Situation At U.S. Embassy Belgrade VIDEO

On-The-Record Briefing: The Situation At U.S. Embassy Belgrade FULL STREAMING VIDEO Special Briefing, Sean McCormack, Spokesman Washington, DC. February 21, 2008 (5:18 p.m. EST) PODCAST OF THIS ARTICLE

MR. MCCORMACK: Good afternoon, everybody. I wanted to provide you an update on where we stand with respect to the attack on our embassy in Belgrade. I’m pleased to report that the perimeter has been secured with the assistance of Serbian security forces. Our security personnel are either still conducting or have finished a security sweep of the embassy compound itself. We are in control of the embassy compound itself. All of our American staff are safe and accounted for.

And I would also just point out to you that this is an example of the professional and bravery of our personnel doing their jobs, doing them in the right way, having taken the proper security precautions early in the day, closing the embassy at noontime to ensure that we didn’t have tens or hundreds of people in or around the embassy. This could very well have been a situation where we had full staff at the embassy and visitors trying to get into the embassy, but because of the foresight of our Ambassador and his team there to close the embassy at noontime local -- and the only people present during this entire episode on the embassy grounds were our security personnel, the regional security officers and their team, the Marine Security Guards, some communicators as well as a handful of other American as well as local staff.

And just one note for you; Secretary Rice is, right about now, talking to Ambassador Munter on the ground to talk to him about the security situation, talk to him about the political situation, and also to praise him and his team for their professionalism as well as bravery during this episode. So that’s where things stand at the moment. I’m happy to take any questions that you guys may have.

QUESTION: Did the Secretary brief President Bush?

MR. MCCORMACK: I’m not sure. They’re both on Air Force One en route back to Washington here, so at any given time, they’re no more than about 30 feet from one another, but I don’t know that as a fact.

QUESTION: Do you know if she plans to reach out to any members of the Serbian Government to complain about some of the security in front of the embassy or anything like that?

MR. MCCORMACK: We’ll see in the days ahead. I can give you a little bit of tick-tock during the day in terms of how we responded to this. At about – the Secretary spoke with Nick Burns at about 1 o’clock our time here, he briefed her on the situation, he – she directed him to call the Serbian Prime Minister as well as the Serbian Foreign Minister. The message was very clear that the situation was intolerable, that they need to – needed to act immediately to provide the adequate security forces so that our embassy compound and our personnel were not under attack.

He made it very clear to the Foreign Minister that we would hold the Serbian Government personally responsible for the safety and well-being of our embassy employees. He noted that – in these phone calls, that the security that was provided was completely inadequate to the task and that we expected them to act immediately and that we did not expect a repeat of the situation in the future. We received assurances from the Prime Minister, Prime Minister Kostunica, that there would not be a repeat of this episode and we will hold them to that.

QUESTION: What was our level of --

QUESTION: You said that you’re going to hold this personally responsible – he said he was going to hold the Foreign Minister – do you want to --

MR. MCCORMACK: He will --

QUESTION: He will hold him personally?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes, we would hold them personally responsible, yes, for the safety and well-being of our individual – of our embassy staff, yes.

QUESTION: And they were not, at that point, providing the security you thought was necessary?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I think there’s going to be plenty of time for the forensics here of exactly what happened, but the bottom line is that the security present at the time of the protestors approaching our embassy was inadequate. Whether – you know, we will see in the, sort of, days – days ahead exactly what happened and why the protestors were able to get as close to our embassy as they were and able to actually breach the outer wall of the embassy and actually breach one of the outer doors of the embassy building.

Now, they were never able to breach the so-called hardline, the secure area, so in essence, they got to part of the building that was, you know, reception areas and not the secure parts of the embassy. To correct one thing that I said during the noon briefing, it was not actually the consulate building that was occupied. It was the chancery – the chancery building where the main offices are. I’d put that down to – you know, first reports are never entirely accurate.

QUESTION: Can you talk about this – apparently the discovery of a charred body in the embassy?

MR. MCCORMACK: We received a report from the Belgrade fire officials that they found a burned body in an unoccupied – what has been described to me as an unoccupied area of one of the embassy buildings. I don’t have any more information as to the exact location than that.

QUESTION: Not in the same place that the people – that the --

MR. MCCORMACK: Around the same areas, yes. I don’t know who this was. I can tell you that it was not an American and we’re currently in discussions with Serbian authorities about how to complete an investigation.

QUESTION: And it was not an embassy employee either?

MR. MCCORMACK: To my knowledge. One thing I know for certain is that all Americans are safe and accounted for. I have not heard the same about all embassy employees. I don’t have any reason to believe at this point that the victim was an embassy employee, but I can’t tell you that I have a report that all embassy employees – all locally employed staff are safe and accounted for.

QUESTION: The cause of death on that --

MR. MCCORMACK: I can’t tell you, but I – apparently, according to the Serbian authorities, it was a burned body.

QUESTION: You said an unoccupied bit of – was it like a shed or something or is this --

MR. MCCORMACK: I’m trying to nail down all the details for you. I have not been able to look at a map and see exactly where all the breaches took place and where they found this body. I’ll try to -- as we go through this, I’ll try to nail that down for you.

Dave.

QUESTION: Sean, you said that the police presence was inadequate. There’s some wire reports that they were nowhere onsite. Is – which is kind of --

MR. MCCORMACK: We’ll see, Dave. That’s a bottom line assessment. I mean, the bottom line is that there weren’t adequate security forces there. I can’t tell you whether that was a matter of numbers or will or capabilities. We’ll see in the days ahead. I don’t know exactly where they were. I believe, at least from the reports that I've gotten thus far, that they were in the area. They were in the area. I can't tell you exactly what that means and how far away they were, but they were in the area.

Yeah, Daniel.

QUESTION: We began this week with the -- with Under Secretary Burns talking about an outreach to Serbia and so on. We've now had one of the greatest exertions of U.S. Embassy property for some time. In that context, how come -- how do you see the continued outreach to Serbia? Is that something that just continues as if this didn't happen?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, as far as we're concerned, we're going to move forward on the political track. We're going to continue our outreach and we would continue to urge our European friends and allies with their outreach to Serbia, so that they do have a political horizon. We've been very clear, as I've conveyed to you, our thoughts and views about the responsibilities of the Serbian Government to provide adequate protection for our Embassy compound there. That's an international obligation that they have, that we have, that every other signatory of the Vienna Convention has. So that is an obligation that they must meet.

Furthermore, they bear a responsibility to ensure that there is not, on the part of their ministers and their officials, an incitement of violence. We have seen a lot of disturbing reports about statements by Serbian Government officials, even including a minister, about incitement to violence. That has to cease. And Nick Burns in his calls with the Serbian Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister conveyed that message. There cannot be an incitement to violence. We are interested in a political dialogue with the Serbian Government; the European Union is interested in a political dialogue with the Serbian Government. It's very clear there are differences with respect to the action that we took to recognize Kosovo and the action that others have taken to recognize Kosovo. We can talk about that. But none of that -- none of those disagreements are an excuse or a justification to incite others to violence.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Is it fair to say, therefore, that you’re worried that they have -- may have incited violence and that you consider that they may have, or that they have --

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm not trying to draw a linkage between -- necessarily between today's action and previous statements. But there have been, for example -- I was talking to Dan Fried -- he conveyed to me various statements that the Minister of Interior or the Minister for Kosovo Affairs, had made -- regarding -- inciting others to attack facilities in or around Kosovo. That's unacceptable. You can't have that sort of atmosphere when you are working through a very sensitive time, politically charged time, an emotional time. The government needs to act in a responsible manner. It’s one thing to have peaceful protests. It’s one thing to vigorously defend a point of view. And it’s one thing to make it very clear through diplomatic channels your sharp disagreement with the actions that we or others have taken. It is quite another thing to condone or to encourage statements that would incite others to violence.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Sean, can you just sum up the scope of the damage to the embassy? I was confused watching the pictures on TV. And what’s the expectation for the coming days? I imagine it’s going to remain closed?

