri,
Fact Sheet: Promoting Democracy to Help Make America Safer and In Focus: Veterans, 9:46 A.M. CDT. PODCAST OF THIS ARTICLE PHOTO GALLERY

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Please be seated. It's good to be with you again. I understand you haven't had much of a problem attracting speakers. (Laughter.) I thank you for inviting me. I can understand why people want to come here. See, it's an honor to stand with the men and women of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. (Applause.) The VFW is one of this nation's finest organizations. You belong to an elite group of Americans. (Applause.) You belong to a group of people who have defended America overseas. You have fought in places from Normandy to Iwo Jima, to Pusan, to Khe Sahn, to Kuwait, to Somalia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq. You brought security to the American people; you brought hope to millions across the world.

As members of this proud organization, you are advocates for the rights of our military veterans, a model of community service, and a strong and important voice for a strong national defense. I thank you for your service. I thank you for what you've done for the United States of America. (Applause.)

I stand before you as a wartime President. I wish I didn't have to say that, but an enemy that attacked us on September the 11th, 2001, declared war on the United States of America. And war is what we're engaged in. The struggle has been called a clash of civilizations. In truth, it's a struggle for civilization. We fight for a free way of life against a new barbarism -- an ideology whose followers have killed thousands on American soil, and seek to kill again on even a greater scale.

We fight for the possibility that decent men and women across the broader Middle East can realize their destiny -- and raise up societies based on freedom and justice and personal dignity. And as long as I'm Commander-in-Chief we will fight to win. (Applause.) I'm confident that we will prevail. I'm confident we'll prevail because we have the greatest force for human liberation the world has ever known -- the men and women of the United States Armed Forces. (Applause.)

For those of you who wear the uniform, nothing makes me more proud to say that I am your Commander-in-Chief. Thank you for volunteering in the service of the United States of America. (Applause.)

Now, I know some people doubt the universal appeal of liberty, or worry that the Middle East isn't ready for it. Others believe that America's presence is destabilizing, and that if the United States would just leave a place like Iraq those who kill our troops or target civilians would no longer threaten us. Today I'm going to address these arguments. I'm going to describe why helping the young democracies of the Middle East stand up to violent Islamic extremists is the only realistic path to a safer world for the American people. I'm going to try to provide some historical perspective to show there is a precedent for the hard and necessary work we're doing, and why I have such confidence in the fact we'll be successful.

Before I do so I want to thank the national Commander-in-Chief of the VFW and his wife, Nancy. It's been a joy to work with Gary and the staff. Gary said, we don't necessarily agree a hundred percent of the time. I remember the old lieutenant governor of Texas -- a Democrat, and I was a Republican governor. He said, "Governor, if we agreed 100 percent of the time, one of us wouldn't be necessary." (Laughter.)

But here's what we do agree on: We agree our veterans deserve the full support of the United States government. (Applause.) That's why in this budget I submitted there's $87 billion for the veterans; it's the highest level of support ever for the veterans in American history. (Applause.) We agree that health care for our veterans is a top priority, and that's why we've increased health care spending for our veterans by 83 percent since I was sworn in as your President. (Applause.) We agree that a troop coming out of Iraq or Afghanistan deserves the best health care not only as an active duty citizen, but as a military guy, but also as a veteran -- and you're going to get the best health care we can possibly provide. (Applause.) We agree our homeless vets ought to have shelter, and that's what we're providing.

In other words, we agree the veterans deserve the full support of our government and that's what you're going to get as George W. Bush as your President. (Applause.)

I want to thank Bob Wallace, the Executive Director. He spends a lot of time in the Oval Office -- I'm always checking the silverware drawer. (Laughter.) He's going to be bringing in George Lisicki here soon. He's going to be the national commander-in-chief for my next year in office. And I'm looking forward to working with George, and I'm looking forward to working with Wallace, and I'm looking forward to hearing from you. They're going to find an open-minded President, dedicated to doing what's right. (Applause.)

I appreciate Linda Meader, the National President of the Ladies Auxiliary. She brought old Dave with her. (Applause.) Virginia Carman, the incoming President. I want to thank Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs Gordon Mansfield for joining us today. I appreciate the United States Senator from the state of Missouri, strong supporter of the military and strong supporter of the veterans, Kit Bond. (Applause.) Two members of the Congress have kindly showed up today -- I'm proud they're both here: Congressman Emanuel Cleaver -- no finer man, no more decent a fellow than Emanuel Cleaver -- is with us. And a great Congressman from right around the corner here, Congressman Sam Graves. Thank you all for coming. (Applause.)

Lieutenant General Jack Stultz, Commanding General, U.S. Army Reserve Command, is with us today. General, thanks for coming. Lieutenant General Bill Caldwell, Commanding General, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, is with us today, as well. General Caldwell, thank you for your service. (Applause.)

Thank you all for letting me come by. I want to open today's speech with a story that begins on a sunny morning, when thousands of Americans were murdered in a surprise attack -- and our nation was propelled into a conflict that would take us to every corner of the globe.

The enemy who attacked us despises freedom, and harbors resentment at the slights he believes America and Western nations have inflicted on his people. He fights to establish his rule over an entire region. And over time, he turns to a strategy of suicide attacks destined to create so much carnage that the American people will tire of the violence and give up the fight.

If this story sounds familiar, it is -- except for one thing. The enemy I have just described is not al Qaeda, and the attack is not 9/11, and the empire is not the radical caliphate envisioned by Osama bin Laden. Instead, what I've described is the war machine of Imperial Japan in the 1940s, its surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, and its attempt to impose its empire throughout East Asia.

Ultimately, the United States prevailed in World War II, and we have fought two more land wars in Asia. And many in this hall were veterans of those campaigns. Yet even the most optimistic among you probably would not have foreseen that the Japanese would transform themselves into one of America's strongest and most steadfast allies, or that the South Koreans would recover from enemy invasion to raise up one of the world's most powerful economies, or that Asia would pull itself out of poverty and hopelessness as it embraced markets and freedom.

The lesson from Asia's development is that the heart's desire for liberty will not be denied. Once people even get a small taste of liberty, they're not going to rest until they're free. Today's dynamic and hopeful Asia -- a region that brings us countless benefits -- would not have been possible without America's presence and perseverance. It would not have been possible without the veterans in this hall today. And I thank you for your service. (Applause.)

There are many differences between the wars we fought in the Far East and the war on terror we're fighting today. But one important similarity is at their core they're ideological struggles. The militarists of Japan and the communists in Korea and Vietnam were driven by a merciless vision for the proper ordering of humanity. They killed Americans because we stood in the way of their attempt to force their ideology on others. Today, the names and places have changed, but the fundamental character of the struggle has not changed. Like our enemies in the past, the terrorists who wage war in Iraq and Afghanistan and other places seek to spread a political vision of their own -- a harsh plan for life that crushes freedom, tolerance, and dissent.

Like our enemies in the past, they kill Americans because we stand in their way of imposing this ideology across a vital region of the world. This enemy is dangerous; this enemy is determined; and this enemy will be defeated. (Applause.)

We're still in the early hours of the current ideological struggle, but we do know how the others ended -- and that knowledge helps guide our efforts today. The ideals and interests that led America to help the Japanese turn defeat into democracy are the same that lead us to remain engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The defense strategy that refused to hand the South Koreans over to a totalitarian neighbor helped raise up a Asian Tiger that is the model for developing countries across the world, including the Middle East. The result of American sacrifice and perseverance in Asia is a freer, more prosperous and stable continent whose people want to live in peace with America, not attack America.

At the outset of World War II there were only two democracies in the Far East -- Australia and New Zealand. Today most of the nations in Asia are free, and its democracies reflect the diversity of the region. Some of these nations have constitutional monarchies, some have parliaments, and some have presidents. Some are Christian, some are Muslim, some are Hindu, and some are Buddhist. Yet for all the differences, the free nations of Asia all share one thing in common: Their governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed, and they desire to live in peace with their neighbors.

Along the way to this freer and more hopeful Asia, there were a lot of doubters. Many times in the decades that followed World War II, American policy in Asia was dismissed as hopeless and naive. And when we listen to criticism of the difficult work our generation is undertaking in the Middle East today, we can hear the echoes of the same arguments made about the Far East years ago.

In the aftermath of Japan's surrender, many thought it naive to help the Japanese transform themselves into a democracy. Then as now, the critics argued that some people were simply not fit for freedom.

Some said Japanese culture was inherently incompatible with democracy. Joseph Grew, a former United States ambassador to Japan who served as Harry Truman's Under Secretary of State, told the President flatly that -- and I quote -- "democracy in Japan would never work." He wasn't alone in that belief. A lot of Americans believed that -- and so did the Japanese -- a lot of Japanese believed the same thing: democracy simply wouldn't work.

Others critics said that Americans were imposing their ideals on the Japanese. For example, Japan's Vice Prime Minister asserted that allowing Japanese women to vote would "retard the progress of Japanese politics."

It's interesting what General MacArthur wrote in his memoirs. He wrote, "There was much criticism of my support for the enfranchisement of women. Many Americans, as well as many other so-called experts, expressed the view that Japanese women were too steeped in the tradition of subservience to their husbands to act with any degree of political independence." That's what General MacArthur observed. In the end, Japanese women were given the vote; 39 women won parliamentary seats in Japan's first free election. Today, Japan's minister of defense is a woman, and just last month, a record number of women were elected to Japan's Upper House. Other critics argued that democracy -- (applause.)

