White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 02/25/08 VIDEO

Press Briefing by Dana Perino, FULL STREAMING VIDEO, Running time is 24:57, James S. Brady Press Briefing Room, Dana M. Perino Biography, 12:31 P.M. EDT.

MS. PERINO: Hello. A couple of announcements. One thing, earlier today the Treasury Department issued sanctions against some elements of the regime in Burma. And the President will have a statement about that after this. I won't read it for you here because it's quite long -- I'll spare you that -- but it will be released soon.

Q Do you mean a written statement?

MS. PERINO: A written statement, yes; sorry.

Also, tomorrow President Bush will deliver remarks to the Leon H. Sullivan Foundation, which works to promote political, entrepreneurial and intellectual leadership of the African people and to advocate on behalf of Africa. As the President said in his roundtable interview on the flight back from Africa last week, that was one of the most exciting trips he and Mrs. Bush have ever taken. They were touched by the reception and they received a lot of inspiration from the people that they met.

During his remarks tomorrow the President wants to convey what he saw on his trip and he wants to show the American people the striking difference that their generosity is making. And then he will make clear also why he is so optimistic about Africa. The best way to do that is to show Americans what he saw, and so with the help of the White House photographers he's assembled a slide show of images from the trip to go along with the speech that he will present tomorrow. And the President will show -- use these images to show how the African nations are together fighting HIV/AIDS and malaria, improving education, reducing poverty, and strengthening democracy. And he will argue that it's essential for this life-saving work to continue.

After the President's speech, Hope Masters, who is Leon Sullivan's daughter and the foundation president and CEO emeritus of the foundation, will present the President with an award from the foundation for his dedication and commitment to -- and service to the people of Africa. So that's tomorrow's speech.

Q Dana, a couple of the governors came out of the meeting with the President today and said that the President had not ruled out the possibility of a second stimulus package, but he did say that it would be premature at this time. Is that how the White House would characterize the President's position?

MS. PERINO: I would describe it as the President having a good meeting with the governors and listening with an open mind, not making any promises, being very clear that he's concerned about anything that would raise taxes on the American people. One of the things that they talked about was their desire for more funding for transportation funding.

The President pointed out that our request from FY'08 to just the recent budget that just came out the beginning of February for FY'09 increased transportation spending requests $24 billion(*) this year. So we'll see then if Congress agrees to fund that through the budget process as we go forward.

But the other thing that the President made clear is that we have a problem of earmarks when it comes to transportation funding, and that the Public Works Committee, which is quite large, has a lot of earmarks that they put into these bills. And the President believes, and he told the governors, he thinks that they should have more input as to how transportation money should be spent in their own states. And so he talked a little bit about earmark reform, in addition to saying that he hopes that Congress will look at his request for the budget and try to get that passed sooner than later.

Q Does the door, in fact, remain open to a possible second stimulus package?

MS. PERINO: Again, I think that it would be premature to say that one was closed. The President, as I said, had an open mind when he listened to them, but he did say he was very concerned about any proposal that would raise taxes. And he's also looking to make sure that a short-term stimulus package that he just signed will have the desired effect of blunting any possible effect of a slowdown in the economy that we do expect because of the housing and credit issues.

So we'll have another number this week. I think GDP numbers come out later in the week, so we'll see where we are in terms of forecasting at that point.

Q Dana, the President talked again about FISA this morning. Have you seen any movement in the negotiations over that bill?

MS. PERINO: Up on Capitol Hill?

Q Yes.

MS. PERINO: Well, the members will be getting back in town later today, and tomorrow, I think both the Senate and the House are in, so we'll have to see at that point. But we are at a point in the debate where we believe that with a Senate bill that was supported by a wide bipartisan majority -- it passed 68-29, which I heard some congressman say that you can't even get a Mother's Day bill passed in the Senate -- but for this bill to garner 68 votes was quite significant.

If that vote was held today in the House of Representatives, if the Democratic leaders would allow it to come to a vote, it would pass, as well, with a majority supporting it. So we have a way to get to a bipartisan bill that is supported by the intelligence community, and gives them, the people who are accountable to the American people for protecting them, the tools that they say they need.

So at this point, I don't know where the members are going to come down, but we hope that they would be able to move forward this week. They have a bill in front of them that they could call up today -- or tomorrow when they're in session.

Q Is the President's position that he would veto it without retroactive immunity?