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. The embassy will remain closed Friday as well as Monday. We’re currently doing a damage assessment, so I can’t offer you, sort of, an assessment of – exactly of the extent of the damage. I would expect in the coming days, we’ll probably have something on that.

QUESTION: Where was the fire again?

MR. MCCORMACK: I believe it was in the actual chancery building. It was not in the consular building as we talked about.

QUESTION: And you said they never got past reception, so was it (inaudible)?

MR. MCCORMACK: They never got past the hardline.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. MCCORMACK: For those – I know that that’s sort of an insider’s term, but for those of you who have been to embassies, that’s the secure line where you see the Marine Security Guard and he will – he or she will allow you in to the actual embassy office space where the most sensitive and secure activities take place.

QUESTION: Didn’t you say that before they went into this secure room that they were able to secure all of the sensitive documents that they would have needed to?

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. They – the – our folks acted strictly according to the book. They did their jobs. They did them professionally. And they were able to make sure that there was no compromise of any sensitive materials.

Yeah, Charlie.

QUESTION: Sean, you talked earlier about the foresight of embassy officials. Why wasn’t something like this part of that planning and the discussion that a massive demonstration like this might turn bad, might turn ugly?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, they did know that there was going to be this very large protest today and it was actually yesterday that Cameron Munter, Ambassador Munter and his team took the decision to close the embassy today at noontime. So they anticipated that there was going to be a large protest, they anticipated that there could be some difficulties in terms of people getting home. And it’s all – they also decided that it was just prudent to not have our embassy staff at the embassy, just in the case that the embassy became a focus of some protestors and also, looking – looking, you know, in their view, on the off chance that there was some violence. And those prudent steps that they took proved to have great foresight and it’s one of the reasons why we didn’t have a greater threat to our personnel. And it was only that small number of security and other officials who were at the embassy today.

QUESTION: So in the planning looking ahead, was there contact made with Serbian officials to make sure (inaudible)?

MR. MCCORMACK: We have been – we – yes, we have been talking to them throughout this entire period, particularly after our recognition of Kosovo, about security issues. And I have to say prior to today’s incident, they have actually been providing very good and adequate security protection around the embassy area. And as a matter of fact, I think just yesterday, I talked about the fact that they have been providing this security and we appreciated that fact. Now, we need to see a similar kind of commitment to ensuring that we don’t have a repeat of today.

QUESTION: Sean, did it take the call from Nick Burns to the Serbs to get the kind of response and the kind of protection that you think you needed?

MR. MCCORMACK: I can’t get inside that decision. I think if you look just a little bit of --

QUESTION: A timeline, though, would suggest that.

MR. MCCORMACK: Just a little bit of tick-tock for you here. The protest began about 6:50 local time and it lasted approximately two hours. It was about two hours later that you actually had the perimeter secured. You’ll have to talk to the Serbian officials about exactly what their motivations were, whether or not it was our calls that prompted them to deploy more or more capable security forces or whether this is something that they saw on their own.

QUESTION: What sort of assurances did they give you that this – that they’d --

MR. MCCORMACK: They assured us that we would not see a repeat of this.

QUESTION: Was that when you had Serbian citizens breaching the compound for two hours? They were actually inside for two hours?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, that I can’t say. The 6:50 time is when the protest began. I haven’t yet been able to get a more detailed --

QUESTION: Outside the embassy?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah. I haven’t yet been able to get a more detailed tick-tock for you exactly when the embassy compound was breached.

QUESTION: Sean, can you –

MR. MCCORMACK: Charlie.

QUESTION: Back to the run-up before this incident and in the day – and talking to the Serbs, did the State Department send in any additional security personnel of its own and aside from asking Serbs to be aware?

MR. MCCORMACK: I’m not aware that we sent any additional personnel. But even in that case, they would only be deployed inside the embassy compound. It’s the responsibility of the host nation to provide adequate security outside the perimeter of embassy compounds. For example, we have a responsibility here in the United States to ensure that there’s adequate security around all of the embassies that are resident here in the United States. And it’s a responsibility that’s incumbent upon every member of the Vienna Convention.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Sean. Perhaps you can clarify what parts of the building they got into? I know you’re talking about this hardline, but did they get to any office space or any reception areas or anything like that?

MR. MCCORMACK: That I’m going to reserve on. I have to get a clearer picture of exactly – look at a map and see exactly where people got to. They did not get into the most sensitive areas of the embassy compound where people are looking at classified material and have – do their daily work. You know, none of our sensitive materials or equipment were compromised in any way, shape or form.

QUESTION: And what about reception rooms or anything like those?

MR. MCCORMACK: Reception – well, I guess you could call at least one area that I know of in the embassy building -- I guess you could classify it as a reception area. It’s where people might walk in for an appointment with an embassy official. It’s the first room that they would see where there might be a little waiting area. You would see the Marine Security Guard behind hardened glass and hardened perimeter there, and that's the entry point getting into those sensitive areas and they were not able to breach that.

QUESTION: So they didn’t get into the actual embassy itself?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I guess -- just technically you could say, you know, that waiting area is part of the embassy or -- so, I don't think I could say that. But I can say that they did not get into any of the sensitive areas where we do our work.

Yeah, Daniel.

QUESTION: Just to revisit -- do you consider they did breach their obligations under the Vienna Convention?

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm not ready to make that assessment. I don't know exactly what happened and we'll have time, as I said, in the coming days to do the forensics, to see exactly what happened here.

The bottom line is, though, that there wasn't adequate security, either in numbers or capability, to prevent this breach of our Embassy compound.

QUESTION: Sean, should we count Burns' phone call as a formal protest?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes, absolutely. And that was done at the express instruction of Secretary Rice, and she instructed Nick to call them on her behalf. He was speaking on her behalf.

QUESTION: Any reason why she didn't do it herself?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I think it's just -- Nick was running -- running our response here at the Department. He was supposed to be -- he was the senior person in charge. He has access to all of our personnel here, and I think that she thought that he was the right person to do it. Also, I guess in terms of diplomatic strategy, you're never -- you never know what the response is going to be. And in case that she needed to intervene directly with them, she reserved that right. She didn't need to, though.

QUESTION: And did he get -- so he got the same response from both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes, yes.

QUESTION: All right. And then just one last thing. What is this -- does this -- what does this say about the whole situation, the whole controversy over Kosovo's independence and your recognition of it? Does it say anything or is this just purely an isolated incident that you think or hope is over and done with?

MR. MCCORMACK: Look, let's hope that it's an isolated incident. And I talked about the responsibility of the Serbian Government and other responsible parties in the region and that would include the Kosovo Government to ensure that their – everybody in the region. This is a difficult, emotional, sensitive time. We understand that. But it’s incumbent up on all political leaders in the region and because of today’s incidents, Serbia’s leaders bear a special responsibility in this regard to not condone or in any way tolerate members of their government inciting others to violence or in any way hinting that it is acceptable, because it isn’t. And we are going to be watching the situation very closely, not only in Serbia, but throughout the region.

QUESTION: Does that – when you talk about the region, do you include – does that include the Russians?

MR. MCCORMACK: I haven’t – I have no reason or there’s nothing that I have seen that would indicate that they played any role in this whatsoever.

QUESTION: No, no, no, no. I’m talking about beyond this specific incident. It’s obviously indicative of the fact that this is an emotional and tense issue. And you know there is an international component to it.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. No, I get what you’re saying. Look, they very clearly expressed their differences with what we have done and what others have done. We understand that. We get that. But I haven’t seen them at this point playing any irresponsible role in this regard in the incitements.

QUESTION: Have you reached out to them to talk to the Serbs --

MR. MCCORMACK: No.

QUESTION: -- on your behalf?