There are other critics, believe it or not, that argue that democracy could not succeed in Japan because the national religion -- Shinto -- was too fanatical and rooted in the Emperor. Senator Richard Russell denounced the Japanese faith, and said that if we did not put the Emperor on trial, "any steps we may take to create democracy are doomed to failure." The State Department's man in Tokyo put it bluntly: "The Emperor system must disappear if Japan is ever really to be democratic."

Those who said Shinto was incompatible with democracy were mistaken, and fortunately, Americans and Japanese leaders recognized it at the time, because instead of suppressing the Shinto faith, American authorities worked with the Japanese to institute religious freedom for all faiths. Instead of abolishing the imperial throne, Americans and Japanese worked together to find a place for the Emperor in the democratic political system.

And the result of all these steps was that every Japanese citizen gained freedom of religion, and the Emperor remained on his throne and Japanese democracy grew stronger because it embraced a cherished part of Japanese culture. And today, in defiance of the critics and the doubters and the skeptics, Japan retains its religions and cultural traditions, and stands as one of the world's great free societies. (Applause.)

You know, the experts sometimes get it wrong. An interesting observation, one historian put it -- he said, "Had these erstwhile experts" -- he was talking about people criticizing the efforts to help Japan realize the blessings of a free society -- he said, "Had these erstwhile experts had their way, the very notion of inducing a democratic revolution would have died of ridicule at an early stage."

Instead, I think it's important to look at what happened. A democratic Japan has brought peace and prosperity to its people. Its foreign trade and investment have helped jump-start the economies of others in the region. The alliance between our two nations is the lynchpin for freedom and stability throughout the Pacific. And I want you to listen carefully to this final point: Japan has transformed from America's enemy in the ideological struggle of the 20th century to one of America's strongest allies in the ideological struggle of the 21st century. (Applause.)

Critics also complained when America intervened to save South Korea from communist invasion. Then as now, the critics argued that the war was futile, that we should never have sent our troops in, or they argued that America's intervention was divisive here at home.

After the North Koreans crossed the 38th Parallel in 1950, President Harry Truman came to the defense of the South -- and found himself attacked from all sides. From the left, I.F. Stone wrote a book suggesting that the South Koreans were the real aggressors and that we had entered the war on a false pretext. From the right, Republicans vacillated. Initially, the leader of the Republican Party in the Senate endorsed Harry Truman's action, saying, "I welcome the indication of a more definite policy" -- he went on to say, "I strongly hope that having adopted it, the President may maintain it intact," then later said "it was a mistake originally to go into Korea because it meant a land war."

Throughout the war, the Republicans really never had a clear position. They never could decide whether they wanted the United States to withdraw from the war in Korea, or expand the war to the Chinese mainland. Others complained that our troops weren't getting the support from the government. One Republican senator said, the effort was just "bluff and bluster." He rejected calls to come together in a time of war, on the grounds that "we will not allow the cloak of national unity to be wrapped around horrible blunders."

Many in the press agreed. One columnist in The Washington Post said, "The fact is that the conduct of the Korean War has been shot through with errors great and small." A colleague wrote that "Korea is an open wound. It's bleeding and there's no cure for it in sight." He said that the American people could not understand "why Americans are doing about 95 percent of the fighting in Korea."

Many of these criticisms were offered as reasons for abandoning our commitments in Korea. And while it's true the Korean War had its share of challenges, the United States never broke its word.

Today, we see the result of a sacrifice of people in this room in the stark contrast of life on the Korean Peninsula. Without Americans' intervention during the war and our willingness to stick with the South Koreans after the war, millions of South Koreans would now be living under a brutal and repressive regime. The Soviets and Chinese communists would have learned the lesson that aggression pays. The world would be facing a more dangerous situation. The world would be less peaceful.

Instead, South Korea is a strong, democratic ally of the United States of America. South Korean troops are serving side-by-side with American forces in Afghanistan and in Iraq. And America can count on the free people of South Korea to be lasting partners in the ideological struggle we're facing in the beginning of the 21st century. (Applause.)

For those of you who served in Korea, thank you for your sacrifice, and thank you for your service. (Applause.)

Finally, there's Vietnam. This is a complex and painful subject for many Americans. The tragedy of Vietnam is too large to be contained in one speech. So I'm going to limit myself to one argument that has particular significance today. Then as now, people argued the real problem was America's presence and that if we would just withdraw, the killing would end.

The argument that America's presence in Indochina was dangerous had a long pedigree. In 1955, long before the United States had entered the war, Graham Greene wrote a novel called, "The Quiet American." It was set in Saigon, and the main character was a young government agent named Alden Pyle. He was a symbol of American purpose and patriotism -- and dangerous naivete. Another character describes Alden this way: "I never knew a man who had better motives for all the trouble he caused."

After America entered the Vietnam War, the Graham Greene argument gathered some steam. As a matter of fact, many argued that if we pulled out there would be no consequences for the Vietnamese people.

In 1972, one antiwar senator put it this way: "What earthly difference does it make to nomadic tribes or uneducated subsistence farmers in Vietnam or Cambodia or Laos, whether they have a military dictator, a royal prince or a socialist commissar in some distant capital that they've never seen and may never heard of?" A columnist for The New York Times wrote in a similar vein in 1975, just as Cambodia and Vietnam were falling to the communists: "It's difficult to imagine," he said, "how their lives could be anything but better with the Americans gone." A headline on that story, date Phnom Penh, summed up the argument: "Indochina without Americans: For Most a Better Life."

The world would learn just how costly these misimpressions would be. In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge began a murderous rule in which hundreds of thousands of Cambodians died by starvation and torture and execution. In Vietnam, former allies of the United States and government workers and intellectuals and businessmen were sent off to prison camps, where tens of thousands perished. Hundreds of thousands more fled the country on rickety boats, many of them going to their graves in the South China Sea.

Three decades later, there is a legitimate debate about how we got into the Vietnam War and how we left. There's no debate in my mind that the veterans from Vietnam deserve the high praise of the United States of America. (Applause.) Whatever your position is on that debate, one unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like "boat people," "re-education camps," and "killing fields."

There was another price to our withdrawal from Vietnam, and we can hear it in the words of the enemy we face in today's struggle -- those who came to our soil and killed thousands of citizens on September the 11th, 2001. In an interview with a Pakistani newspaper after the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden declared that "the American people had risen against their government's war in Vietnam. And they must do the same today."

His number two man, Zawahiri, has also invoked Vietnam. In a letter to al Qaeda's chief of operations in Iraq, Zawahiri pointed to "the aftermath of the collapse of the American power in Vietnam and how they ran and left their agents."

Zawahiri later returned to this theme, declaring that the Americans "know better than others that there is no hope in victory. The Vietnam specter is closing every outlet." Here at home, some can argue our withdrawal from Vietnam carried no price to American credibility -- but the terrorists see it differently.

We must remember the words of the enemy. We must listen to what they say. Bin Laden has declared that "the war [in Iraq] is for you or us to win. If we win it, it means your disgrace and defeat forever." Iraq is one of several fronts in the war on terror -- but it's the central front -- it's the central front for the enemy that attacked us and wants to attack us again. And it's the central front for the United States and to withdraw without getting the job done would be devastating. (Applause.)

If we were to abandon the Iraqi people, the terrorists would be emboldened, and use their victory to gain new recruits. As we saw on September the 11th, a terrorist safe haven on the other side of the world can bring death and destruction to the streets of our own cities. Unlike in Vietnam, if we withdraw before the job is done, this enemy will follow us home. And that is why, for the security of the United States of America, we must defeat them overseas so we do not face them in the United States of America. (Applause.)

Recently, two men who were on the opposite sides of the debate over the Vietnam War came together to write an article. One was a member of President Nixon's foreign policy team, and the other was a fierce critic of the Nixon administration's policies. Together they wrote that the consequences of an American defeat in Iraq would be disastrous.

Here's what they said: "Defeat would produce an explosion of euphoria among all the forces of Islamist extremism, throwing the entire Middle East into even greater upheaval. The likely human and strategic costs are appalling to contemplate. Perhaps that is why so much of the current debate seeks to ignore these consequences." I believe these men are right.

In Iraq, our moral obligations and our strategic interests are one. So we pursue the extremists wherever we find them and we stand with the Iraqis at this difficult hour -- because the shadow of terror will never be lifted from our world and the American people will never be safe until the people of the Middle East know the freedom that our Creator meant for all. (Applause.)

I recognize that history cannot predict the future with absolute certainty. I understand that. But history does remind us that there are lessons applicable to our time. And we can learn something from history. In Asia, we saw freedom triumph over violent ideologies after the sacrifice of tens of thousands of American lives -- and that freedom has yielded peace for generations.

The American military graveyards across Europe attest to the terrible human cost in the fight against Nazism. They also attest to the triumph of a continent that today is whole, free, and at peace. The advance of freedom in these lands should give us confidence that the hard work we are doing in the Middle East can have the same results we've seen in Asia and elsewhere -- if we show the same perseverance and the same sense of purpose.

In a world where the terrorists are willing to act on their twisted beliefs with sickening acts of barbarism, we must put faith in the timeless truths about human nature that have made us free.

Across the Middle East, millions of ordinary citizens are tired of war, they're tired of dictatorship and corruption, they're tired of despair. They want societies where they're treated with dignity and respect, where their children have the hope for a better life. They want nations where their faiths are honored and they can worship in freedom.

And that is why millions of Iraqis and Afghans turned out to the polls -- millions turned out to the polls. And that's why their leaders have stepped forward at the risk of assassination. And that's why tens of thousands are joining the security forces of their nations. These men and women are taking great risks to build a free and peaceful Middle East -- and for the sake of our own security, we must not abandon them.

