State Department Daily Press Briefing, 03/04/08 VIDEO, PODCAST, TEXT

U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing by Deputy Spokesman Tom Casey FULL STREAMING VIDEO Washington, DC. March 4, 2008, 12:34 p.m. EST. PODCAST OF THIS ARTICLE

MR. CASEY: Okay. Good afternoon, guys. I don’t have anything to start you out with, so let’s see what might be on your minds.

Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Do you have any update on the case of Mr. Levinson in Iran? Apparently, his wife was going to be meeting with some State Department officials on Thursday.

MR. CASEY: Well, as you know, we’re approaching the one-year anniversary of Mr. Levinson’s disappearance. We still continue to work closely with the FBI as well as through our protecting power, the Swiss embassy in Tehran, to try and locate him and find out what has happened. We do maintain contact with the family on a regular basis and I know the FBI does as well.

Unfortunately, what we still don’t have is a good understanding of what happened to Mr. Levinson or where he is currently located. We are continuing, again, to work this issue. This is something that we raise both by formal diplomatic note via the Swiss as well as in their discussions with Iranian Government officials. And Mrs. Levinson and her son went to Tehran in the end of December to discuss this issue directly with Iranian officials. They promised at that time that they would cooperate with her in trying to find the whereabouts of her husband and we certainly would hope that they would do so. To date, however, of course, they have not been able to provide us with any information that does give us an accounting of what happened to him and where he currently is.

QUESTION: Is this meeting just a routine meeting or is it --

MR. CASEY: I’m not sure – I’m not sure who exactly they may be meeting with, but I would consider this part of our ongoing regular discussions with them. Unfortunately, I don’t think, at this point, I know of any new information concerning his case.

Go, Barry.

QUESTION: Okay. Two AP, back to back.

MR. CASEY: Well, double trouble, I guess.

QUESTION: There are at least a couple of members of Congress who are asking Rice to reconsider her decision to eliminate the position of the USAID auditors, investigators based in Baghdad. Do you – is there going to be any rethinking of that?

MR. CASEY: Well --

QUESTION: It’s Berman and Norm Coleman.

MR. CASEY: Well, I’m sure – I’m not sure what correspondence there may have been from the members on this, but there’s certainly no intention or desire to eliminate the Inspector General’s function – AID Inspector General’s function in Baghdad. Frankly, Barry, I think there is – this is people who are trying to elevate what amounts to a pretty small bureaucratic dispute over office space into some kind of broader policy concern. I think this issue is something that’s going to be resolved in the not-too-distant future and I think people will be fully satisfied that the Inspector General from AID will be able to fully perform their functions in Baghdad.

QUESTION: Well, listen, I come at this without, obviously, background, but I think that’s a straightforward answer. There is no elimination. Is there a winnowing down of, however, the representation there of aid? Could they be --

MR. CASEY: Barry, as far as I know --

QUESTION: You did say office space.

MR. CASEY: Those – yeah, I mean, the determination of, you know, how many staff the Inspector General will have from the USAID on the ground, at the mission will be determined by what the needs are according to the Inspector General. And of course, any final decisions on personnel assigned to the embassy in Baghdad will have to be run through the ambassador as well, but it’s a normal procedure. There’s no specific desire on our part to reduce or eliminate their staff.

QUESTION: To reduce or eliminate?

MR. CASEY: Yeah, yeah.

Lach.

QUESTION: Given that Venezuela and Ecuador have sent troops to the border with Colombia, is the U.S. urging restraint or making any special message to them?

MR. CASEY: Well, there’s a meeting, as you know, taking place at the OAS today to discuss this issue. We have strongly encouraged Ecuador to work diplomatically with the Government of Colombia through the offices of the OAS to resolve any of the outstanding issues that remain related to this question. We also think that it’s important, of course, that Colombia continue to do what it needs respond to the threat posed by the FARC, which is a terrorist organization. We’ve supported do to their efforts over the years and we continue to do so.

Certainly, part of this discussion needs to be what all parties in the region can do to make sure that the FARC and other terrorist groups are not able to use territory of any state to be able to conduct their operations. But we would look to the parties to be able to work this issue through in the OAS. Certainly, we believe that it’s appropriate for them to handle this discussion diplomatically and again, I think it’s possible for them to do so.

QUESTION: How far is Colombia’s reach permissible as far as you’re concerned? Can it cross the border to look for FARC?