MR. MCCORMACK: No. We figured Nick was very direct and I don’t think we needed anybody else to convey the direct message that he sent.

Yeah, Charlie.

QUESTION: Anything on the scale or the size of the embassy -- how many State Department --

MR. MCCORMACK: Wish I had that, I don’t have that and I’ll see if I can get you something.

Yeah, Kirit.

QUESTION: And along that vein, are you planning on drawing down a diplomatic presence at all, either the ambassador or reducing staff?

MR. MCCORMACK: No, no. They’re on the ground. They’re doing their job. They’re doing a terrific job in terms of representing American interests and very effectively conveying to the Serbian Government what it is that we expect.

QUESTION: Your ambassador to the UN also said that he’d like to see some sort of formal declaration or some sort of thing to memorialize his protest over this. Is that something you are considering?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I think Zal is – Zal is going to pursue something up in – up at the UN. And I think what you’re going to see is outrage from the international community about these kinds of actions. And it wasn’t just our embassy on the ground there that was threatened. There are a number of different – a number of embassies immediately adjacent – in that immediate neighborhood and you had a protest that was fairly significant in size and they were threatened as well.

Yeah, Libby.

QUESTION: I just – I wanted to clarify one thing. I know you don’t want to draw any linkages between these insightful statements and what happened today, but it appears that you’re trying to imply that.

MR. MCCORMACK: No, I – you know, again, I’m not – I’m not trying to draw any direct linkages here, but what you have with these kinds of statements is an atmosphere. You don’t want to create an atmosphere where people think it’s okay to express political unhappiness to vent political emotions in a violent way. That is unacceptable. It’s completely unacceptable and there’s no political justification for the kinds of acts that we saw today in attacking our embassy.

QUESTION: Thank you.

2008/132

Tags: Embassy Belgrade and Serbian Government or charred body and Kosovo/a>

John McCain, New York Times:VIDEO, TRANSCRIPT

McCain Press Briefing on New York Times Article (February 21, 2008) Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) makes a brief statement and answers reporter's questions. Toledo, Ohio. FULL STREAMING VIDEO. Running time is 1651

The Long Run For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk FULL TEST TRANSCRIPT By JIM RUTENBERG, MARILYN W. THOMPSON, DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and STEPHEN LABATON

WASHINGTON — Early in Senator John McCain’s first run for the White House eight years ago, waves of anxiety swept through his small circle of advisers.

A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.

When news organizations reported that Mr. McCain had written letters to government regulators on behalf of the lobbyist’s client, the former campaign associates said, some aides feared for a time that attention would fall on her involvement.

Mr. McCain, 71, and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, 40, both say they never had a romantic relationship. But to his advisers, even the appearance of a close bond with a lobbyist whose clients often had business before the Senate committee Mr. McCain led threatened the story of redemption and rectitude that defined his political identity. FULL TEXT TRANSCRIPT

Tags: New York Times and John McCain

Navy Missile Likely Hit Fuel Tank on Disabled Satellite VIDEO

At a single modified tactical Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) launches from the U.S. Navy AEGIS cruiser USS Lake Erie (CG 70), successfully impacting a non functioning National Reconnaissance Office satellite.

Navy Missile Likely Hit Fuel Tank on Disabled Satellite Story Number: NNS080221-06 Release Date: 2/21/2008 12:58:00 PM. By Gerry J. Gilmore, American Forces Press Service WASHINGTON (NNS) -- The missile fired from a U.S. Navy ship in the Pacific Ocean that hit a malfunctioning U.S. reconnaissance satellite late yesterday likely accomplished its goal of destroying the satellite's toxic fuel tank, a senior U.S. military officer said here today.

Preliminary reports indicate the SM-3 missile struck its primary target, which was a tank full of toxic hydrazine rocket fuel carried aboard the 5,000-pound satellite, Marine Gen. James E. Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters at a Pentagon news conference.

"The intercept occurred. … We're very confident that we hit the satellite," Cartwright said. "We also have a high degree of confidence that we got the tank."

a single modified tactical Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) launches from the U.S. Navy AEGIS cruiser USS Lake Erie (CG 70), successfully impacting a non-functioning National Reconnaissance Office satellite.

Video shown to reporters depicts the satellite exploding at the point of contact with the missile. Cartwright said the visible fireball and the vapor cloud or plume around it suggest that the fuel tank was hit and the hydrazine had burned up. "The high-definition imagery that we have indicates that we hit the spacecraft right in the area of the tank," Cartwright said. However, he added, it probably would take another 24 to 48 hours of sifting through data "to get to a point where we are very comfortable with our analysis that we indeed breached the tank." Radar sweeps of the satellite's debris field thus far show that no parts larger than a football survived the strike, Cartwright said. Post-strike surveillance shows satellite debris falling into the atmosphere above the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, he said. Small remnants are likely to burn up in the atmosphere, never making it to the Earth's surface.

The U.S. State Department has provided updates on the situation to its embassies around the world, Cartwright noted. There are no reports of debris reaching the Earth, he said, adding that consequence-management crews are on standby to respond to such a circumstance, if required.

The SM-3 missile was launched by the USS Lake Erie, positioned northwest of Hawaii, at 10:26 p.m. EST yesterday, Cartwright said. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who is on an overseas trip, gave the go-ahead to fire, Cartwright said.

The missile intercepted the satellite about 153 nautical miles above the Earth, just before it began to enter the atmosphere, Cartwright said. Joint Space Operations Center technicians at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., confirmed the satelitte's breakup about 24 minutes later.

The National Reconnaissance Office-managed satellite malfunctioned soon after it was launched in 2006, making it unresponsive to ground control. The satellite, orbiting Earth every 90 minutes or so, was expected to fall to Earth in February or March with its tank of hydrazine intact, possibly endangering human populations.

President Bush directed the Defense Department to engage the satellite just before it entered the atmosphere. U.S. officials decided to shoot down the satellite because of the danger posed by the hazardous hydrazine, Cartwright explained, noting the goal was for the missile to hit and rupture the tank of rocket fuel, causing the hydrazine to burn up harmlessly in the atmosphere, along with debris from the stricken satellite.

"So, you can imagine at the point of intercept last night there were a few cheers from people who have spent many days working on this project," Cartwright said.

Tags: Navy Missile and Disabled Satellite or Gen. James E. Cartwright and USS Lake Erie

John McCain On Wisconsin Primary Win VIDEO

Remarks By John McCain On Wisconsin Primary Win FULL STREAMING VIDEO For Immediate Release. February 19, 2008 Contact: Press Office. 703-650-5550 ARLINGTON, VA -- U.S. Senator John McCain's presidential campaign today released the following remarks by John McCain as prepared for delivery tonight in Columbus, Ohio:

Thank you, my friends, for your support and dedication to our campaign. And thank you, Wisconsin, for bringing us to the point when even a superstitious naval aviator can claim with confidence and humility that I will be our party's nominee for President. I promise you, I will wage a campaign with determination, passion and the right ideas for strengthening our country that prove worthy of the honor and responsibility you have given me.

I, again, want to commend Governor Huckabee, who has shown impressive grit and passion himself, and whom, though he remains my opponent, I have come to admire very much. And, of course, I want to thank my wife, Cindy, and my daughter, Meghan, who are here tonight, and the rest of my family for their indispensable love and encouragement.

My friends, we have traveled a great distance together already in this campaign, and overcome more than a few obstacles. But as I said last week, now comes the hard part and, for America, the bigger decision. Will we make the right changes to restore the people's trust in their government and meet the great challenges of our time with wisdom, and with faith in the values and ability of Americans for whom no challenge is greater than their resolve, courage and patriotism? Or will we heed appeals for change that ignore the lessons of history, and lack confidence in the intelligence and ideals of free people?