There is one group of people who understand the stakes, understand as well as any expert, anybody in America -- those are the men and women in uniform. Through nearly six years of war, they have performed magnificently. (Applause.) Day after day, hour after hour, they keep the pressure on the enemy that would do our citizens harm. They've overthrown two of the most brutal tyrannies of the world, and liberated more than 50 million citizens. (Applause.)

In Iraq, our troops are taking the fight to the extremists and radicals and murderers all throughout the country. Our troops have killed or captured an average of more than 1,500 al Qaeda terrorists and other extremists every month since January of this year. (Applause.) We're in the fight. Today our troops are carrying out a surge that is helping bring former Sunni insurgents into the fight against the extremists and radicals, into the fight against al Qaeda, into the fight against the enemy that would do us harm. They're clearing out the terrorists out of population centers, they're giving families in liberated Iraqi cities a look at a decent and hopeful life.

Our troops are seeing this progress that is being made on the ground. And as they take the initiative from the enemy, they have a question: Will their elected leaders in Washington pull the rug out from under them just as they're gaining momentum and changing the dynamic on the ground in Iraq? Here's my answer is clear: We'll support our troops, we'll support our commanders, and we will give them everything they need to succeed. (Applause.)

Despite the mistakes that have been made, despite the problems we have encountered, seeing the Iraqis through as they build their democracy is critical to keeping the American people safe from the terrorists who want to attack us. It is critical work to lay the foundation for peace that veterans have done before you all.

A free Iraq is not going to be perfect. A free Iraq will not make decisions as quickly as the country did under the dictatorship. Many are frustrated by the pace of progress in Baghdad, and I can understand this. As I noted yesterday, the Iraqi government is distributing oil revenues across its provinces despite not having an oil revenue law on its books, that the parliament has passed about 60 pieces of legislation.

Prime Minister Maliki is a good guy, a good man with a difficult job, and I support him. And it's not up to politicians in Washington, D.C. to say whether he will remain in his position -- that is up to the Iraqi people who now live in a democracy, and not a dictatorship. (Applause.) A free Iraq is not going to transform the Middle East overnight. But a free Iraq will be a massive defeat for al Qaeda, it will be an example that provides hope for millions throughout the Middle East, it will be a friend of the United States, and it's going to be an important ally in the ideological struggle of the 21st century. (Applause.)

Prevailing in this struggle is essential to our future as a nation. And the question now that comes before us is this: Will today's generation of Americans resist the allure of retreat, and will we do in the Middle East what the veterans in this room did in Asia?

The journey is not going to be easy, as the veterans fully understand. At the outset of the war in the Pacific, there were those who argued that freedom had seen its day and that the future belonged to the hard men in Tokyo. A year and a half before the attack on Pearl Harbor, Japan's Foreign Minister gave a hint of things to come during an interview with a New York newspaper. He said, "In the battle between democracy and totalitarianism the latter adversary will without question win and will control the world. The era of democracy is finished, the democratic system bankrupt."

In fact, the war machines of Imperial Japan would be brought down -- brought down by good folks who only months before had been students and farmers and bank clerks and factory hands. Some are in the room today. Others here have been inspired by their fathers and grandfathers and uncles and cousins.

That generation of Americans taught the tyrants a telling lesson: There is no power like the power of freedom and no soldier as strong as a soldier who fights for a free future for his children. (Applause.) And when America's work on the battlefield was done, the victorious children of democracy would help our defeated enemies rebuild, and bring the taste of freedom to millions.

We can do the same for the Middle East. Today the violent Islamic extremists who fight us in Iraq are as certain of their cause as the Nazis, or the Imperial Japanese, or the Soviet communists were of theirs. They are destined for the same fate. (Applause.)

The greatest weapon in the arsenal of democracy is the desire for liberty written into the human heart by our Creator. So long as we remain true to our ideals, we will defeat the extremists in Iraq and Afghanistan. We will help those countries' peoples stand up functioning democracies in the heart of the broader Middle East. And when that hard work is done and the critics of today recede from memory, the cause of freedom will be stronger, a vital region will be brighter, and the American people will be safer.

Thank you, and God bless. (Applause.)

END 10:29 A.M. CDT. For Immediate Release, Office of the Press Secretary, August 22, 2007

Technorati Tags: and or and or Freedom's Watch Ad Campaign VIDEO and Mona Lisa La Gioconda (La Joconde) and IED Nanotech Research

Wednesday, August 22, 2007

Freedom's Watch Ad Campaign VIDEO



Iraq war veteran John Kriesel lost both legs in a blast near Fallujah on December 2nd, 2006. It was near the end of his second tour. Listen to why John believes Victory is America's only choice.

This from Freedom's Watch Youtube channel - Freedom's Watch is organized as a nonprofit corporation and operated in a manner consistent with section 501 (c) (4) of the federal income tax laws. Freedom's Watch is dedicated to educating individuals about and advancing public policies that protect America's interests at home and abroad, foster economic prosperity, and strengthen families. Through outreach and education, communications to key members of Congress, and bold public awareness initiatives, Freedom's Watch is fighting for what's right in America. We welcome all those who share our values to join our efforts.

The Press Release for this Video:

New Group, Freedom’s Watch, to launch Major Advertising Campaign in Support of Victory in Iraq

August 22, 2007, (Washington, D.C.)—Today a new organization named Freedom’s Watch announced it is launching a nationwide grassroots campaign aimed at ensuring Congress continues to fully fund the troops with the ultimate goal of victory in the War on Terror. Freedom’s Watch will spend approximately $15 million on radio and television ads as well as grassroots activities from now thru mid-September and has partnered with a host of veteran’s organizations in an effort to ensure terrorism is confronted all over the world. The ads begin running today

“The mission of Freedom’s Watch is to ensure a strong national defense and a powerful effort to confront and defeat global terror, especially in Iraq,” said Bradley A. Blakeman,President of Freedom’s Watch. “Those who want to quit while victory is possible have dominated the public debate about terror and Iraq since the 2004 election. Freedom’s Watch is going to change that.”

In more than 20 states and dozens of congressional districts, Freedom’s Watch
advertisements will run and feature an 800-number for the public to call their
representatives and urge them not to surrender to terror.

“When it comes to protecting our country,” continued Blakeman, “we’ll spare no effort. Our goal is to make clear that when America goes to war, victory is the only outcome. That’s what the troops are saying in these advertisements and what Freedom’s Watch believes. We do not agree with those groups pressuring our lawmakers to abandon victory.” Supporters of Freedom’s Watch include Former U.S. Ambassador Anthony Gioia, Former U.S. Ambassador Kevin Moley, Former U.S. Ambassador Mel Sembler and Former U.S. Ambassador Howard Leach; Dr. John Templeton, Edward Snider, Sheldon Adelson, Richard Fox, Ari Fleischer, Gary Erlbaum, and Matt Brooks.

Freedom’s Watch is 501(c)4 and based in Washington, D.C. This Release in PDF format.

For more information about Freedom’s Watch and to watch the ads please visit freedomswatch.org, Contact: Jerry Mullins, 202.355.6312

echnorati Tags: and or and or Mitt Romney New Radio Ad, "Exceptional" PODCAST and Space Shuttle Endeavour STS-118 Landing and Using a magnet to tune a magnet

Tuesday, August 21, 2007

Mitt Romney New Radio Ad, "Exceptional" PODCAST

Governor Romney traveled to Oklahoma City Tuesday to host an 'Ask Mitt Anything' event at the University of Oklahoma. He later traveled to Grand Prarie, Texas to take part in Sean Hannity's Freedom Concert.New Radio Ad, "Exceptional" Tuesday, Aug 21, 2007, FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, CONTACT: Kevin Madden (857) 288-6390

Boston, MA - Today, Romney for President launched its newest radio ad, "Exceptional."
The ad highlights Governor Romney's plan to cut back federal funds from cities that adopt sanctuary policies and ignore federal immigration laws. Governor Romney has a record of enforcing our immigration laws. He deputized the State Police to enforce federal immigration law, opposed drivers' licenses for illegal immigrants, and insisted that our children learn in English.

The ad will begin airing as part of the campaign's rotation today in Iowa and New Hampshire. Script is below.

In conjunction with the release of the new radio ad, Romney for President is also launching an online ad campaign on his opposition to sanctuary policies.

Script For "Exceptional" (Radio:60):

ANNOUNCER: "Immigration laws don't work if they're ignored.

"That's the problem with cities like Newark, San Francisco and New York City that adopt sanctuary policies.

"Sanctuary cities become magnets that encourage illegal immigration and undermine secure borders.

"As Governor, Mitt Romney didn't wait on Washington. He acted to make our immigration laws work.

"Mitt Romney is the exceptional Governor who took a stand so State Police could enforce federal immigration laws.

"Mitt Romney said 'No' to drivers' licenses for those here illegally.

"Mitt Romney insisted on teaching our kids in English.

"And as President, Mitt Romney will cut back federal funds to cities that provide sanctuary to illegal immigrants."

GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: "Legal immigration is great. But illegal immigration, that we've got to end. And amnesty is not the way to do it."

ANNOUNCER: "Mitt Romney - an exceptional leader for exceptional new challenges."

GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: "I'm Mitt Romney and I approved this message."

ANNOUNCER: "Paid for by Romney for President, MittRomney.com."