MS. PERINO: That has been his position for a long time, and the reason is because you can't have -- without the cooperation of the companies, we won't have a program. You know, if we had a nationalized telecommunication system, then we -- the government could do it on its own, but in our system of government and the way that we are set up as a capitalist-style country, we have to have the cooperation of the private sector.

They have the technology, they have the means, and they want to cooperate, but they have been burdened with over 40 lawsuits, class-action lawsuits that would -- that, one, already are costing them lots of money to deal with. And if the suits were to go forward, it could cost them possibly billions. And that cost is going to be borne by the consumers of those businesses, the customers of those businesses. But more importantly, the companies at this point are saying that they are growing increasingly reluctant to continue to work with us because, even though they want to, they are concerned about the trial lawyer lawsuits that are pending.

Q Dana, critics would say that --

MS. PERINO: Reluctantly so. And it took a lot of work on behalf of the Justice Department and the office of Director of National Intelligence to work with the companies to work with companies to -- work with them to tell them what we need, and to tell them that we are going to continue to push for prospective and, more importantly, retroactive liability protection.

Q Who gave them the right to break the law?

MS. PERINO: Nobody broke the law, Helen. That might be your opinion, but nobody broke the law.

Q When these companies -- when no warrant is given, and they didn't break the law?

MS. PERINO: Helen, you're entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to your own set of facts.

Q Oh, come on, let's --

MS. PERINO: And the facts are that companies were asked to help, and they were helped --

Q Why can't they get --

MS. PERINO: -- and they allowed -- they helped with a legal program that has helped save lives.

Q Who told them they could break the law?

MS. PERINO: That is just -- that's not true, Helen.

Q Is it not the case, as the writers of the op-ed in today's Post claim, that the law protects all of this until August?

MS. PERINO: There are -- it's a little bit more complex than that, but there are certainly directives that were approved last August when the Protect America Act was passed.

Q For how long?

MS. PERINO: For one year. But it's not for -- it's not necessarily -- that does not necessarily apply to all the new targets. And it doesn't apply necessarily to maybe new companies or new providers that we would need to work with in the future, that might not already be under a directive that we're --

Q But one of your complaints of prospective. They don't affect anything that's going on right now.

MS. PERINO: That's not necessarily the case. As you heard in the letter -- you didn't hear from him, but in the letter that Attorney General Mukasey and Director of National Intelligence McConnell sent on Friday -- that there were several days last week where we lost information. Late Friday night there was a company that agreed reluctantly to continue to cooperate with us.

But one of the things you have to understand is in the world --

Q They lost information because companies wouldn't cooperate.

MS. PERINO: Correct. There was -- they are reluctant to cooperate. And during that time frame when they were trying to work with them to get them to cooperate, and to give them the comfort that they needed to be willing partners, it just took a little while. And then once that was given on Saturday morning, that the Justice Department and the Office of Director -- the DNI, put out a statement saying that they had gotten this cooperation.

But this is not the kind -- this is not the way we should be running an intelligence program where you are trying to track terrorists who are calling into or out of America. We don't want to have to be having our lawyers and other professionals in the intelligence community having to coax companies to cooperate. These companies want to cooperate. I mean, all they're saying is that they want the retroactive liability protection which passed the Senate 68-29.

Q So what does the White House think of the op-ed from the Democrats that accuse the President of using scare tactics and playing political games? And they say if the President really believed the expiration of the act created a danger, he should have accepted their offer for an extension.

MS. PERINO: Well, one, the House proved that they couldn't even pass an extension, so that wasn't an option. An extension wasn't an option. But we had a response to the op-ed, that I issued.

I think that fear-mongering and the use of the phrase "scare tactics" is something that the Democrats -- it must be, like, one of their favorite words, or it must poll very well, because they use it almost every time.

What we have done is state facts; that this is what the law said; this is what the intelligence community says that they need; this is what the bill in front of the House says, and it's one that was designed with the intelligence community, in concert with them, so that they would be able to have the buy-in and say that they would get what they need out of that bill. It passed 68-29; we think they should go ahead and pass it.

The issue really right now between the House and the Senate, as far as I can tell, the biggest issue is retroactive liability protection, and in their op-ed they just had a passing glance to that issue. But it is one of the biggest sticking points, because at the end of the day if we don't have the companies helping us, then we won't have a program.