I will fight every moment of every day in this campaign to make sure Americans are not deceived by an eloquent but empty call for change that promises no more than a holiday from history and a return to the false promises and failed policies of a tired philosophy that trusts in government more than people. Our purpose is to keep this blessed country free, safe, prosperous and proud. And the changes we offer to the institutions and policies of government will reflect and rely upon the strength, industry, aspirations and decency of the people we serve.

We live in a world of change, some of which holds great promise for us and all mankind and some of which poses great peril. Today, political change in Pakistan is occurring that might affect our relationship with a nuclear armed nation that is indispensable to our success in combating al Qaeda in Afghanistan and elsewhere. An old enemy of American interests and ideals is leaving the world stage, and we can glimpse the hope that freedom might someday come to the people of Cuba. A self-important bully in Venezuela threatens to cut off oil shipments to our country at a time of sky-rocketing gas prices. Each event poses a challenge and an opportunity. Will the next President have the experience, the judgment experience informs, and the strength of purpose to respond to each of these developments in ways that strengthen our security and advance the global progress of our ideals? Or will we risk the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate who once suggested invading our ally, Pakistan, and sitting down without pre-conditions or clear purpose with enemies who support terrorists and are intent on destabilizing the world by acquiring nuclear weapons?

The most important obligation of the next President is to protect Americans from the threat posed by violent extremists who despise us, our values and modernity itself. They are moral monsters, but they are also a disciplined, dedicated movement driven by an apocalyptic zeal, which celebrates murder, has access to science, technology and mass communications, and is determined to acquire and use against us weapons of mass destruction. The institutions and doctrines we relied on in the Cold War are no longer adequate to protect us in a struggle where suicide bombers might obtain the world's most terrifying weapons.

If we are to succeed, we must rethink and rebuild the structure and mission of our military; the capabilities of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies; the purposes of our alliances; the reach and scope of our diplomacy; the capacity of all branches of government to defend us. We need to marshal all elements of American power: our military, economy, investment, trade and technology and our moral credibility to win the war against Islamic extremists and help the majority of Muslims, who believe in progress and peace, win the struggle for the soul of Islam.

The challenges and opportunities of the global economy require us to change some old habits of our government as well. But we will fight for the right changes; changes that understand our strengths and rely on the common sense and values of the American people. We will campaign:

to balance the federal budget not with smoke and mirrors, but by encouraging economic growth and preventing government from spending your money on things it shouldn't; to hold it accountable for the money it does spend on services that only government can provide in ways that don't fail and embarrass you;

to save Social Security and Medicare on our watch without the tricks, lies and posturing that have failed us for too long while the problem became harder to solve;

to make our tax code simpler, fairer, flatter, more pro-growth and pro-jobs;

to reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil with an energy policy that encourages American industry and technology to make our country safer, cleaner and more prosperous by leading the world in the use, development and discovery of alternative sources of energy;

to open new markets to American goods and services, create more and better jobs for the American worker and overhaul unemployment insurance and our redundant and outmoded programs for assisting workers who have lost a job that's not coming back to find a job that won't go away;

to help Americans without health insurance acquire it without bankrupting the country, and ruining the quality of American health care that is the envy of the world;

to make our public schools more accountable to parents and better able to meet the critical responsibility they have to prepare our children for the challenges they'll face in the world they'll lead.

I'm not the youngest candidate. But I am the most experienced. I know what our military can do, what it can do better, and what it should not do. I know how Congress works, and how to make it work for the country and not just the re-election of its members. I know how the world works. I know the good and the evil in it. I know how to work with leaders who share our dreams of a freer, safer and more prosperous world, and how to stand up to those who don't. And I know who I am and what I want to do.

I don't seek the office out of a sense of entitlement. I owe America more than she has ever owed me. I have been an imperfect servant of my country for many years. I have never lived a day, in good times or bad, that I haven't been proud of the privilege. Don't tell me what we can't do. Don't tell me we can't make our country stronger and the world safer. We can. We must. And when I'm President we will.

Thank you, and God bless you.

Tags: Wisconsin and John McCain

President Bush trip to Africa VIDEO

President Bush Participates in Joint Press Availability with President Kikwete of Tanzania, FULL STREAMING VIDEO State House, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. For Immediate Release. Office of the Press Secretary. February 17, 2008

President Bush Participates in Roundtable on PEPFAR with President Kikwete of Tanzania. FULL STREAMING VIDEO Amana District Hospital, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, For Immediate Release, Office of the Press Secretary. February 17, 2008

President Bush Participates in Joint Press Availability with President Yayi of Benin. FULL STREAMING VIDEO. Cadjehoun International Airport, Cotonou, Benin. For Immediate Release. Office of the Press Secretary. February 16, 2008

President Bush Presented Grand Cross of the National Order of Benin. FULL STREAMING VIDEO Cadjehoun International Airport. Cotonou, Benin. For Immediate Release. Office of the Press Secretary, February 16, 2008

President and Mrs. Bush Discuss Africa Policy, Trip to Africa. FULL STREAMING VIDEO Smithsonian National Museum of African Art. Washington, D.C. For Immediate Release, Office of the Press Secretary, February 14, 2008

Tags: George Bush and Africa

George H.W. Bush Endorses John McCain VIDEO

ARLINGTON, VA -- At a press conference in Houston today, former President George H.W. Bush endorsed John McCain for president.

President Bush made the following statement on his endorsement:

"Today we are living in a time of war, a new and vastly more complex time of war. We also have more important challenges at home, chief among them, we clearly need to address those parts of our economy that demand attention. And at this critical time in history, the key point I want to make is the United States of America cannot be permitted to falter. Part of our Republican creed is a prevailing sense of duty. In the coming election, we do not have the luxury of taking a pass on our unique role and responsibilities in the world. And the indisputable fact that unites the greatest number of Republicans, most independents and many good Democrats is the fact that no one is better prepared to lead our nation at these trying times than Senator John McCain.

"As someone who also helped lead our great Party at the RNC and later as President, I believe now is the right time for me to help John in his effort to start building the broad-based coalition it will take for our conservative values to carry the White House this fall. His character was forged in the crucible of war. His commitment to America is beyond any doubt. But most importantly, he has the right values and experience to guide our nation forward at this historic moment. So I am very proud to endorse John McCain for the presidency for the United States of America. Few men walking among us have sacrificed so much in the cause of human freedom, and I am happy to help this remarkable patriot carry our Party's banner forward."

John McCain made the following statement thanking President Bush for his endorsement:

"Thank you very much, Mr. President. I am deeply honored by your support and your friendship. I am deeply appreciative of the enormous service that President Bush and Barbara and the entire family have rendered to this country. President Bush's service to this country goes back to World War II. That is where President Bush and I have something in common -- actually two things in common. One is that we were both naval aviators. The other is that we were both shot down. I will not pursue that line of conversation any further except to say that I am very proud to be in the presence of President and Barbara Bush anywhere at any time -- two people who have devoted their lives to the service of this country.

"I believe that his endorsement and sign of support honors me. I also think it is very helpful in continuing our effort to unite our Party. In the conversations I had with President Bush, he made it very clear that we, as a Party, must unite and move forward and attract, not only members of our own party, but independents and the so-called Reagan Democrats. I think that President Bush's endorsement today honors me. I believe it will help us enormously in that that process of uniting our party and moving forward. Again, I have had the pleasure of knowing and watching President Bush for many, many years. He served this country as head of the CIA, as the Chairman of our Party, as Vice President, and as President. There are very few Americans I know who have served with more honor and dignity, and I am honored to have his support. And President Bush and Barbara, I can assure you that Cindy and I will do everything we can to make sure that you are proud and that your support of our candidacy will be something that you can look back on as having been the right thing to do. I am very honored."