Technorati Tags: and or and or Statement of Carl Levin, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Ranking Member John Warner, FULL TEXT and Tiger Woods and Nano-boric acid makes motor oil more slippery

Monday, August 20, 2007

Statement of Carl Levin, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Ranking Member John Warner, FULL TEXT

070116-N-0696M-095 Washington, D.C. (Jan. 16, 2007) - Secretary of the Navy Donald C. Winter, Sen. Carl Levin, Sen. John Warner and Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Mullen applaud Susan Ford Bales after her remarks at the unveiling and naming of USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78). The ship as well as the newest class of aircraft carriers was named after the 38th president of the United States during a ceremony at the Pentagon. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Chad J. McNeeley (RELEASED)Statement of Senator Carl Levin, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Senator John Warner, Former Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee High Resolution Image
We completed a very productive two-day visit to Iraq on August 18. We came to Iraq to assess the progress being achieved by “the surge,” whose purpose is to provide Iraqi politicians with the “breathing space” to achieve political reconciliation and to evaluate the extent to which they are taking advantage of the opportunity. On August 19, we visited Jordan for a series of meetings concerning Iraq, refugees, and regional security.

We visited forward operating bases in Mosul and Baghdad. In these areas, as well as a number of others in Iraq, the military aspects of President Bush’s new strategy in Iraq, as articulated by him on January 10, 2007, appear to have produced some credible and positive results. While visiting U.S. forces in Baghdad, we visited a Joint Security Station, a key component of the surge strategy, in eastern Baghdad and met with the U.S. forces and Iraqi Police and Iraqi Army forces that are housed together and conduct combined operations in one of the dangerous areas of Baghdad.

We met with senior U.S. and Iraqi civilian officials and military leaders. We conducted candid and very constructive meetings with General Petraeus, the Commander of Multi-National Forces-Iraq, General Odierno, the Commander of Multi-National Corps-Iraq, and Lieutenant General Dubik, the Commander of the Multi-National Security Training Command-Iraq, to discuss the military aspects of the President’s strategy and progress on the training, equipping and readiness of the Iraqi Security Forces. We continued discussions about the readiness of the Iraqi Army in meetings with Iraq’s Minister of Defense and the Vice Chief of Staff of the Iraqi Armed Forces.

We consulted with Ambassador Crocker, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, on three occasions to discuss progress on the political components of the President’s new strategy. We met with the Ambassador once in a combined session with General Petraeus and later in two meetings with Senior Iraqi leaders that included President Jalal Talabani, Deputy Presidents Adil Abd Al-Mahdi and Tariq Al-Hashimi, and Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih.

While in Baghdad, we also met with Stuart Bowen, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR), and members of the SIGIR staff to discuss the findings of their July 2007 report and their ongoing audits and investigations. In addition, we met with members of Iraq’s Christian community, composed of groups who have lived in the region for centuries, to learn more about their situation.

The meetings in Jordan included consultations with the U.S. Ambassador and members of his staff, as well as Jordanian officials and members of the Iraqi Parliament. We also wanted to gain more knowledge about Iraqi citizens currently residing in Jordan and met with a senior official with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the Amman office of Save the Children, and a group of Iraqis currently residing in Jordan.

Most important, we continue to be in awe of the dedication, commitment, and courageous performance of our troops, wherever they are in Iraq, and government and private sector civilians who risk their lives daily to give Iraqis the chance to build their nation. Their heroism cannot be overstated.

We have seen indications that the surge of additional brigades to Baghdad and its immediate vicinity and the revitalized counter-insurgency strategy being employed have produced tangible results in making several areas of the capital more secure. We are also encouraged by continuing positive results -- in al Anbar Province, from the recent decisions of some of the Sunni tribes to turn against al Qaeda and cooperate with coalition force efforts to kill or capture its adherents. We remain concerned, however, that in the absence of overall “national” political reconciliation, we may be inadvertently helping to create another militia which will have to be dealt with in the future.

We note the continuing improvement in the ability and willingness of the Iraqi Army to conduct combat operations against the insurgents, but remain concerned about the lack of experience of some of its leadership and the lack of critical military capabilities needed before more of its units can operate independently. Chief among these are modern small arms, artillery, combat and lift aviation, explosive ordnance disposal, transportation assets, and engineer capability essential for force protection. Logistics capabilities are virtually non-existent and are a major hindrance to independent action.

We were also informed of problems within our own United States bureaucracy which are hindering the delivery of badly needed military equipment for Iraqi forces purchased with Iraqi funds through the Foreign Military Sales program. We will be looking into that problem and urge the Secretaries of Defense and State to take immediate action to cut through the red tape that is delaying those purchases.

While we believe that the “surge” is having measurable results, and has provided a degree of “breathing space” for Iraqi politicians to make the political compromises which are essential for a political solution in Iraq, we are not optimistic about the prospects for those compromises. We were in Iraq both during the recent initial meeting of the Iraq Presidency Council, the Prime Minister and the President of the Kurdish region and during the immediately following expanded meeting, which were intended to reach political compromises. We would like to be optimistic that those meetings will lead to substantive progress, however -- given the performance of the Iraqi political leadership to date -- we remain extremely cautious in our expectations, as does our distinguished U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Ambassador Ryan Crocker.

In many meetings with Iraqi political leaders, of all different backgrounds, we told them of the deep impatience of the American people and the Congress with the lack of political progress, impressed upon them that time has run out in that regard, and told them of the urgent need to make the essential compromises. In all of our meetings we witnessed a great deal of apprehension regarding the capabilities of the current Iraqi government to shed its sectarian biases and act in a unifying manner.

We believe that the recent high-level meetings among Iraqi political leaders could be the last chance for this government to solve the Iraqi political crisis, and should it fail, we believe, the Iraqi Council of Representatives and the Iraqi people need to judge the Government of Iraq’s record and determine what actions should be taken -- consistent with the Iraqi Constitution -- to form a true unity government to meet those responsibilities.

Technorati tags: and or and or and or You don't have to hate other groups to love your own and Space Shuttle Endeavour STS-118 EVA and Nanotechnology helps scientists make bendy sensors for hydrogen vehicles

Sunday, August 19, 2007

You don't have to hate other groups to love your own

SAN FRANCISCO – Shiite vs. Sunni. Red state vs. Blue state. Immigrant vs. native.

While it may appear that conflict is an inevitable part of interaction between groups, research actually suggests that fighting, hating and contempt between groups is not a necessary part of human nature, according to an Ohio State University professor of psychology.“There's still this belief that a group's cohesion depends on conflict with other groups,
but the evidence doesn't support that,” said Marilynn Brewer of Ohio State.

“Despite evidence to the contrary, you still see this theory in the research literature and in many textbooks.”

Brewer has spent much of her career studying “ingroups” – the groups we belong to – and their relations with “outgroups” – those groups to which others belong.

She discussed the nature of these intergroup relations in her invited address Saturday Aug. 18 in San Francisco at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association. The address was in honor of Brewer winning the 2007 Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award from the APA.

In her address, Brewer said recent evidence suggests that people's attachment to their ingroups has nothing to do with conflict – or indeed any other kind of relation – to other groups.

Instead, people join groups to find a place of trust and security.

“Simply put, we prefer people of our kind, people we know we can rely on. That doesn't mean you have to hate anyone else. But you will be more likely to trust people from your own group,” Brewer said.

In one recent study, for example, Brewer found that people tended to put more trust in total strangers when they learned this stranger attended the same university they did.

“All you need is to have that shared group identity,” she said.

The evolutionary history of humans suggests there is no need to require intergroup conflict to account for the formation of ingroups. Early humans didn't live under dense population conditions in which groups had to compete for local resources.

Given the costs of fighting, and the lack of need to compete, groups would have been more likely to flee from each other rather than fight.

That doesn't mean ingroup bias is benign, Brewer said. Ingroup bias is the basis for discrimination, the favoring of people in your group over those in another.

“You don't have to hate people from other groups in order to disadvantage them and to deny them the opportunities you have in your group,” she said. “That's a real downside to ingroup bias.”

Another common misconception about the formation of groups is that people join to boost their self-esteem. In other words, the argument is that the purpose of joining groups is to say “my group is better than your group.” Again, research disproves this theory, Brewer said.

“The basic underlying mechanism for ingroup favoritism is trust and security and not self-esteem,” she said.

Research has shown that when people are asked why their ingroup is better than other groups, they focus on traits such as trustworthiness, friendliness and kindness.

People don't necessarily say their group is wealthier or smarter or more successful than others.

“Most people are reality bound. They know if their group is not as good as others when it comes to things like wealth, and they won't pretend otherwise,” Brewer said.

“If people were just looking for self-enhancement, they would just say their group is the best at everything, and that isn't the case. What people are really looking for is trust and security.”

While conflict and hate don't need to be a part of group membership, a look at the news today shows that conflict does occur often, when groups battle over resources, or threats to identity or values.

When people are secure about their own identity and the identity of their group, and there is no competition for resources, conflict is not normally a problem. But if people are insecure about what their group means, or their place in it, they may support conflict as a way to enhance cohesion within the group, Brewer said.

That suggests that marginal members of a group – those who feel least included – will be the ones most concerned about keeping distance between groups and pushing hostility toward outgroups.

One way to minimize conflict between groups may be to take advantage of the fact that people belong to many groups with cross-cutting memberships, Brewer said. People have their national and racial identities, occupational and religious groups, school or alumni groups, as well as neighborhood, hobby and club affiliations.

“People have these different group identities and we've been working on ways to find out how people understand these memberships and how it affects their attitudes toward other groups,” she said.