MR. CASEY: Well, Barry, the important thing is there needs to be regional cooperation on these issues. This is not a problem that is new. Again, the FARC has been out there making things difficult and making people’s lives miserable in Colombia for more than a couple of decades. We want to see all countries cooperate with Colombia to be able to deal with this problem. But you know, at this point, what we have is a individual military incident that’s raised concerns with Ecuador about – you know, the – about the actions involved by the Colombians; understandable that there are questions there, understandable that these are issues that need to be worked out, but we do believe that they can be worked out diplomatically and we would hope that all countries would work with Colombia again to deal with the FARC.

Kirit. Yeah.

QUESTION: What do you make of these reports that the Venezuelan Government was supporting the FARC financially at least?

MR. CASEY: Well, I talked a little bit about this this morning. I’ve seen the press reports on this. I can’t confirm them. I can’t deny them either. I’m sure this is an issue that people will look at. We would certainly hope, as I just said, that not only would countries not support a terrorist organization and its activities, but would work with the Government of Colombia to confront this problem and confront an organization that has been responsible for kidnappings, for acts of violence, for killings, for participation in drug trafficking and all the other kinds of ills that it’s been associated with. So I would certainly hope that neither Venezuela nor Ecuador nor any other government would be providing material or financial support to this organization.

QUESTION: Have you sought clarification from the Venezuelans and have you asked for – to look at the evidence of the Colombian Government?

MR. CASEY: I’m sure that we’ll have an opportunity to discuss this with the Colombian Government and then if there’s a reason to pursue it with other folks, we’ll do so.

Arshad.

QUESTION: Can we change topics to Russia and Ukraine? There’s another dispute, it appears, brewing over shipments of Russian gas through Ukraine to Europe. Russia has said that it will cut deliveries to Ukraine because of a payment dispute and the Ukrainian gas company today said that they would – they reserve the right to take appropriate action if Russia cuts supplies to Ukraine, that they may cut supplies going to Western Europe, so as to divert some to their consumers. And obviously, you remember the history of this in 2006.

MR. CASEY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Is the United States in any way involved in trying to make sure that gas supplies actually make it through to Western Europe? And does it seem to you that Russia is again using its gas supplies as sort of a political tool in its dealings with its neighbors?

MR. CASEY: Well, we would urge Russia and the Ukraine to resolve this dispute over gas shipments in a transparent matter and in accordance with commercial realities, rather than any other principals. You know, one of the things we talked about is that at the G-8 summit in St. Petersburg, the members all agreed to what’s called the St. Petersburg Energy Principles, and that specifically commits all the members to act transparently and refrain from using energy for political purposes, among a number of other things.

I think that what we would like to see happen here is a resolution of this in an appropriate way in accordance with the commercial needs, but I think this dispute underscores the need for greater transparency in the Russian-Ukraine gas trade and also highlights again another general point that we’ve always made, is that there needs to be a predictable flow of energy for Ukraine and the rest of the European market, and cutting off or reducing the flows of gas wouldn't appear to be the best way, I think, to resolve those differences. And we hope that both sides can agree on a payment arrangement and a settlement of the outstanding arrears and other money that’s required.

Also, I guess would point out, too, that this is why we continue to stress the importance of having multiple routes and sources for oil and natural gas to avoid the kind of potential problems that we’re seeing here.

QUESTION: I mean, can I just follow up on this one?

MR. CASEY: Sure, and then we’ll go to Barry.

QUESTION: You know, the chairman of Gazprom is Russian President-elect Medvedev. Is it disquieting to you -- and I know he has not yet taken, you know, office -- but is it disquieting to you that a company with which he’s affiliated should, you know, threaten to cut in half supplies to a neighbor?

MR. CASEY: Well, you know, Arshad, regardless of who has been, is now or will be running the company, the general principle is we never want to see these kinds of commercial disputes escalate into the kinds of cutoffs that cause problems for not only Ukraine but potentially for Western Europe or other countries. And again, we certainly -- while I’m not saying it’s the case in this particular dispute, we certainly would never want to see anyone use gas or oil shipments as some kind of political weapon. So we will continue to make those points both with the current Russian Government as well as with the new one.

QUESTION: And do you have any reason to believe that this -- that that is what they’re doing in this case: They’re using gas shipments as a political instrument?

MR. CASEY: Well, there’s a legitimate commercial dispute here and we’d like to see that resolved in a commercial way. I think there have been concerns raised in the past, and I think those concerns remain, about a lack of transparency in how this is proceeding. And I think that raises legitimate questions in people’s minds.

QUESTION: Can I go back to the AID thing?

MR. CASEY: Sure.