For Immediate Release February 18, 2008 Contact: Press Office 703-650-5550

Tags: George H.W. Bush and John McCain

Young voters influenced by negative political ads

Young voters influenced by negative political ads, says study

In the April issue of the Journal of Consumer Research, an important field study of registered voters aged 18-23 reveals that negative “attack” ads provoke more voter migration than positive ads. Researchers from Notre Dame and the University of Texas at Dallas used real advertisements from the 2004 presidential election to show that, although negative political ads are explicitly disliked, they have a powerful impact on voters’ mindsets that positive ads do not – and the potential to change preference and behavior in ways that benefit the advertiser.

Nast cartoon of Democratic donkey, from "Harper's Weekly", January 19th 1870. Rearing donkey labelled "Copperhead Papers" kicks lion labelled "Hon. E.M. Stanton". Caption: "A Live Jackass Kicking a Dead Lion. And such a Lion! and such a Jackass!" High Resolution Image

While the Society for the Diffusion of Political Knowledge took the (relatively) high road, the popular press launched a gloves-off campaign that mixed racism, solidarity with labor, attacks on war profiteers, and, increasingly, calls for peace. At various points the Lincoln administration banned “Copperhead” papers from the mails. Republican infringements of civil liberties generated more support for Peace Democrats. The Lincoln administration suspended habeas corpus and arrested or detained hundreds. In New York City political prisoners were housed in Fort Lafayette, just off the Brooklyn shore from Fort Hamilton. The Copperhead Donkey In PDF Format

About 77 percent of college-educated 18-24 year olds who were registered cast a vote in the 2004 presidential election, compared to 64 percent of registered voters as a whole. In this presidential election, young voters may have even more of an impact.

Focusing on this segment in the 2004 presidential election, Joan M. Phillips, Joel E. Urbany (both University of Notre Dame), and Thomas J. Reynolds (University of Texas at Dallas) asked participants – 93 percent of whom said at the time that they would definitely vote in the 2004 presidential election– to indicate their likelihood of support on a seven point scale: definitely Bush, most likely Bush, leaning toward Bush, undecided, leaning toward Kerry, most likely Kerry, definitely Kerry. The order of the candidates was random.

Participants were then shown one of four political ads, gauged on their perceptions of the ad, and asked to re-report their likelihood of support for a candidate.

The researchers found that, even for a candidate’s supporters, an anti-opponent ad was more likely to be deemed less persuasive than a positive pro-candidate ad. However, “the notion that negative ads may be disliked yet influential is paradoxical,” the researchers write. Overall, negative advertising prompted more movement along the seven point scale, causing voters to both strengthen their resolve and to move away from the candidate they initially supported.

For example, after viewing an ad that attacked their favored candidate, about 14 percent of the voters “dug in their heels” and indicated stronger support for their favored candidate, who had been the subject of an attack. More importantly, however, the researchers also found that 14 percent of the young voters – after viewing an ad that attacked their preferred candidate – were influenced by the ad’s content and weakened their support, moving in the direction of the advertising candidate. Viewing positive ads did not lead to significant voter movement.

“These findings parallel marketing studies of both comparative and reference price advertising where consumers report disliking or disbelieving the ads, yet the ads still measurably influence consumer behavior,” the researchers explain. “Advertising perceived by voters or consumers as negative carries a potential cost. However, these ads also have the potential to change preference and behavior in ways that benefit the advertiser.”

They continue: “We do not conclude that positive political ads are not effective or that negative advertising should be used instead of positive advertising. Rather, our focus is on pointing out that negative advertising has several potential effects.” ###

Joan M. Phillips, Joel E. Urbany, and Thomas J. Reynolds, “Confirmation and the Effects of Valenced Political Advertising: A Field Experiment.” Journal of Consumer Research: April 2008.

About the Journal of Consumer Research: Founded in 1974, the Journal of Consumer Research publishes scholarly research that describes and explains consumer behavior. Empirical, theoretical, and methodological articles spanning fields such as psychology, marketing, sociology, economics, and anthropology are featured in this interdisciplinary journal. The primary thrust of JCR is academic, rather than managerial, with topics ranging from micro-level processes (e.g., brand choice) to more macro-level issues (e.g., the development of materialistic values).

About the University of Chicago Press: Founded in 1891, the University of Chicago Press is the largest American university press. The Journals Division publishes periodicals and serials in a wide range of disciplines, including several journals that were the first scholarly publications in their respective fields. Online since 1995, the Journals Division has also been a pioneer in electronic publishing, delivering original, peer-reviewed research from international scholars to a worldwide audience.

Contact: Suzanne Wu swu@press.uchicago.edu 209-608-2038 University of Chicago Press Journals

Tags: negative political ads and registered voters or Young voters and presidential election

Freedom Calendar 02/09/08 - 02/23/08

February 16, 1812 Birth of Republican civil rights activist and U.S. Senator (R-MA) Henry Wilson, Vice President under Ulysses Grant.

February 17, 1973, Republican Navy Secretary John Warner commissions frigate in honor of first African-American naval aviator, Jesse L. Brown, who died in combat during Korean War.

February 18, 1946, Appointed by Republican President Calvin Coolidge, federal judge Paul McCormick ends segregation of Mexican-American children in California public schools.

February 19, 1976, President Gerald Ford formally rescinds President Franklin Roosevelt’s notorious Executive Order authorizing internment of over 120,000 Japanese-Americans during WWII.

February 20, 1895, Death of Republican activist Frederick Douglass – escaped slave, author, abolition leader, civil rights champion.

Presidents’ Day, February 21, 1863, Republican Governor John Andrew establishes the 54th Massachusetts, the famous regiment of African-American U.S. troops in which two of Frederick Douglass’ sons served.

February 22, 1856, First national meeting of the Republican Party, in Pittsburgh, to coordinate opposition to Democrats’ pro-slavery policies.

February 23, 1990, President George H. W. Bush nominates African-American Republican Arthur Fletcher as Chairman of the U.S. Civil Service Commission.

“The Republican Party is the ship, all else is the sea.”

Frederick Douglass, Republican Civil Rights Activist

Technorati Tags: President Bush and Freedom Calendar or Booker T. Washington and Republicans or African-Americans and Brown v. Board of Education or Ronald Reagan and Condoleezza Rice or Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass or 40 acres and a mule or Martin Luther King and Voting Rights Act of 1965 or Dred Scott

Presidential Podcast 02/16/08

Presidential Podcast 02/16/08 . Subscribe to Our Podcast feed or online podnova Podcast Channel and receive the weekly Presidential Radio Address in English and Spanish with select State Department Briefings. Featuring full audio and text transcripts, More content Sources added often so stay tuned. In Focus: Defense

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House radio address or House of Representatives and National Intelligence

Bush radio address 02/16/08 full audio, text transcript

bush radio address 02/16/08 full audio, text transcript. President's Radio Address In Focus: Defense

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

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. At the stroke of midnight tonight, a vital intelligence law that is helping protect our nation will expire. Congress had the power to prevent this from happening, but chose not to.

The Senate passed a good bill that would have given our intelligence professionals the tools they need to keep us safe. But leaders in the House of Representatives blocked a House vote on the Senate bill, and then left on a 10-day recess.

Some congressional leaders claim that this will not affect our security. They are wrong. Because Congress failed to act, it will be harder for our government to keep you safe from terrorist attack. At midnight, the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence will be stripped of their power to authorize new surveillance against terrorist threats abroad. This means that as terrorists change their tactics to avoid our surveillance, we may not have the tools we need to continue tracking them -- and we may lose a vital lead that could prevent an attack on America.

In addition, Congress has put intelligence activities at risk even when the terrorists don't change tactics. By failing to act, Congress has created a question about whether private sector companies who assist in our efforts to defend you from the terrorists could be sued for doing the right thing. Now, these companies will be increasingly reluctant to provide this vital cooperation, because of their uncertainty about the law and fear of being sued by class-action trial lawyers.