“We do find that those people who have multiple identities and experience these identities in complex, cross-cutting ways, are indeed more accepting of diversity and have more positive feelings toward racial and religious outgroups. That suggests that there are psychological ways of breaking the boundaries of our small ingroup-outgroup distinctions.” #

Contact: Marilynn Brewer, (614) 292-9640; Brewer.64@osu.edu
Written by Jeff Grabmeier, (614) 292-8457; Grabmeier.1@osu.edu
Web: Ohio State University

Technorati Tags: and or and or Presidential Podcast 08/18/07 and Humpty Dumpty and Under magnetic force, nanoparticles may deliver gene therapy

Saturday, August 18, 2007

Freedom Calendar 8/18/07 - 8/25/07

August 18, 1920, Republican-authored 19th Amendment, giving women the vote, becomes part of Constitution; 26 of the 36 states to ratify had Republican-controlled legislatures.

August 19, 1862, Republican newspaper editor Horace Greeley writes Prayer of Twenty Millions, calling on President Lincoln to declare emancipation.

August 20, 1996, Bill authored by U.S. Rep. Susan Molinari (R-NY) to prohibit racial discrimination in adoptions, part of Republicans’ Contract With America, becomes law.

August 21, 1959, Republican James Kealoha becomes first Hawaiian and Chinese-American Lt. Governor of Hawaii, after Statehood.

August 22, 1867, Founding of Fisk University; named for Republican Clinton B. Fisk, Commissioner of Freedmen’s Bureau that assisted emancipated slaves.

August 23, 1882, At Texas Republican Party convention, over half of delegates are African-Americans.

August 24, 1985, Death of Hawaiian and Chinese-American Republican James Kealoha, first Lt. Governor of Hawaii after statehood.

August 25, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln authorizes enlistment of African-American soldiers in U.S. Army.

“This government will meet its responsibility to help those in need. But policies that increase dependency, break up families, and destroy self-respect are not progressive; they're reactionary. Despite our strides in civil rights, blacks, Hispanics, and all minorities will not have full and equal power until they have full economic power."

Ronald Reagan 40th President of the United States

Technorati Tags: and or and or and or and or and or or and or Ron Paul Recap Seven Videos, Seven Issues and Peter Pan and Gold nanoparticles may pan out as tool for cancer diagnosis

Presidential Podcast 08/18/07

Presidential Podcast Logo
Presidential Podcast 08/18/07 en Español. Subscribe to the Republican National Convention Blog Podcast Subscribe to Our Podcast feed or online Click here to Subscribe to Our Republican National Convention Blog Podcast Channel with Podnova podnova Podcast Channel and receive the weekly Presidential Radio Address in English and Spanish with select State Department Briefings. Featuring full audio and text transcripts, More content Sources added often so stay tuned.

Technorati Tags: and or and or Ron Paul Recap Seven Videos, Seven Issues and Peter Pan and Gold nanoparticles may pan out as tool for cancer diagnosis

Bush radio address 08/18/07 full audio, text transcript

President George W. Bush calls troops from his ranch in Crawford, Texas, Thanksgiving Day, Thursday, Nov. 24, 2005. White House photo by Eric Draper.bush radio address 08/18/07 full audio, text transcript. President's Radio Address en Español. In Focus: Iraq
Subscribe to the Republican National Convention Blog Podcast Subscribe to Our Podcast feed or online Click here to Subscribe to Republican National Convention Blog's PODCAST with podnova podnova Podcast Channel and receive the weekly Presidential Radio Address in English and Spanish with select State Department Briefings. Featuring real audio and full text transcripts, More content Sources added often so stay tuned.

In recent months, American and Iraqi forces have struck powerful blows against al Qaeda terrorists and violent extremists in Anbar and other provinces. In recent days, our troops and Iraqi allies launched a new offensive called Phantom Strike. In this offensive, we are carrying out targeted operations against terrorists and extremists fleeing Baghdad and other key cities -- to prevent them from returning or setting up new bases of operation. The terrorists remain dangerous and brutal, as we saw this week when they massacred more than 200 innocent Yezidis, a small religious minority in northwestern Iraq. Our hearts go out to the families of those killed, and our troops are going to go after the murderers behind this horrific attack.

As we surge combat operations to capture and kill the enemy, we are also surging Provincial Reconstruction Teams to promote political and economic progress. Since January, we have doubled the number of these teams, known as PRTs. They bring together military, civilian, and diplomatic personnel to help Iraqi communities rebuild infrastructure, create jobs, and encourage reconciliation from the ground up. These teams are now deployed throughout the country, and they are helping Iraqis make political gains, especially at the local level.
In Anbar province, at this time last year, the terrorists were in control of many areas and brutalizing the local population. Then local sheikhs joined with American forces to drive the terrorists out of Ramadi and other cities. Residents began to provide critical intelligence, and tribesmen joined the Iraqi police and security forces. Today, the provincial council in Ramadi is back, and last month provincial officials re-opened parts of the war-damaged government center with the help of one of our PRTs. Thirty-five local council members were present as the chairman called the body to order for its inaugural session.

Similar scenes are taking place in other parts of Anbar. Virtually every city and town in the province now has a mayor and a functioning municipal council. The rule of law is being restored. And last month, some 40 judges held a conference in Anbar to restart major criminal trials. In the far west town of al Qaim, tribal leaders turned against the terrorists. Today, those tribal leaders head the regional mayor's office and the local police force. Our PRT leader on the ground reports that al Qaim is seeing new construction, growing commercial activity, and an increasing number of young men volunteering for the Iraqi army and police.

In other provinces, there are also signs of progress from the bottom up. In Muthanna, an overwhelmingly Shia province, the local council held a public meeting to hear from citizens on how to spend their budget and rebuild their neighborhoods. In Diyala province, the city of Baqubah re-opened six of its banks, providing residents with much-needed capital for the local economy. And in Ninewa province, local officials have established a commission to investigate corruption, with a local judge empowered to pursue charges of fraud and racketeering.

Unfortunately, political progress at the national level has not matched the pace of progress at the local level. The Iraqi government in Baghdad has many important measures left to address, such as reforming the de-Baathification laws, organizing provincial elections, and passing a law to formalize the sharing of oil revenues. Yet, the Iraqi parliament has passed about 60 pieces of legislation.

And despite the lack of oil revenue law on the books, oil revenue sharing is taking place. The Iraqi parliament has allocated more than $2 billion in oil revenue for the provinces. And the Shia-led government in Baghdad is sharing a significant portion of these oil revenues with Sunni provincial leaders in places like Anbar.

America will continue to urge Iraq's leaders to meet the benchmarks they have set. Yet Americans can be encouraged by the progress and reconciliation that are taking place at the local level. An American politician once observed that "all politics is local." In a democracy, over time national politics reflects local realities. And as reconciliation occurs in local communities across Iraq, it will help create the conditions for reconciliation in Baghdad as well.

Thank you for listening.

Technorati Tags: and or and or Ron Paul Recap Seven Videos, Seven Issues and Peter Pan and Gold nanoparticles may pan out as tool for cancer diagnosis

Elisabeth's announcement

Discurso Radial del Presidente a la Nación 08/18/07

Presidente George W. Bush llama a tropas de su rancho en Crawford, Tejas, día de Thanksgiving, jueves, de noviembre el 24 de 2005.  Foto blanca de la casa de Eric Draper.forre el audio de la dirección de radio 08/18/07 por completo, transcripción del texto. (nota de los redactores: ninguna lengua española mp3 lanzó esta semana, apesadumbrada) PODCAST
Chascar aquí para suscribir a nuestro canal republicano de Blog Podcast de la convención nacional con Odeo Suscribir a nuestro canal de Podcast de Odeo o del podnova Chascar aquí para suscribir a nuestro canal republicano de Blog Podcast de la convención nacional con 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. En los últimos meses, fuerzas estadounidenses e iraquíes han dado fuertes golpes contra terroristas al-Qaeda y extremistas violentos en Anbar y otras provincias. En días recientes, nuestras tropas y aliados iraquíes lanzaron una nueva ofensiva llamada Phantom Strike (o Ataque Fantasma). En esta ofensiva estamos llevando a cabo operaciones específicas contra terroristas y extremistas que están huyendo de Bagdad y otras ciudades claves – para evitar que regresen o establezcan nuevas bases de operación. Los terroristas aún son peligrosos y despiadados – como vimos estas semana cuando masacraron a más de 200 inocentes yezidis, una pequeña minoría religiosa en el noroeste de Irak. Nuestros corazones se extienden a las familias de los muertos – y nuestras tropas irán en busca de los asesinos que cometieron este horrendo ataque.

Al tiempo que aumentamos las operaciones de combate para capturar y matar al enemigo, también estamos aumentando los Equipos Provinciales de Reconstrucción a fin de promover el progreso político y económico. Desde enero, hemos doblado el número de estos equipos, conocidos como PRT por sus siglas en inglés. Reúnen personal militar, civil y diplomático para ayudar a comunidades iraquíes a reconstruir infraestructura, crear empleos, y fomentar la reconciliación de abajo hacia arriba. Estos equipos actualmente están desplegados en todo el país, y están ayudando a los iraquíes a lograr ganancias políticas – especialmente al nivel local.

En la provincia de Anbar, por este tiempo el año pasado, los terroristas controlaban muchas áreas y brutalizaban a la población local. Entonces jeques locales se juntaron con fuerzas estadounidenses para expulsar a los terroristas de Ramadi y otras ciudades. Los residentes comenzaron a proporcionar inteligencia crítica y los miembros tribales se unieron a la policía Iraquí y las fuerzas de seguridad. Hoy en día, el consejo provincial en Ramadi está de regreso – y el mes pasado, con la ayuda de uno de nuestros PRT, oficiales provinciales re-abrieron partes del centro de gobierno que habían sufrido daños por la guerra. Treinta y cinco miembros del consejo local estuvieron presentes cuando el presidente llamó al orden su sesión inaugural.