Q But to clarify what you said earlier, did the U.S. actually lose potentially valuable intelligence on Friday, or we had difficulty securing the cooperation of the telecommunications company that eventually came to --

MS. PERINO: I'd refer you to their letter in which they said that there were several days of lost information.

Q Dana, critics would say that if those companies lose those suits, it's because they broke the law -- even if you give them prospective coverage, that there's no need to give retroactive coverage.

MS. PERINO: As we said, the program was lawful, they were asked to help their country. And look, the President's most solemn obligation is to protect the American people. And in some ways it seems that the House Democrats' most solemn obligation is to help protect the trial lawyers -- they're the ones who have brought all these lawsuits. And they're huge class-action lawsuits in which all of us consumers of telecommunications companies would be named. And if at the end of the day, say that these trial lawyers won these lawsuits -- you and I would get a dollar or two back, and they would get 46 percent of the award.

This program was lawful; and we need it. General Hayden and Director McConnell have said that this is a program that helped us save lives. It helped -- they say in their letter from Friday night that they found someone who was planning to be a suicide bomber, someone who was trying to move terrorist financing money around.

And so with the way that terrorists know that they can use technology, we have to keep up with them. We have to stay one step ahead of them. And what counts right now is seconds and minutes. It's not days' worth of time that you can spend to try to track down one of these individuals. There are times when you need to act urgently, and so you need the speed, agility and flexibility that comes from what passed in the Senate, which is a bipartisan bill that passed 68-29. And the House could pass it today if they wanted to.

Q Dana, to be clear, don't you still -- you can still pursue that information, go after it, as long as you come back within three days and get a warrant under FISA, correct? I mean, it doesn't stop them from getting information.

MS. PERINO: I'm not a lawyer; I just know, Kathleen, that it's much more complicated than that, and that the intelligence professionals and the lawyers who are working on this are trying to work with the companies to make sure that they know that we will give them everything that they need in order to be comfortable working with us.

And they have said that until they have that retroactive liability protection -- and right now, with the Protect America Act expired, there is a question from some of them as to whether or not the prospective or current activities that are ongoing, if they are protected from that. So we would just encourage Congress to go ahead and take that --

Q That really hasn't stopped the collection of intelligence, has it?

MS. PERINO: I refer you to their letter in which they said there were days lost, and that we have companies that are reluctantly working with us. And, Bill, look, take it -- do not take it from me, take it from the intelligence community professionals. These are people who are held -- would be held accountable if there were a terrorist attack. And they are saying this is what they need. They're not making this up. We wouldn't be having this debate if we didn't need this program.

Q I find it hard to believe that the communications companies involved would have cut them off if this didn't continue, with the belief that it could be made right later.

MS. PERINO: They don't believe necessarily that it may be made right later because Congress has been unwilling -- the House Democrats have been unwilling to move. They had six months to work on it; they didn't. The President graciously gave them another 14 days to work on it; they didn't do it. They even proved that they couldn't pass an extension in the House. So here we are, waiting for Congress to continue to work on it. And I will tell you, it is a fact that the companies are increasingly reluctant, whether you believe it or not. And you don't have to take it from me, but you could take it from the intelligence professionals who are responsible for making sure that all of us are kept safe.

Q If this is such a big deal, why didn't the President accept another extension?

MS. PERINO: Because the House couldn't even pass an extension bill, even if they had wanted to. They couldn't pass it. What they need to pass is a bipartisan bill --

Q The President said he wouldn't accept it, so --

MS. PERINO: Well, that's true, but they wouldn't have been able to pass it anyway.

Q -- isn't it his problem that he lost a couple of days, if in fact he did?

MS. PERINO: Absolutely not. This -- no. The President is not going to accept the blame for House Democrats not taking up a bill that passed 68-29 in the Senate.

Q Yes, but if it's such -- if it's so urgent to protect the nation's security, as you have said --

MS. PERINO: But, Bill, it still didn't do what -- the things that I have said repeatedly that it needs to do. Even if they had extended it, it doesn't provide for retroactive liability protection, which is what the companies say that they need.

Go ahead.

Q You're still collecting intelligence.

MS. PERINO: Go ahead, Roger.

Q Dana, since the law expired --

Q (Inaudible.)

Q -- on the 16th --

MS. PERINO: I'm sorry, I can't hear you.