For six months, I urged Congress to take action to ensure this dangerous situation did not come to pass. I even signed a two-week extension of the existing law, because members of Congress said they would use that time to work out their differences. The Senate used this time productively -- and passed a good bill with a strong, bipartisan super-majority of 68 votes. Republicans and Democrats came together on legislation to ensure that we could effectively monitor those seeking to harm our people. And they voted to provide fair and just liability protection for companies that assisted in efforts to protect America after the attacks of 9/11.

The Senate sent this bill to the House for its approval. It was clear that if given a vote, the bill would have passed the House with a bipartisan majority. I made every effort to work with the House to secure passage of this law. I even offered to delay my trip to Africa if we could come together and enact a good bill. But House leaders refused to let the bill come to a vote. Instead, the House held partisan votes that do nothing to keep our country safer. House leaders chose politics over protecting the country -- and our country is at greater risk as a result.

House leaders have no excuse for this failure. They knew all along that this deadline was approaching, because they set it themselves. My administration will take every step within our power to minimize the damage caused by the House's irresponsible behavior. Yet it is still urgent that Congress act. The Senate has shown the way by approving a good, bipartisan bill. The House must pass that bill as soon as they return to Washington from their latest recess.

At this moment, somewhere in the world, terrorists are planning a new attack on America. And Congress has no higher responsibility than ensuring we have the tools to stop them.

Thank you for listening.

END For Immediate Release, February 16, 2008

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House radio address or House of Representatives and National Intelligence

Discurso Radial del Presidente a la Nación 02/16/08

forre el audio de la dirección de radio 2/16/08 por completo, transcripción del texto. (nota de los redactores: ninguna lengua española mp3 lanzó esta semana, apesadumbrada) PODCAST

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

Buenos Días.

Esta noche, al toque de la medianoche, vencerá una ley vital sobre la inteligencia, la cual nos está ayudando a proteger a nuestra Nación. El Congreso tenía el poder para evitar que esto sucediera, pero eligió no hacerlo. El Senado aprobó un buen proyecto de ley que hubiera dado a nuestros profesionales de inteligencia las herramientas que necesitan para mantenernos a salvo. Pero líderes en la Cámara de Representantes bloquearon un voto de la Cámara sobre el proyecto de ley del Senado. y luego se fueron por un receso de 10 días. Algunos líderes del Congreso alegan que esto no afectará nuestra seguridad. Están equivocados.

En vista de la falta de acción del Congreso, será más difícil para que nuestro gobierno los proteja a ustedes contra un ataque terrorista. A la medianoche, el Procurador General y el Director de Inteligencia Nacional perderán su poder para autorizar nueva vigilancia contra amenazas terroristas en el extranjero. Esto significa que a medida que los terroristas cambien sus tácticas para evitar nuestra vigilancia, nosotros quizás no tengamos las herramientas necesarias para seguir rastreándolos - y podremos perder una pista vital que podría evitar un ataque contra Estados Unidos.

Además el Congreso ha puesto en riesgo las actividades de inteligencia aún cuando los terroristas no cambien de táctica. Al no tomar acción, el Congreso ha creado un interrogante sobre si las compañías del sector privado que ayudan en nuestros esfuerzos para defenderlos a ustedes contra los terroristas pueden ser demandas por hacer lo correcto. Ahora, estas compañías serán cada vez más reacias a ofrecer esta cooperación vital debido a su incertidumbre en cuanto a la ley y por temor a ser objeto de demandas por parte de abogados de acción colectiva.

Durante seis meses insté al Congreso que tomara acción para asegurar que esta situación peligrosa no surgiera. Hasta firmé una extensión de dos semanas de la ley en vigor ya que miembros del Congreso dijeron que usarían ese tiempo para resolver sus diferencias.

El Senado hizo uso productivo de este tiempo y aprobó un buen proyecto de ley con una super-mayoría bipartita de 68 votos. Los Republicanos y los Demócratas se juntaron sobre una legislación para asegurar que pudiéramos efectivamente monitorear a aquellos que buscaban perjudicar a nuestro pueblo. Y votaron por proporcionar protección equitativa y justa contra responsabilidad a compañías que ayudaron en los esfuerzos por proteger a Estados Unidos después de los ataques del 11 de Septiembre.

El Senado envió este proyecto de ley a la Cámara de Representantes para su aprobación. Era claro que si se llevaba a voto, el proyecto de ley hubiera sido aprobado por la Cámara con una mayoría bipartita. Yo hice todo lo posible para trabajar con la Cámara para asegurar aprobación de esta ley. Hasta ofrecí demorar mi viaje al África si podíamos ponernos de acuerdo para sancionar un buen proyecto de ley. Pero los líderes de la Cámara se negaron a dejar que el proyecto de ley fuera llevado a voto. En su lugar, la Cámara realizó votos partidarios que no hacen nada por mantener más seguro a nuestro país. Los líderes de la Cámara eligieron la política por encima de proteger al país y como resultado nuestro país corre un mayor riesgo.

Los líderes de la Cámara no tienen excusa por este fracaso. Sabían muy bien que este plazo se acercaba pues ellos mismos lo fijaron. Mi Administración hará todo lo posible dentro de nuestro poder para minimizar el daño causado por el comportamiento irresponsable de la Cámara. Sin embargo todavía urge que el Congreso tome acción. El Senado ha mostrado el camino al aprobar un buen proyecto de ley bipartito. La Cámara debe aprobar el proyecto de ley en seguida que regrese a Washington de su último receso.

En este momento, en algún lugar del mundo, hay terroristas planeando un nuevo ataque contra Estados Unidos Y el Congreso no tiene responsabilidad más importante que la de asegurar que nosotros tengamos las herramientas para detenerlos.

Gracias por escuchar.

Para su publicación inmediata Oficina del Secretario de Prensa 16 de febrero de 2008

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

Mitt Romney Endorses John McCain VIDEO

Governor Mitt Romney Endorses John McCain For President ARLINGTON, VA -- At a press conference in Boston today, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney endorsed John McCain for president. In addition, Governor Romney pledged all 289 of his delegates to John McCain,

putting McCain over the required 1,191 delegates necessary to secure the Republican nomination. See delegate count

Governor Romney issued the following statement on his endorsement:

"Thank you all very much. And thank you all for joining us on such short notice.

"This isn't my first joint appearance with Senator John McCain, but it promises to be one of our more pleasant exchanges.

"I am honored today to give my full support to Senator McCain's candidacy for President of the United States. Today I am asking my delegates to vote for Senator McCain.

"As you all saw over the past year, things can get rough in a political campaign. And in the thick of the fight it's easy to lose sight of your opponent's finer qualities. But in the case of Senator John McCain, I could never quite do that. Even when the contest was close and our disagreements were debated, the caliber of the man was apparent.

"This is a man capable of leading our country at a dangerous hour. Senator McCain understands the war we are in -- the necessity of victory and the consequences of surrender. For him, national security isn't just another item on the agenda. It is the abiding concern and responsibility of our nation.

"This is a man who tied his political fortunes to the fortunes of his country in a time of war. Such courage is not always rewarded in politics, but it was this time -- and that is a credit to both the man and to the party he will lead in the election of 2008.

"This is a man who has served and suffered for his country. John McCain's greatest test was long ago. But the loyalty, and love of country, and strength of heart that saw him through are still the qualities that define him. With their rhetoric, our Democratic opponents are very skilled at striking heroic poses. But with our Republican nominee, we're going to offer America the real thing.

"I am pleased to introduce a real America hero, the next president of the United States, Senator John McCain."

John McCain made the following remarks thanking Governor Romney for his endorsement:

"I thank Governor Romney for his endorsement. More than that, I thank him for the hard, intensive, fine, honorable campaign that he ran for the nomination of our Party. And I think it is also extremely important to me that not only do I have his endorsement, but that we join together now and travel this country not only on behalf of my candidacy, but on behalf of our Republican candidates for the House, the Senate, for Governor and all of the other races that we are committed to and are so important to the future of this country.