Escenas similares están ocurriendo en otras partes de Anbar. Virtualmente toda ciudad y pueblo en la provincia ahora tiene un alcalde y un consejo municipal funcionando. El imperio de la ley se está restableciendo – y el mes pasado unos 40 jueces tuvieron una conferencia en Anbar para reiniciar juicios criminales importantes. En el pueblo lejano en el oeste del país llamado al Qaim, los líderes tribales se volcaron contra los terroristas. Hoy en día, esos líderes tribales encabezan la oficina del alcalde regional y el cuerpo de policía local. Nuestro líder PRT en el terreno informa que al Qaim está viendo nueva construcción, una actividad comercial creciente, y un número cada vez mayor de hombres jóvenes que se alistan en el ejército y la policía iraquí.

En otras provincias hay también señales de progreso de arriba hacia abajo. En Muthanna, una provincia en su mayoría Shia, el consejo local tuvo una reunión pública para escuchar de los ciudadanos cómo gastar su presupuesto y reconstruir sus vecindarios. En la provincia de Diyala, la ciudad de Baqubah re-abrió seis de sus bancos – proporcionando a los residentes capital muy necesario para la economía local. Y en la provincia de Ninewa, los oficiales locales han establecido una comisión para investigar la corrupción – con un juez local que tiene el poder para enjuiciar por fraude y actividades criminales organizadas.

Desafortunadamente, el progreso político a nivel nacional no ha estado a la par con el progreso al nivel local. El gobierno iraquí en Bagdad tiene muchas medidas importantes aún por atender – tales como reformar las leyes de des-Baatificación, organizar elecciones provinciales, y aprobar una ley para compartir los ingresos petrolíferos. Sin embargo, el parlamento iraquí ya ha aprobado unos 60 proyectos de ley – y a pesar de no haber en vigor una ley sobre ingresos petrolíferos, sí se están compartiendo los ingresos petrolíferos. El parlamento iraquí ha asignado más de 2 mil millones de dólares en ingresos petrolíferos para ser destinados a las provincias. Y el gobierno en Bagdad, encabezado por Shías, está compartiendo una porción importante de estos ingresos petrolíferos con líderes provinciales Sunii en lugares como Anbar.

Estados Unidos seguirá instando a los líderes de Irak para que cumplan con las metas que se han fijado. Sin embargo los estadounidenses pueden sentirse alentados por el progreso y la reconciliación que se están llevando a cabo a nivel local. Un político estadounidense una vez observó que “toda la política es local”. En una democracia, con el tiempo, la política nacional refleja las realidades locales. Y a medida que ocurra la reconciliación en las comunidades locales a lo largo de Irak, ayudará a crear las condiciones para reconciliación en Bagdad también.

Gracias por escuchar.

Para su publicación inmediata Oficina del Secretario de Prensa 18 de agosto de 2007

Etiquetas De Technorati: , y and or Ron Paul Recap Seven Videos, Seven Issues and Peter Pan and Gold nanoparticles may pan out as tool for cancer diagnosis

Friday, August 17, 2007

Ron Paul Recap Seven Videos, Seven Issues

YouChoose 08 Spotlight Recap Seven Videos, Seven Issues, Paid for by Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee

Working Americans like lower taxes. So do I. Lower taxes benefit all of us, creating jobs and allowing us to make more decisions for ourselves about our lives.

Whether a tax cut reduces a single mother’s payroll taxes by $40 a month or allows a business owner to save thousands in capital gains taxes and hire more employees, that tax cut is a good thing. Lower taxes allow more spending, saving, and investing which helps the economy — that means all of us.

Real conservatives have always supported low taxes and low spending.

But today, too many politicians and lobbyists are spending America into ruin. We are nine trillion dollars in debt as a nation. Our mounting government debt endangers the financial future of our children and grandchildren. If we don’t cut spending now, higher taxes and economic disaster will be in their future — and yours.

In addition, the Federal Reserve, our central bank, fosters runaway debt by increasing the money supply — making each dollar in your pocket worth less. The Fed is a private bank run by unelected officials who are not required to be open or accountable to “we the people.”

Worse, our economy and our very independence as a nation is increasingly in the hands of foreign governments such as China and Saudi Arabia, because their central banks also finance our runaway spending.

We cannot continue to allow private banks, wasteful agencies, lobbyists, corporations on welfare, and governments collecting foreign aid to dictate the size of our ballooning budget. We need a new method to prioritize our spending. It’s called the Constitution of the United States.

Technorati Tags: or or Rudy Giuliani “Fence” PODCAST and Elvis Aaron Presley and Nanotechnology study will explore better immediate pain relief for soldiers

Thursday, August 16, 2007

Rudy Giuliani “Fence” PODCAST

RUDY GIULIANI RADIO AD 'Fence'RUDY GIULIANI RADIO AD “Fence” PODCAST OF THIS ARTICLE

VOICE OVER: “Here’s Rudy Giuliani.”

RUDY GIULIANI: “It frustrates me that if someone comes here illegally,
in addition to everything else that’s involved in that, if they commit a crime, we don’t throw them out of the country.

As the mayor of New York I wanted to see if I could get the Immigration Service to help me. Let’s see if you could get rid of the drug dealers who are coming out of jail. It makes no sense – after they have been in jail for selling drugs in the United States – we now have to keep them in the United States.

They couldn’t do it because they had other people lined up to throw out. They had like a professor who over-stayed his visa. I had a drug dealer who had maybe killed people. A person who comes here illegally and commits a crime should be thrown out of the country.

People that come in illegally we gotta stop. You stop illegal immigration by building a fence, a physical fence and then a technological fence. You then hire enough Border Patrol so they can respond in a timely way. And then, if anybody becomes a citizen, we should make certain that they can read English, write English and speak English, because this is an English speaking country."

BACKGROUND:

Suspect In Newark, NJ Murders Of Three College-Bound Students Is Illegal Immigrant With Violent Criminal History. “As police continued to search for additional suspects in the execution-style killings of three young people in Newark, the debate over the immigration status of one of those already arrested picked up political steam. … One suspect, 28-year-old Jose Carranza, was an illegal immigrant from Peru who was granted bail earlier this year when he was charged with assault and child rape.” (Jeffrey Gold, “Immigration Politics Swirling About Killings In Newark Schoolyard,” The Associated Press, 8/13/07)

Illegal Immigrant In Tennessee Raped 15-Year-Old Girl Hours After Being Released From Jail After Federal Government Failed To Deport Him. “Maury County deputies and federal agents are looking for a man who is accused of raping a 15-year-old girl only hours after being released from jail. … [Juan] Villa is suspected of being in the country illegally and [Sheriff Enoch] George said the department had contacted Immigration and Customs Enforcement about him before he was released from jail but the federal agents said they would deal with him later.” (“Man Accused Of Rape Hours After He Left Jail,” The Associated Press, 7/4/07)

As Mayor, Giuliani Said INS Failed To Deport Most Criminal Illegals, Even Though NYC Officials Gave Them Names. Giuliani: “We just happened to check the numbers and in this part of the state, there were only about 776 deportations last year of people. … Now we send thousands and thousands of names of illegal and undocumented aliens to the INS who have committed crimes. Either accused or convicted of committing crimes. So literally sitting at the INS is a pile maybe this big of names of people who have committed crimes and last year they got around to deporting seven to eight hundred of them. So before there are obligations placed on [city of New York], to turn over the names of children in school or their parents or people who use public hospitals, I’d like to see the Immigration and Naturalization Service dealing with people who commit crimes.” (Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Joint Press Conference With Governor Pete Wilson [R-CA], New York, NY, 3/29/95)

Giuliani Called On Federal Government To Focus On Deporting Illegal Drug Dealers. Giuliani: “What the federal government could do is to deport more of the illegal drug dealers that we have in our city which … unfortunately, very few deportations take place of the people who are actually selling drugs who are illegal immigrants and that would be very helpful.” (CBS’ “Face The Nation,” 9/22/96)

St. John Fisher College Professor Ordered To Be Deported For Overstaying Visa. “Until three weeks ago, John Dwyer was teaching computer science at St. John Fisher College as a visiting professor from England. Tomorrow, however, Dwyer must return home. Immigration and Naturalization Service officials have threatened to deport him if he does not leave, because he does not have the proper authorization to hold a job in the United States. … Immigration officials say Dwyer's case is clear-cut: He had the immigration papers for a tourist, not for someone coming here for a job. … There is a visa that allows specialists to teach in the United States at a college's request. Dwyer, who previously taught for six years at the City University of New York, hopes that the college will initiate the process for what is called the ‘H visa.’ He has suggested that the college push for such a visa, he said, but officials have yet to do so.” (Gary Craig and Donna Jackel, “INS Says Fisher Professor Must Go,” Rochester Democrat And Chronicle, 3/4/00)

In Court Filings, New York City Lawyers Noted INS’s Failure To Deport More Than A Small Portion Of 4,000 Illegal Aliens In City Jails. “By the mid-1990s, officials estimated that more than 500,000 undocumented aliens resided in New York State, 80 percent of them in New York City. The city's lawyers said information on more than 4,000 undocumented aliens who pass through city jails annually is shared with INS, but that the federal agency deports only 200 to 300 of that group.” (Gaylord Shaw, “Giuliani Vs. Reno In High Court?” Newsday, 10/3/99; City of New York v. United States, 179 F.3d 29, Appellant’s Brief [2d Cir. Jan. 9, 1998])