Q Since the law expired on the 16th, do you know if any company -- if there have been any companies that have refused cooperation since then?

MS. PERINO: Look, I can't get into a lot -- this is a classified program, so I would refer you to the letter that Judge Mukasey -- I'm sorry, Attorney General Mukasey and Director McConnell put out Friday night. They said they -- in that letter, on the first page, it says they lost days-worth of information.

Q These companies have been reluctantly cooperating, and I'm just wondering if there have been any that have been --

MS. PERINO: I know that there was a certain instance in which they were not able to convince a company up until late Friday night, which is why they put out that statement Saturday morning.

John.

Q Back on the economy for a second, are you saying that the GDP number later this week has some significance or some particular weight in terms of deciding whether you go to another stimulus package?

MS. PERINO: Not more than any other month. I was just making a point that it's another factor that we'll have to take into account when the numbers come out on Wednesday(**).

Go ahead.

Q On that topic, you said going into the meeting with the governors the President was willing to listen to their ideas. Do you know if he heard anything that swayed his view, particularly on the idea of infrastructure projects, or is it still viewed that -- from the White House that those aren't stimulative?

MS. PERINO: Well, it's not -- there's no short-term stimulus to the economy for some of these projects, though I think that the -- the President listened to them with an open mind, and I think that he would encourage them to work with the Department of Transportation to see what might be possible right now, today. He talked about his budget, which would increase transportation funding by $24 billion this year alone.

And so -- and I think it was Governor Rendell who said that they have done a lot of the legwork to get these projects up to where they need to be -- for example, the environmental impact statements having been done already, and a lot of the planning necessary have been done. They're just waiting for the funding.

And so I think the President encouraged them to work with Secretary Peters. I'd just say that the President was very clear he is reluctant to support anything that would raise taxes. So we'll have to see what they come up with.

Peter, did you have one? No? Okay, John.

Q When you say he'd be reluctant to support anything that would raise taxes, are you referring to infrastructure projects tied to an increase in transportation fuel taxes or --

MS. PERINO: Well, the bottom line is the President says he's not going to raise taxes, okay. So I should say it's not just that he's reluctant to; it's that he would not sign a bill that would raise taxes.

But there's lots of different ways and Congress is very creative in figuring out ways to increase taxes on the American people.

Q Yes, but you can make an argument that if you just increased the deficit, you, you know, inevitably create a tax burden.

MS. PERINO: Well, we already -- we have already conceded that. And when we -- when the President signed the $157 billion stimulus package, he conceded that we will have a short-term increase in the deficit because of that. But what we needed in that package, which we thought was the right size, which we think that it is the right size in order to prevent the economy from sliding down into a recession or even a stronger economic downturn -- that's why we have -- that's why the President signed that bill, and we think that that was sufficient. But we don't think, necessarily, that taxpayers should have to pay for any more stimulus if it's not necessary, and if it won't necessarily have the effect that they would like it to have.

Paula.

Q At the stakeout, Governor Rendell said that actually the infrastructure -- investing in that would create up to 47,000 jobs for every billion dollars that's invested, and that that would actually be a greater stimulus to the economy than sending out tax rebates. So is the issue here really whether or not it's stimulus, or how to pay for it?

MS. PERINO: I think we need to make a distinction -- any time you're pumping money into the economy, that's stimulative. But what we needed for this economy for this -- for right now is a short-term stimulus effect. I don't doubt that Governor Rendell said that, or that he feels that that would be better. The President, working with his Treasury Secretary and members of both the House and the Senate on both sides of the aisle, agree that $157 billion in tax rebates and incentives for businesses was the best way to go. But as I said, he has an open mind, but he's not going to do anything that would raise taxes.

Q You also cited the $24 billion in your proposal this year. But as you know, budgets -- at best, this won't even be agreed to probably by October 1, or even a continuing resolution. So would that really be a realistic way of spending?

MS. PERINO: You have such little faith in the Congress to actually get something done. But I think -- look, the governors are going to be talking to members of Congress, as well. The governors know that they want this money, and they will be able to lobby members of Congress, as well.

But remember, the President said that you can look at any transportation bill -- the highway bills have been passed -- especially recently, they are filled with earmarks, which takes away from governors being able to make decisions as to where they want to spend that money, and especially if they have a project all ready to go, they would rather put the money towards that, be able to get the project done for their people, create jobs in their state, and not have to spend it on something that they think is a lesser priority. But that's what happens with the transportation bills.