"I'm grateful for the fact that Governor Romney has served the state of Massachusetts. I'm grateful that he ran a hard, tough, and frankly a campaign that helped me become a better candidate not only in the primary, but also in the general election.

"Governor Romney will help me draw the stark differences that exist between myself and the things that he and I stand for and believe in and the Democratic candidates. Whether we have higher taxes, as the Democrats will want to impose, or lower taxes. Whether there will be a government-run health care system in America, or whether families will make choices on health care. Whether we will retreat and declare withdrawal from Iraq, or whether we will continue this surge and now the political process that's moving forward there. There will be stark differences.

"I look forward to campaigning with Governor Romney and I look forward to his continued, very important role of leadership in our Party that he has exercised in the past and will exercise even more so in the future. Governor Romney, I thank you. We all know it was a hard campaign -- primaries are tough. We know it was a hard campaign. And now we move forward together for the good of our Party and the nation and I am very honored to have Governor Romney and the members of his team at my side -- that's a vital ingredient for victory in November."

Tags: Mitt Romney and John McCain or delegate count and Mitt Romney Endorses John McCain

Navy to Shoot Down Malfunctioning Satellite VIDEO

By Jim Garamone American Forces Press Service WASHINGTON, Feb. 14, 2008 – The Navy will shoot down a malfunctioning U.S. spy satellite sometime after Feb. 20, government officials said during a Pentagon news conference today.

Ambassador James F. Jeffrey, assistant to the President and deputy national security advisor, said President Bush decided to bring down the satellite because of the likelihood that the satellite could release hydrazine, a toxic chemical used as a maneuvering fuel.

“The likelihood of the satellite falling in a populated area is small, and the extent and duration of toxic hydrazine in the atmosphere would be limited,” Jeffrey said. “Nevertheless, if the satellite did fall in a populated area, there was the possibility of death or injury to human beings beyond that associated with the fall of satellites and other space debris.”

The window for shooting down the satellite opens in the next three or four days and remains open for as many as seven or eight days, said Marine Gen. James E. Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

NASA Administrator Michael Griffin said the study group looked carefully at increased risks to the shuttle and International Space Station and decided they are negligible. “We are very comfortable that this is a decision made carefully, objectively and safely,” Griffin said.

Still, the Navy will not fire until after the shuttle Atlantis mission ends Feb. 20.

In late January, the U.S. government notified other nations that the satellite was unresponsive and would make an uncontrolled reentry in late February or early March.

The Navy has modified three SM-3 missiles aboard Aegis ships to strike the satellite, Cartwright said. The Navy wants to intercept the satellite at a point just above the atmosphere so there would be a high likelihood of bringing it down in an unpopulated area. An intercept also would rupture the hydrazine tank. The vice chairman would not say exactly where the ships would fire from, only saying it will be from the northern hemisphere and the Pacific Ocean.

Intercepting the satellite at about 130 nautical miles altitude will reduce the risk of debris in space. Once the satellite is hit, officials hope 50 percent of the debris will come to Earth in the first two orbits and the rest shortly thereafter, Cartwright said.

The satellite belongs to the National Reconnaissance Office and was launched Dec. 14, 2006. It weighs roughly 5,000 pounds, and computer models show that roughly 2,800 pounds would survive reentry. “What is different here is the hydrazine,” Cartwright said. “In this case, we have some historical background that we can work against for the tank that contains the hydrazine. We had a similar one on Columbia that survived reentry. We have a pretty reasonable understanding that, if the tank is left intact, it would survive the reentry.”

The tank is circular with a radius of 20 inches. It holds about 1,000 pounds of the fuel.

While details of the satellite are classified -- DoD officials will not release who built it or how much it costs -- that had no bearing on the decision to shoot it down, Cartwright said. The temperatures from reentry would burn up any classified system on the satellite, he said.

Hydrazine is similar to chlorine or ammonia in that it affects lung tissue. People inhaling it would feel a burning sensation. “If you stay close to it and inhale a lot of it, it could be deadly,” Cartwright said.

If the military did not shoot down the satellite, the hydrazine would disperse over an area roughly the size of two football fields, the general said. Those who breathed it would need medical attention.

“As we reviewed the data, if we fire at the satellite, the worst that could happen is that we miss,” Cartwright said. “Then we have a known situation, which is where we are today.”

Grazing the satellite would probably still bring it down quicker and more predictably, he said. “If we hit the hydrazine tank, then we’ve improved the potential to mitigate that threat,” he said. “The regret factor of not acting clearly outweighed the regret factor of acting.”

Biographies:

• Gen. James E. Cartwright, USMC
• James F. Jeffrey
• Michael Griffin

Tags: James F. Jeffrey and Michael Griffin or Gen. James E. Cartwright and Navy to Shoot Down Malfunctioning Satellite

President Discusses Protect America Act VIDEO

With Michael McConnell, Director of National Intelligence, looking on, President George W. Bush delivers a statement on the Protect America Act Wednesday, Feb. 13, 2008, in the Oval Office of the White House. Said the President, "It is time for Congress to ensure the flow of vital intelligence is not disrupted. It is time for Congress to pass a law that provides a long-term foundation to protect our country. And they must do so immediately." White House photo by Joyce N. Boghosian

President Bush Discusses Protect America Act FULL STREAMING VIDEO Oval Office Fact Sheet: The House Must Act Quickly to Pass Bipartisan Senate FISA Modernization Bill 9:01 A.M. EST THE PRESIDENT: Director, thank you for joining me. Good morning. At this moment, somewhere in the world, terrorists are planning new attacks on our country. Their goal is to bring destruction to our shores that will make September the 11th pale by comparison. To carry out their plans, they must communicate with each other, they must recruit operatives, and they must share information.

The lives of countless Americans depend on our ability to monitor these communications. Our intelligence professionals must be able to find out who the terrorists are talking to, what they are saying, and what they're planning.

To help our intelligence agencies do this, Congress passed the Protect America Act last year. Unfortunately, Congress set the law to expire on February 1st -- and then failed to pass new legislation that would keep these tools in effect over the long run. And so at the 11th hour, Congress passed a temporary 15-day extension of the current law which will expire at midnight this Saturday. I signed that extension. I did so to give members of the House and Senate more time to work out their differences.

Well, the Senate has used this time wisely. I am pleased that last night, Senators approved new legislation that will ensure our intelligence professionals have the tools they need to make us safer -- and they did so by a wide, bipartisan majority. The Senate bill also provides fair and just liability protections for companies that did the right thing and assisted in defending America after the attacks of September the 11th.

In order to be able to discover enemy -- the enemy's plans, we need the cooperation of telecommunication companies. If these companies are subjected to lawsuits that could cost them billions of dollars, they won't participate; they won't help us; they won't help protect America. Liability protection is critical to securing the private sector's cooperation with our intelligence efforts. The Senate has passed a good bill, and has shown that protecting our nation is not a partisan issue. And I congratulate the senators.

Unfortunately, the House has failed to pass a good bill. And now House leaders say they want still more time to reach agreement with the Senate on a final bill. They make this claim even though it is clear that the Senate bill, the bill passed last night, has significant bipartisan support in the House.

Congress has had over six months to discuss and deliberate. The time for debate is over. I will not accept any temporary extension. House members have had plenty of time to pass a good bill. They have already been given a two-week extension beyond the deadline they set for themselves. If Republicans and Democrats in the Senate can come together on a good piece of legislation, there is no reason why Republicans and Democrats in the House cannot pass the Senate bill immediately.

The House's failure to pass the bipartisan Senate bill would jeopardize the security of our citizens. As Director McConnell has told me, without this law, our ability to prevent new attacks will be weakened. And it will become harder for us to uncover terrorist plots. We must not allow this to happen. It is time for Congress to ensure the flow of vital intelligence is not disrupted. It is time for Congress to pass a law that provides a long-term foundation to protect our country. And they must do so immediately.