Giuliani Is Calling For Physical And Technological Fences To Be Built Along Border. Giuliani: “So everything else has to kind of serve that purpose. A fence – a physical fence – very effective. A technological fence, in certain places [will be] very, very effective; meaning, photographic technology, heat sensing technology, different kinds of technology, all toward the goal of identifying everyone coming in to the United States.” (Rudy Giuliani, Interview With John Fleischman, 3/26/07)

Giuliani: “We Have To Beef Up Border Security … We Have To Have A Much Larger Border Patrol And They Have To Be Trained In Being Able To Stop People.” (Rudy Giuliani, Interview With WOC Radio, Davenport, IA, 6/4/07)

Technorati Tags: and or or Mitt Romney "Thanks Iowa" VIDEO and The Wonderful Wizard of Oz and Department of Defense awards $1.6 million for implantable biochip research

Wednesday, August 15, 2007

Mitt Romney "Thanks Iowa" VIDEO

Romney For President Launches New Iowa Television Ad, "Thanks Iowa"

Boston, MA – Today, Romney for President launched its newest television ad, "Thanks Iowa." The ad features Governor Romney's call for change in Washington on Saturday at the Iowa Republican Straw Poll in Ames.
Governor Romney won the Straw Poll with 4,516 (31.5 percent) votes. The first step toward bringing change to Washington began on Saturday in Iowa.

The ad will begin airing as part of the campaign's rotation today in Iowa. Script and viewing link are below.

Script For "Thanks Iowa" (TV:30):

GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: "If there's ever been a time that we needed to see change in Washington, it's now.

"First of all, I want to strengthen our military and then strengthen our economy and strengthen our families.

"I will secure our border, and amnesty will not work.

"I want to strengthen marriage...

"Keep our taxes down, keep government small...

"And keep America always the hope of the Earth...

"Change begins in Iowa and change begins today.

"Thank you so very much!

"I'm Mitt Romney and I approved this message."

Wednesday, Aug 15, 2007 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, CONTACT: Kevin Madden (857) 288-6390

Technorati Tags: and or and or State Department Daily Press Briefing, 08/14/07 (VIDEO, PODCAST) and Yankee Stadium, Phil Rizzuto Tribute and Graphene sniffs out dangerous molecules

Tuesday, August 14, 2007

State Department Daily Press Briefing, 08/14/07 (VIDEO, PODCAST)

Daily Press Briefing, Spokesman Sean McCormack, FULL STREAMING VIDEO file is windows media format, running time is 19:38, PODCAST of Briefing mp3 format for download. Washington, DC, August 14, 2007, 12:30 p.m. EST.

MR. MCCORMACK: Good afternoon, everybody. We can jump right into your questions, whoever wants to start off.

QUESTION: I've forgotten what I was going to -- (laughter).
MR. MCCORMACK: We'll start with someone else. (Laughter.) Oh, my goodness. I wish I could use that, Matt. (Laughter.) God, I forgot. I knew it. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Can you update us on Under Secretary Burns' travel plans, Assistant Secretary Welch's travels plans and, you know, all the questions we asked you this morning?

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: And then is there anything to -- are there any additional meetings planned between either Assistant Secretary Hill and the North Koreans or some other U.S. team and the North Koreans other than the working group talks that we know about this week?

MR. MCCORMACK: All right.

QUESTION: That was my question. (Laughter.)

MR. MCCORMACK: Nick is going to be traveling, I think -- I don't know exactly when he's going to be leaving, but the 15th through the 17th he's going to travel to Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. He's going to be talking to the Israelis about the proposed $30 billion agreement that we have, talk about the terms of that. I'm sure he's also going to discuss some other strategic issues in the bilateral relationship as well as to talk about issues in the neighborhood.

David's travel -- David Welch's travel -- I don't have an update for you.

Who else were you asking for an update?

QUESTION: Hill.

MR. MCCORMACK: Hill? He is currently -- he's currently in Beijing. He had more bilateral discussions with the Chinese concerning the six-party talks. I think he's going to be traveling to Shenyang for the denuclearization talks. Let me get the dates here -- 16th -- August 16th through 17th. So he'll be up in Shenyang. I think it might take a -- take him a day to get there, so probably tomorrow will be a travel day for him.

Then what else were -- what else were we talking about?

QUESTION: Any --

QUESTION: Boucher?

QUESTION: Any -- well, actually, let's just finish up with -- any other U.S.-North Korean talks planned?

MR. MCCORMACK: Not outside the six-party talks. So in Shenyang it's going to be a denuclearization working group with, I assume, the North Korean representatives there. Chris had previously met -- I think it was yesterday -- met with Kim Gye Gwan, his six-party talk counterpart, in Beijing. I don't think Kim Gye Gwan is going to be in Shenyang. I think they're going to have somebody else there.

He plans from the Shenyang meeting to come back here to the United States, no onward --

QUESTION: He will not go to North Korea on this trip?

MR. MCCORMACK: No, no onward travel plans. Come right back here.

And then, Charlie, you have Richard?

QUESTION: Boucher?

MR. MCCORMACK: Richard -- Richard is heading for the region. I don't have a schedule for you, but he should be in his area of responsibility over the next couple of days.

QUESTION: His area of responsibility is huge, obviously, so can you --

MR. MCCORMACK: We'll try to make --

QUESTION: -- can you try to make an inquiry if it's South Asia or Central Asia, whether it's --

QUESTION: Google Earth.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, we'll try to -- that's right. Yeah, we'll try to refine that for you. Yeah.

QUESTION: Can you talk about Nick's onward travel from Tel Aviv?

MR. MCCORMACK: No, he's just going to come back here.

QUESTION: When the Chris met with Kim Gye Gwan, North Korean delegation, yesterday in (inaudible), does the -- is there any particular issue, such as like peace treaty issue, he raised?

MR. MCCORMACK: I think he -- well, you know -- you know what I know from reading the transcripts. I haven't spoken with him. But if you look -- if you take a look at his public comments about his meetings with Kim Gye Gwan, they talked about the next phase of the agreement, which involves a full declaration by North Korea of all their nuclear programs as well as disablement of the Yongbyon facility. So that is really the focus of their discussions. I'm not sure what the North Korean side brought up. I'm sure that they brought up some issues, as well. But the focus really is on that next phase: disablement and full declaration.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yep.

QUESTION: North Korea?

MR. MCCORMACK: We'll get back to you. Yeah, mm-hmm.

Go ahead, Param.

QUESTION: Kim Jong Il invited the New York Philharmonic to play in Pyongyang, and basically they are mulling this invitation. And where do you see this leading? They can go to Pyongyang?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't know. I don't know if there are any particular restrictions on the Philharmonic’s travel there. It's a technical question. I'd have to look into it. I think it'd be fully up to them whether or not they accept such an invitation. As for the details of being able to go there and whether there's any compensation, that sort of thing, those are probably technical details that I'd have to get you an answer on if you're interested in it.

QUESTION: But do you believe this could help strengthen ties?

MR. MCCORMACK: No -- I'm not sure, Param. (Laughter.) Look, you know, the focus -- you know, the focus of our efforts are really on the six-party talks. I'm not sure either -- whether or not your average North Korean gets an invitation if the New York Philharmonic's in Pyongyang. I have my doubts about that. So I think, you know, it's really up to the Philharmonic whether or not they accept such an invitation.

QUESTION: Have they talked to you about it? I know -- could you check? I can't imagine that they would --

MR. MCCORMACK: Oh, I'll check, yeah.

QUESTION: Why don't you check? I can't imagine that they would even consider it without first talking to the State Department to --

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, I'll be happy to check.

QUESTION: Could you also check to see if the -- you might have any suggested pieces that they would play? (Laughter.) 1812 Overture or that kind of thing?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, yeah.

QUESTION: Are there many devotees of classical music in Pyongyang?

MR. MCCORMACK: You know, I don't know. Don't know; didn't hear much of the -- much classical music when I was there.

QUESTION: First of all, the North Korean Government continue to say denuclearization issue is only, you know, reserved with the U.S. and North Korea issues. How did you think about that?

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm not sure I get the point. You're talking about the Trading with the Enemy Act and all of that?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. MCCORMACK: What we have said about that is, that's part of the discussion in the U.S.-North Korea bilateral working group, and we will work on those issues in their own right, on their own merits. Certainly, our actions and our movement on those issues, which I know are of interest to North Korea, will be informed about how overall progress is going in the six-party talks. So I don't think you can neatly separate those things out inasmuch as they -- those discussions are taking place within the context of the six-party talks.

Yep, Elise.

QUESTION: Sean, also on North Korea.

MR. MCCORMACK: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Have you reached out to the North Korean Government, or have they reached out to you, through the New York channel or any other channels about the floods and what the U.S. could or would be prepared --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: -- to do to help out?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I know that they have contacted the UN, and there have been some reports of severe flooding in North Korea, and a number of North Koreans have lost their houses or are in dire humanitarian straits. We'll take a look at what we might do with respect to humanitarian assistance through UN channels. I don't know that our folks have yet been in contact with the UN about that. But we'll certainly take a look at it as a humanitarian gesture. I don't know if there's a need for anything that we might be able to provide, but we'll take a look.

Yeah, Matt.

QUESTION: Did you -- were you able to look into the Lebanon question, the question of the military assistance?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah. Did we -- Gonz, did we get an answer?