Go ahead, Les.

Q Thank you, Dana. Two questions. Agence France-Presse reports that the USS Nimitz launched four F-18 fighters to intercept a pair of Russian TU-95 bombers off Japan, and escort one of them as it flew over the carrier at an altitude of 2,000 feet. And my question: What was the reaction of the Commander-in-Chief to this?

MS. PERINO: Are you talking about the incident from a couple of weeks ago?

Q Yes.

MS. PERINO: The President said that the Department of Defense handled it well, and we didn't think of it as a hostile act. It was nothing that we were really concerned about.

Q The AP reports that at Harvard, Mexico's President Felipe Calder n, on his first trip to the United States, said, "I need to change in Mexico the perception that the Americans are the enemy. And it is important to change the perception that the Mexicans are the enemy." And my question: What evidence does President Bush have that Mexican troops and police are seriously halting Mexican illegal aliens from invading our country?

MS. PERINO: Well, look, Les, I don't think anybody here in this administration thinks that anyone from Mexico is an enemy, except for maybe those who are dealing drugs and violence on the border.

Q Well, I'm just quoting what the President of Mexico said. I didn't say it. Go ahead.

MS. PERINO: We are working with the Calder n government. And President Calder n has said he's committed to working with us, and we actually have a package right now pending before Congress, in which we want to work with them in order to help make the border even more secure from -- preventing illegal immigration, as well as helping stop drug trafficking and violence.

Q Does the President think the Mexicans have supported keeping our borders secure?

MS. PERINO: I think the President believes President Calder n is making very good efforts in trying to help secure the border.

Go ahead.

Q Last week, President Bush said that during his visit to Rwanda he learned the clear lesson that outside forces that tend to divide people up inside their country are unbelievably counterproductive. How will the President's newfound insight affect his Iraq policy?

MS. PERINO: The President has been working towards reconciliation between the Sunnis and the Shia, and it's actually working on a political level in some ways. Especially we saw that last month, when they passed three laws in one day, which was quite a significant achievement for the Iraqis. And he will continue to work with them on it.

Q Does he know what percentage of the Iraqi people want U.S. forces to leave?

MS. PERINO: Look, what we do know is that the -- there might be polls telling -- saying different things about who wants us where. What we know is that the Iraqi government wants us there, neighboring countries want us there. And we also know that if we were to leave too quickly that the possibility for chaos and mass violence is too great, and the President won't risk that.

Goyal.

Q Dana, two quick questions. One, last week people of Pakistan have spoken for democracy. And there is a big call now in the opposition parties, the winning parties and also the people in Pakistan that Mr. Musharraf must step down now and let the democracy to work. How long do you think President -- or what do you think about how long he will continue support?

MS. PERINO: Well, the President does support President Musharraf for all of the work that he's done to help us in counterterrorism. And if you look at what we asked President Musharraf to do -- which is to take off the uniform, to set free and fair elections, and to lift the emergency order -- he did all of those things. And so now it will be up to the people of Pakistan to see what their new government will look like. But the President does certainly support him, and has continued to.

Q And second, as far as the U.S.-India nuclear -- civil nuclear agreement is concerned, there is a call by the U.S. senators, in Delhi they met with the Prime Minister of India and they said that now or never means by July, India must act or this bill will not go through. What President thinks, as far as U.S.-India civil nuclear deal?

MS. PERINO: Well, we have a little bit more time, obviously, on the calendar before the end of the President's term. But if there's internal pressure inside India for them to move more quickly, I think that's good. And I saw a report today that said that there are some elements within India that are very supportive of getting the deal done.

Q And is President in touch with anybody in Delhi on this issue, now, let's go and do it now?

MS. PERINO: We are in touch with different levels of government throughout -- here and at the National Security Council and the State Department.

Go ahead.

Q Dana.

MS. PERINO: Can I just do one more back here. Go ahead.

Q The U.S. government has called for a --

MS. PERINO: I'm sorry, who?

Q The U.S. government has called for the international community to help Cubans to start a new era of democracy. But in Latin America, the Conference of Latin America has called the U.S. to change their policy toward Cuba, like lifting the U.S. embargo after more than 40 years, that nothing happened with the embargo because Castro -- I mean, stepped out of the government because he was ill, not because of U.S. embargo. What is your response to the call from Latin American Conference to do that?