Thank you very much.

END 9:05 A.M. EST For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary February 13, 2008

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House or Protect America Act and FISA Modernization Bill

President Bush Celebrates African American History Month VIDEO PODCAST

President George W. Bush joins the Temptations on stage in the East Room of the White House Tuesday, Feb. 12, 2008, after they performed during the celebration of African American History Month. White House photo by Eric Draper

President Bush Celebrates African American History Month FULL STREAMING VIDEO East Room 3:00 P.M. EST. PODCAST OF THIS ARTICLE running time 35:28 THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all for coming. Good afternoon, and welcome to the White House. Laura and I are honored that you all came, as we celebrate African American History Month. This is a month in which we recognize the many African Americans who've made great contributions to our country. We honor the talent and their courage. We renew our commitment to securing liberty and justice for every American. That's why we're here.

I appreciate many of the notables who have joined us: Madam Secretary, appreciate you coming. (Applause.) Mr. Secretary Alphonso Jackson and Marcia. Thanks for coming, Mr. Secretary. Proud you're here. (Applause.)

If I skip some of the notables, it's because I'm going to say something about them a little later on. (Laughter.) So, Congressman, I'll be with you in a minute. (Laughter.)

I appreciate Dr. Leonard Haynes, who's the Executive Director of the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities. I am proud -- Doc, thanks for coming. I'm proud to welcome all the presidents from the Historically Black Colleges and Universities here today; really appreciate your service to the country.

I want to thank Ron Langston, National Director of the Minority Business Development Agency. Roslyn Brock, Vice Chairman of the NAACP -- Roslyn, thank you for coming. Somewhere -- there you are. I thank John Fleming, President, Association of the Study of African American Life and History. Reverend Al Sharpton, and his wife Dominique -- Reverend, it's good to see you.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Daughter.

THE PRESIDENT: Daughter. (Laughter.) Daughter. (Laughter.) I don't get them right all the time. (Laughter.) But thank you for coming. And, Dominique, you're sure a lot prettier than your father. (Laughter.)

Thurgood Marshall, Jr., we're proud you're here. Thanks for coming. Good to see you, sir. State Representative Calvin Smyre, of the state of Georgia, who is the President of the National Black Caucus of State Legislators. Sure proud you're here.

Thank you all for coming. There's a lot of other notables here. Just consider yourself welcomed. (Laughter.)

The theme of this year's African American History Month is a celebration of America's cultural diversity. It is a tribute to a scholar who deepened our appreciation for diversity: Carter G. Woodson. When Dr. Woodson began his career in the early 20th century, most Americans knew little about African American heritage. Dr. Woodson set out to correct that. His scholarship helped pioneer the field of African American studies. And by the time he passed away in 1950, this son of freed slaves had become known as the Father of Black History.

It is important for all our citizens to know the history of the African American struggle for equality. We must remember that the slave trade brought many Africans to America in chains, not by choice. We must remember how slaves claimed their God-given right to freedom. And we must remember how freed slaves and their descendants helped rededicate America to the ideals of its founding.

Our nation has come a long way toward building a more perfect union. Yet as past injustices have become distant memories, there's a risk that our society may lose sight of the real suffering that took place. One symbol of that suffering is the noose. Recently, there have been a number of media reports about nooses being displayed. These disturbing reports have resulted in heightened racial tensions in many communities. They have revealed that some Americans do not understand why the sight of a noose causes such a visceral reaction among so many people.

For decades, the noose played a central part in a campaign of violence and fear against African Americans. Fathers were dragged from their homes in the dark of the night before the eyes of their terrified children. Summary executions were held by torchlight in front of hateful crowds. In many cases, law enforcement officers responsible for protecting the victims were complicit in their deeds [sic] and their deaths. For generations of African Americans, the noose was more than a tool of murder; it was a tool of intimidation that conveyed a sense of powerlessness to millions.

The era of rampant lynching is a shameful chapter in American history. The noose is not a symbol of prairie justice, but of gross injustice. Displaying one is not a harmless prank. And lynching is not a word to be mentioned in jest. As a civil society, we must understand that noose displays and lynching jokes are deeply offensive. They are wrong. And they have no place in America today. (Applause.)

This afternoon we honor four Americans who understand what this symbol represents, and who are leading the way toward ending racial injustice across our land.

Congressman John Lewis earned his place in history long before winning a seat in the United States Capitol. As a young man, he became one of the leaders of the civil rights movement. He organized freedom rides and sit-ins and voter registration drives. One Sunday in 1965, he set out to lead a march from Selma to Montgomery. The marchers never made it past the rows of state troopers outside Selma. But their message made it all the way to Washington, D.C. Five months later, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act. And more than 40 years later, John Lewis continues to inspire us -- and we're blessed to have him here today. (Applause.)

William Coleman has lived a life of many firsts. After graduating first in his class from Harvard Law School, he went on to become both the first Black American to clerk on the Supreme Court, and the first to hold a Cabinet post in a Republican administration, as Secretary of Transportation under President Gerald Ford. William Coleman has also helped open doors of opportunity for others. He worked alongside Thurgood Marshall, father of this good man, on the legal team that triumphed in Brown versus Board of Education. This ruling exposed the fallacy of "separate but equal" -- and it helped return America to the great truth that "all men are created equal." For this, we owe William Coleman our lasting thanks. We're honored to have you today, sir. (Applause.)

Three years after Brown versus Board of Education, nine students in Little Rock stepped forward to test the Supreme Court's ruling. On September 25, 1957, federal troops escorted them into the city's all-white Central High School. Once inside, the Little Rock Nine were spit on, harassed, and called names. One of the students was a senior named Ernest Green. As graduation day approached, some suggested it might be safer for Ernest to receive his diploma in the mail. Many people would have taken this advice -- not Ernest Green. In May of 1958, Martin Luther King, Jr. was on hand to watch Ernest become the first African American to graduate from Little Rock's Central High School. We're honored to welcome Ernest Green to the White House during the 50th anniversary -- (applause.)

And finally, as a young boy, Otis Williams remembers his mother packing food for their move from Texas -- oh, what a tragic mistake -- (laughter) -- to Detroit. She did so because restaurants along the route refused to serve African Americans. In Detroit, Otis Williams grew up to become the leader of one of the most successful vocal groups in the history of our country: the Temptations. This group has recorded 37 Top 40 singles -- including four Number One hits on the pop charts. Their success paved the way for other African American artists. Their melodies continue bringing Americans of all races together to this day.

Otis can remember performing in a venue in South Carolina, where blacks and whites in the crowd were separated by a barrier. The next year when the Temptations returned, the racial divide was gone. As Otis once put it, "The highest achievement for me has been ...to have our music penetrate all kinds of barriers -- for it to be colorless." The music of the Temptations has given countless Americans sunshine on a cloudy day -- (laughter) -- and we cannot help ourselves from loving them. (Laughter.)

Throughout African American History Month, we remember how individuals, African American leaders of all kinds helped bring our nation together. We recognize our nation still has a long way to go. But in the example of the leaders like those we honor today, we see strength greater than any division. And we see hope for a day when freedom rings from every mountainside, and every corner of the country.

And now it is my great pleasure to introduce the Temptations. (Applause.)

END 3:11 P.M. EST

For Immediate Release, Office of the Press Secretary, February 12, 2008

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House or African American History Month and White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges

Mike Huckabee Speaks at CPAC VIDEO

Fmr. Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR) Speaks at CPAC FULL STREAMING VIDEO The 2008 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) holds a third day of events in Washington, DC. Today a speech by Fmr. Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR) as well as Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA). 2/9/2008: WASHINGTON, DC: 31:36 min.

Photo by yaquina This image is licensed Creative Commons

Technorati Tags: Mike Huckabee or CPAC