MR. GALLEGOS: Not yet.

MR. MCCORMACK: We didn't get an answer?

QUESTION: Hmm.

MR. MCCORMACK: We will endeavor to post an answer for you.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Did you get an answer on the rough numbers of U.S. Foreign Service officers in Baghdad and Kabul?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, Baghdad, it's about 200; and Kabul, it's about 100. Right around there, give or take.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Turkey's ruling party has re-nominated Foreign Minister Gul as presidential candidate. Any comments?

MR. MCCORMACK: A matter for their internal domestic politics, for -- I guess, at this point, the Turkish parliament to decide upon who will be the next Turkish president. We have full faith in Turkey's secular democracy, but it's going to be a decision for them to take.

QUESTION: Just for clarification, going back to the Baghdad-Kabul question. The 200, and I believe you said Kabul was 100 --

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- is specifically related to -- what's the exact question?

MR. MCCORMACK: Oh, okay. We can go through it -- we can go through all this again. There was a -- there was a story that I think came out yesterday about a internal State Department study that looked at the effects of unaccompanied tours on our Foreign Service officers as well as their families. And this is done in the context of whether or not we have employees that are in need of any additional counseling or help or support who have done these unaccompanied tours. That's not exclusively to Iraq and Afghanistan. There are a number of other posts and I don't have the complete list here, where people serve unaccompanied.

So the idea is, it's the second part to a study that the State Department has undertaken. The first part was done by our Family Liaison Office, trying to take a look at what are the effects on families, spouses as well as children, of having loved ones serve and serve abroad alone for a year or more.

This took a look at the employee side of it. And the survey was done over the course of several weeks back in June. And the findings were that roughly about 2 percent of the people who had served at accompanied posts have suffered from what our medical folks would describe as post-traumatic stress disorder, and possibly an additional 15 percent might. So you have a universe there of potentially about 17 percent of the people that served in these unaccompanied tours suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder.

Now, we're trying to tease out of all that data the statistics for individual posts and we've hired some statisticians to do that, to take a look at the methodology and make sure that it is -- the methodology is rigorous and that we have an accurate picture of our folks serving overseas and what kind of stresses are involved in serving in these unaccompanied posts.

The Secretary's bottom line is if our people need additional help or support or counseling as a result of serving in these kind of very difficult posts, then they're going to get it. And that has been -- and that has -- we have taken a number of different steps in terms of our counseling employees, both prior to going out to these posts as well as coming back. We have now a mandatory outbrief with people that have served at these unaccompanied posts and talking to them, talking to them about the services, counseling services that are available, the support group services that are available to them.

This is something, by the way, that has been available to folks since, I think, about 2004, is -- it is out there for them to take advantage of, if they wanted to. Now it's mandatory. And we are also taking a look at how we might find a more formal program that involves counseling, support, support groups, advice to folks and families that are both outgoing and inbound from these posts.

Now I know that -- I know and I've seen the reports that there have been some from AFSA. The American Foreign Service Association have cited a number of 40 percent of people in -- I believe it was Iraq that are suffering from PTSD. You know, I can't confirm those numbers. I mean, what we want to do is make sure that we have a rigorous methodology in making sure that we are sure of our numbers. Certainly, you know, I don't -- I have no idea what their methodology was and what -- on what basis they came up with that figure. I know that was sworn testimony, so you might ask them where they got those numbers, but we're going to make sure that -- and they may or may not be right. I don't know. But we really want to make sure that we get accurate numbers.

QUESTION: Sean, do you --

QUESTION: So, coming full circle, the 200 in Baghdad were the number that participated in the survey.

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't have the numbers of people that have participated in the survey. I can't tell you. Baghdad and Kabul were a subset --

QUESTION: Right.

MR. MCCORMACK: -- of the overall survey of people that served at unaccompanied posts.

QUESTION: Sean, do you --

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- attribute -- I know these are unaccompanied posts, but these are also posts where -- you know, obviously, there's a larger level of violence and trauma on the ground, so are you attributing the post-traumatic stress disorder to the fact that they're unaccompanied and not living with their families for a long time or the fact that they're seeing a lot more of violence and -- you know, their colleagues being killed or things like that --

MR. MCCORMACK: Well --

QUESTION: -- on the ground?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, you know, first of all, I'm not a medical professional. I can't tell you -- I can't tell you the various sources of stresses. And again, we have to understand what, in each of the posts, the kinds of stress at each of the posts and what the results are. You know, I can't tell you. I can't tell you, Elise.

I can tell you that Secretary Rice expects that this Foreign Service and this State Department, under her leadership, is going to be more expeditionary. And I think we've seen that. We've seen people get out from -- get out from behind their desk in embassies more and more. Not to say that folks writing cables or reports aren't doing valuable work; they are. But she also wants to make sure that people are out beyond the wire, that they're out doing, not just writing about what others are doing. And along with that sometimes will come additional needs in terms of supporting those people.

And she has also made the commitment that Department resources are going to be placed in support of those people. And if -- and there are a lot of people who serve in these very difficult positions who don't need counseling, don't need to go to support groups afterwards. Some do. And if they need to and if that's what they want, then that's what they're going to get.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Mr. McCormack, on Kosovo, despite the fact that yesterday, you made a lot of statements, I was wondering, how do you respond to bunch of Albanian reports that somehow, U.S., Serbia, and Kosovars agreed on partition of Kosovo?

MR. MCCORMACK: I can't account for it. I don't know. I can tell you what our position is. You know, I would steer you away from that being the takeaway from the troika meeting.

QUESTION: So in other words, you are insisting on the Ahtisaari plan?

MR. MCCORMACK: Our position continues to be independence for Kosovo based on the Ahtisaari plan.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. MCCORMACK: All right. Param.

QUESTION: The Iranian President is in Afghanistan again rejecting U.S. claims that they have been supplying arms to the Taliban and --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: -- contrary to what the Pentagon had said, the President had said.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. Also -- he also seemed to be a bit confused. He didn't seem to be aware of what was going on in his own government. I don't know if that's good or bad. But our folks who have done the analysis, the folks in the military, are pretty sure -- they are sure of their facts and they wouldn't have come out and said the things they did without being sure of their facts. So if he doesn't know what's going on in his government, he might want to check out to see what is going on in his government. And if he's just dissembling in public, well, not much I can say about that.

Yeah.

QUESTION: It's a bit late in the day for this question, I apologize, but the Obama comments on speaking to the leaders of --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: -- rogue states, can I have --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: -- a reaction to that?

MR. MCCORMACK: In speaking to the leaders --

QUESTION: To the leaders of rogue nations without precondition.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, that's all taken place in the context of a presidential campaign. I am not going to, at this point or any later date, dive into presidential politics. In terms of engaging states around the world, you know our policies. We can go through one by one.

With respect to Iran, we've made an offer. We'll see if they meet the conditions that have been laid out not only by us, but by others. With respect to North Korea, which is another state that often comes up in this context, we are engaged in a multilateral discussion with North Korea. You can go down the list. We have diplomatic relations with Syria. We have diplomatic relations with Venezuela. We'd like to have good -- better relations with those states, merely moving beyond the formality of having diplomatic relations. And we've made it clear to them that we want to do that, but you also have to have an overlap in interests as well as an overlap in action. I think we have gone quite a ways in engaging many of these states, including Syria, in the interest of furthering our foreign policy goals. In many cases, we just haven't seen an answer either in words or action from these states.

QUESTION: What about the comments on Pakistan? Do you --

MR. MCCORMACK: This is --

QUESTION: -- think those kind of comments are dangerous, you know, that the U.S. would act if Musharraf --

MR. MCCORMACK: You know, again, that's -- you know, that's presidential politics. I can tell you how we view the situation. We view the situation as one in which if there is actionable intelligence on high-value targets, wherever they may be, that we are going to do everything that we can to act on that information. And we are confident that we will be able to do that in such a way that we don't harm our relations with any states that may be in question, whether that's Pakistan, Afghanistan or some other state.

QUESTION: But do you think, in general, these kind of comments are ill-advised by any presidential candidates who think -- they're out there --

MR. MCCORMACK: Like I said -- like I said before on this question, there's a thing called free speech in presidential campaigns in the United States. There's also a thing called the Executive Branch and we have responsibility for the foreign policy of the United States, and I don't think anybody's going to confuse those two things.

Yeah.

QUESTION: I was wondering if you have anything to say on the Secretary being named the most powerful person in Washington on GQ's list? Has she seen it? Any comments about it?

MR. MCCORMACK: (Laughter.) I guess -- you know, I guess GQ feels as though she can sell a few magazines. I don't have any. These lists come out all the time. I would note, however, that the State Department, out of the top 50, had three people placed on that list: Gamal Helal, Nick Burns, and Secretary Rice.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Gamal was on there?

QUESTION: Gollust.

QUESTION: Human Rights Watch this week accused --

MR. MCCORMACK: Maybe we should have taken that. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Okay. Human Rights Watch this week accused Ethiopia and the interim authorities in Somalia of severe human rights abuses in the conflict there, and I'm wondering whether this is something that's on the U.S. agenda with either or both of them.

MR. MCCORMACK: I haven't seen the report, Dave. I'm happy to track down an answer for you.

Yeah, all right.

(The briefing was concluded at 12:50 p.m.)

DPB # 144

Released on August 14, 2007

Technorati Tags: and or and or Karl Rove Resignation VIDEO and The Berlin Wall and UCLA's California NanoSystems Institute Partners with Abraxis BioScience to Develop New Nanobiotechnologies