MS. PERINO: Well, this is certainly a significant time for the people of Cuba. It's their first time in modern history that they've had a change of leadership, and we've urged the Cuban government to allow the people of Cuba to move towards a more peaceful, prosperous and free future.

I would refer you to the President's speech from October 24, 2007, in which he talked about this and specifically about the embargo, and that lifting it would only, at this time, without any change in the process -- system of government in Cuba, enrich the elites and strengthen their grip. And the people who really need the support of a freer system would not benefit from lifting the embargo. So there is not a contemplation here of changing that now.

END 12:56 P.M. EST

(*) Transportation funding is expected to increase by 10 percent in FY 2008 ($52.9 billion) over FY 2007 ($47.9 billion), and will thereby provide a timely boost to the economy this year without additional resources. (**) GDP numbers will be released on Thursday, 2/28/08

For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary February 25, 2008

Tags: President Bush and White House or Dana Perino and Burma,

The downside of a good idea

Caption: Robert Goldstone directs the Cognitive Science Program at Indiana University and also the Percepts and Concepts Laboratory. Credit: Indiana University. Usage Restrictions: None

BLOOMINGTON, Ind. -- Good ideas can have drawbacks. When information is freely shared, good ideas can stunt innovation by distracting others from pursuing even better ideas, according to Indiana University cognitive scientist Robert Goldstone. "How do you structure your community so you get the best solution out of the group?" Goldstone said. "It turns out not to be effective if different inventors and labs see exactly what everyone else is doing because of the human tendency to glom onto the current 'best' solution." Goldstone's findings were published this month in the January/February issue of the journal "Current Directions in Psychological Science." Michael E. Roberts, a doctoral student in the Cognitive Science Program, and Todd M. Gureckis, assistant professor of psychology at New York University, are co-authors of the article "Emergent Processes in Group Behavior."

Goldstone's research examines and charts group behavior and the patterns in which people unknowingly participate -- much like ants creating colony structures about which they are clueless.

This study used a virtual environment in which study participants worked in specifically designed groups to solve a problem. Participants guessed numbers between 1 and 100, with each number having a hidden value. The goal was for individuals to accumulate the highest score through several rounds of guessing. Across different conditions, the relationship between guesses and scores could either be simple or complex. The participants saw the results of their own guesses and some or all of the guesses of the others in their group.

In the "fully connected" group, everyone's work was completely accessible to everyone else -- much like a tight-knit family or small town. In the "locally connected" group, participants primarily were aware of what their neighbors, or the people on either side, were doing. In the "small world" group, participants also were primarily aware of what their neighbors were doing, but they also had a few distant connections that let them send or retrieve good ideas from outside of their neighborhood.

Goldstone found that the fully connected groups performed the best when solving simple problems. Small world groups, however, performed better on more difficult problems. For these problems, the truism "The more information, the better" is not valid.

"The small world network preserves diversity," Goldstone said. "One clique could be coming up with one answer, another clique could be coming up with another. As a result, the group as a whole is searching the problem space more effectively. For hard problems, connecting people by small world networks offers a good compromise between having members explore a variety of innovations, while still quickly disseminating promising innovations throughout the group. ###

This research was supported by the U.S. Department of Education and the National Science Foundation. To participate in the lab's online group experiments, please visit groups.psych.indiana.edu/. Goldstone can be reached at 812-855-4853 or rgoldsto@indiana.edu.

Visit the Percepts and Concepts Laboratory at cognitrn.psych.indiana.edu/. For a copy of the article or for additional assistance, contact Tracy James, 812-855-0084 and traljame@indiana.edu.

Contact: Robert Goldstone rgoldsto@indiana.edu 812-855-4853 Indiana University

Tags: Indiana University and Cognitive Science Program or Psychological Science and small world network

Freedom Calendar 02/23/08 - 03/01/08

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

February 24, 1992, President George H. W. Bush appoints African-American Edward Perkins as U.S. Ambassador to United Nations.

February 25, 1870, A former slave, Mississippi Republican Hiram Revels, becomes first African-American U.S. Senator.

February 26, 2004, Hispanic Republican U.S. Rep. Henry Bonilla (R-TX) condemns racist comments by U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown (D-FL); she had called Asst. Secretary of State Roger Noriega and several Hispanic Congressmen “a bunch of white men...you all look alike to me”.

February 27, 1860, Abraham Lincoln launches campaign for Republican presidential nomination with speech at the Cooper Institute in New York.

February 28, 1871, Republican Congress passes Enforcement Act providing federal protection for African-American voters.

March 1, 1875, Civil Rights Act of 1875, guaranteeing access to public accommodations without regard to race, signed by Republican President U.S. Grant; passed with 92% Republican support over 100% Democrat oppositiont.

“Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.”

Abraham Lincoln, 16th President of the United States

SOURCE: Republican Freedom Calendar more at President Bush and Freedom Calendar or NAACP and Republicans or African-Americans and 15th Amendment or right to vote and Civil Rights or Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass or 40 acres and a mule

Presidential Podcast 02/23/08

Presidential Podcast 02/23/08 . 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

Tags: President Bush and White House radio address or HIV/AIDS and malaria

Bush radio address 02/23/08 full audio, text transcript

bush radio address 02/23/08 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. This Thursday, Laura and I returned from an inspiring visit to Africa. In Benin and Tanzania, we met leaders who are fighting HIV/AIDS and malaria -- and people whose lives have been saved by the generosity of the American people. In Rwanda, we saw a nation overcoming the pain of genocide with courage and grace and hope. In Ghana, we met entrepreneurs who are exporting their products and building a more prosperous future. And in Liberia, we saw a nation that is recovering from civil war, led by the first democratically elected woman President on the continent. Laura and I returned to Washington impressed by the energy, optimism, and potential of the African people.

Members of Congress will soon be returning to Washington, as well, and they have urgent business to attend to. They left town on a 10-day recess without passing vital legislation giving our intelligence professionals the tools they need to quickly and effectively monitor foreign terrorist communications. Congress' failure to pass this legislation was irresponsible. It will leave our Nation increasingly vulnerable to attack. And Congress must fix this damage to our national security immediately.

The way ahead is clear. The Senate has already passed a good bill by an overwhelming bipartisan majority. This bill has strong bipartisan support in the House of Representatives, and would pass if given an up or down vote. But House leaders are blocking this legislation, and the reason can be summed up in three words: class action lawsuits.

The Senate bill would prevent plaintiffs' attorneys from suing companies believed to have helped defend America after the 9/11 attacks. More than 40 of these lawsuits have been filed, seeking hundreds of billions of dollars in damages from these companies. It is unfair and unjust to threaten these companies with financial ruin only because they are believed to have done the right thing and helped their country.

But the highest cost of all is to our national security. Without protection from lawsuits, private companies will be increasingly unwilling to take the risk of helping us with vital intelligence activities. After the Congress failed to act last week, one telecommunications company executive was asked by the Wall Street Journal how his company would respond to a request for help. He answered that because of the threat of lawsuits, quote, "I'm not doing it ...I'm not going to do something voluntarily." In other words, the House's refusal to act is undermining our ability to get cooperation from private companies. And that undermines our efforts to protect us from terrorist attack.

Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell recently explained that the vast majority of the communications infrastructure we rely on in the United States is owned and operated by the private sector. Because of the failure to provide liability protection, he says private companies who have "willingly helped us in the past, are now saying, 'You can't protect me. Why should I help you?'" Senator Jay Rockefeller, the Democratic Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, puts it this way: "The fact is, if we lose cooperation from these or other private companies, our national security will suffer."

When Congress reconvenes on Monday, Members of the House have a choice to make: They can empower the trial bar -- or they can empower the intelligence community. They can help class action trial lawyers sue for billions of dollars -- or they can help our intelligence officials protect millions of lives. They can put our national security in the hands of plaintiffs' lawyers -- or they can entrust it to the men and women of our government who work day and night to keep us safe. As they make their choice, Members of Congress must never forget: Somewhere in the world, at this very moment, terrorists are planning the next attack on America. And to protect America from such attacks, we must protect our telecommunications companies from abusive lawsuits.

Thank you for listening.

For Immediate Release February 23, 2008

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House radio address or HIV/AIDS and malaria

Discurso Radial del Presidente a la Nación 02/23/08

forre el audio de la dirección de radio 2/23/08 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.

Este jueves Laura y yo volvimos de una visita inspirada al África. En Benin y Tanzania estuvimos con líderes que están luchando contra VIH/SIDA y malaria - y personas cuyas vidas han sido salvadas por la generosidad del pueblo estadounidense. En Ruanda vimos una nación que está superando el dolor del genocidio con valor y gracia y esperanza. En Ghana conocimos a empresarios que están exportando sus productos y construyendo un futuro más próspero. Y en Liberia, vimos a una nación que se está recuperando de una guerra civil, encabezada por la primera mujer elegida democráticamente en ese continente. Laura y yo regresamos a Washington impresionados por la energía, el optimismo y el potencial del pueblo africano.

Los miembros del Congreso pronto volverán a Washington también, y tienen asuntos urgentes que atender. Se fueron de la ciudad por un receso de 10 días sin aprobar legislación vital dando a nuestros profesionales de inteligencia las herramientas que necesitan para rápida y eficazmente monitorear las comunicaciones de terroristas extranjeros. La falta del Congreso de aprobar esta legislación fue irresponsable. Dejará a nuestra Nación cada vez más vulnerable a ser atacada. Y el Congreso debe reparar de inmediato este perjuicio a nuestra seguridad.

El camino por delante está claro. El Senado ya ha aprobado un buen proyecto de ley por una mayoría bipartita abrumadora. Este proyecto de ley tiene fuerte apoyo bipartito en la Cámara de Representantes, y sería aprobado de ser sometido a un voto sí o no. Pero los líderes de la Cámara están bloqueando esta legislación, y la razón puede resumirse en cuatro palabras: demandas de acción colectiva.

El proyecto de ley del Senado evitaría que los abogados de los demandantes pudieran demandar a compañías que se cree ayudaron a defender a Estados Unidos después de los ataques del 9/11. Más de 40 de estas demandas han sido presentadas, buscando cientos de mil millones de dólares en daños y perjuicios de estas compañías. Es injusto amenazar a estas compañías con ruina financiera sólo porque se cree que hicieron lo correcto y ayudaron a su país.

Pero el mayor costo de todos es para nuestra seguridad nacional. Sin protección contra demandas, las compañías privadas serán cada vez menos dispuestas a asumir el riesgo de ayudarnos con actividades de inteligencia vitales. Después que el Congreso no actuó la semana pasada, el diario Wall Street Journal le preguntó a un ejecutivo de una compañía de telecomunicaciones cómo respondería su compañía a una solicitud de ayuda. Él contestó que debido a la amenaza de demandas, y cito "No lo estaré haciendo. no voy a hacer algo voluntariamente." En otras palabras, la negativa de la Cámara de actuar está socavando nuestra capacidad de obtener ayuda de compañías privadas. Y eso socava nuestros esfuerzos de protegernos contra ataques terroristas.

El Director de Inteligencia Nacional, Mike McConnell recientemente explicó que la gran mayoría de la infraestructura de comunicaciones sobre la cual dependemos en los Estados Unidos es propiedad de y operada por el sector privado. Dice que, en vista de la falta de proporcionar protección contra responsabilidad, compañías privadas que "de buena gana nos han ayudado en el pasado, ahora dicen "No me pueden proteger a mi. ¿Porqué he de ayudarlos a ustedes?" El Senador Jay Rockefeller, Presidente Demócrata del Comité de Inteligencia del Senado, lo expresa así: "El hecho es que si perdemos la cooperación de estas u otras compañías privadas, nuestra seguridad nacional va a sufrir."

Cuando el Congreso se vuelva a reunir el lunes, los Miembros de la Cámara tendrán que tomar una decisión: Pueden dar poderes a los tribunales - o pueden dar poderes a la comunidad de inteligencia. Pueden ayudar a los abogados de demandas de acción popular a presentar demandas por mil millones de dólares - o pueden ayudar a nuestros oficiales de inteligencia a proteger millones de vidas. Pueden poner nuestra seguridad nacional en manos de abogados de demandantes - o pueden confiársela a los hombres y mujeres de nuestro gobierno que trabajan día y noche para mantenernos a salvo. Al tomar su decisión, los Miembros del Congreso no deben jamás olvidar: en alguna parte del mundo en este preciso momento, terroristas están planeando el próximo ataque contra Estados Unidos. Y para proteger a Estados Unidos contra tales ataques, debemos proteger a nuestras compañías de telecomunicaciones contra demandas abusivas.

Gracias por escuchar.

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

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