QUESTION: I looked a little closer to Berman – Congressman Berman’s statement. And he said, “USAID currently has nine auditors and investigators working full-time to prevent waste, fraud, et cetera. The Office of the Agency’s Inspector General confirmed that, citing security, the State Department notified USAID that it’ll be left with two temporary duty officers who would serve in Baghdad on a rotating basis.”

MR. CASEY: Barry –

QUESTION: That sounds like a reduction.

MR. CASEY: Barry, I can assure you that the USAID’s Inspector General will have the staff they need in place to do the job. And I think that quite frankly, you know, when all the bureaucratic arguing is done, that it’ll be an effective operation that everyone will be able to agree is what’s needed to serve the purposes at hand.

Yeah.

QUESTION: But you’re not – you can’t – I’m not going to – you know, interrogate you --

MR. CASEY: Barry, I’m not going to tell you – I’m not going to commit Ryan Crocker to have X number of people in his political section, economic section, public affairs section or the Inspector General’s office.

QUESTION: No, no, I’m only pressing it because – for two reasons. You said the State Department has not recommended any reduction. And that sounds like a reduction.

MR. CASEY: Barry, you know, I’m sure that there will be lots of things offered here. I am not aware, having spoken with Pat Kennedy and others that there is any effort to reduce the size of anybody’s staff at the mission right now.

QUESTION: Just to go back to the Russian-Ukraine gas thing, do you know if – I may have just missed it -- if the Gazprom has actually cut off gas supplies? I think they had planned to do so by about noon our time.

MR. CASEY: I understand that they have said they intend to do so and that, in fact, they are moving ahead with implementing it. Whether that’s halfway there or all the way there at this point in terms of the cuts they announced, I don’t know, Arshad.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MR. CASEY: Yeah, in the back.

QUESTION: Nick Spicer, Al Jazeera English. I was wondering if you might possibly comment on a Vanity Fair article alleging to lay bare a – I quote it – a covert initiative implemented by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to provoke a Palestinian civil war. I know that’s pretty strong language. Could you react to that, please?

MR. CASEY: Well, I can reprise the lengthy comments that I made this morning. I can also point you to the answer the Secretary gave in Cairo on this this morning. Look, first of all, let’s be clear about what U.S. policy has been and will be. U.S. policy is to support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is to support the legitimate government of the Palestinian Authority, specifically, working with President Abbas and his cabinet.

The U.S. policies in this regard have been transparent and open. They’ve been discussed publicly by the President, the Secretary of State and many others, both in public fora as well as in testimony to Congress. That policy includes, very specifically, a desire to help support, build and enhance Palestinian institutions.

We made it very clear when Hamas came to power that we would continue our no-contact policy with Hamas and that we intended to continue to work specifically with those institutions that were under the authority of the president. As you recall, we also had to have a very extensive review of all U.S. aid, not only direct aid but also that provided through NGOs, to make sure that none of that money was going to Hamas so long as Hamas refused to comply with the Quartet principles, meaning requiring it to recognize Israel’s right to exist, to recognize the validity of the very instruments by which government was allowed to form for the Palestinian Authority, also eschewing violence as a matter of policy.

So all that is prelude and let me just say this: The story alleges that there was some kind of secret plot on the part of the U.S. Government to create a internal conflict within the Palestinians, specifically an armed conflict. That’s absurd. That’s ridiculous. I said this morning that I think Vanity Fair should stick to arty photos of celebrities since clearly, at least in this instance, their efforts at serious journalism leave something lacking.

And on that note, how do I really feel? Yeah.

QUESTION: Cancel your subscription.

MR. CASEY: Unfortunately, don’t have one. Anything else? One in the back. Got two. Got one in the back and one in the front.

QUESTION: I hate to be the bad guy.

MR. CASEY: That’s okay. Barry, you’re never the bad guy. We are glad to see you back here.

QUESTION: Thank you. Now, it’s one thing to deny that the U.S. is working to create conflict between the two Palestinian factions. That’s absurd, you say.

MR. CASEY: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: It’s another thing to say, as you also said, U.S. supports Fatah institutions. The military, security, is a Fatah institution. Is the U.S. trying to help Abbas’ people be stronger? And, of course, they use their strength partly in civil conflict with Hamas. Follow me?

MR. CASEY: Barry, our goal --

QUESTION: So it’s not an airtight denial?.

MR. CASEY: Sure, but our goal was, is, and I suspect will continue to be building Palestinian institutions so that when you get, as we hope to get --

QUESTION: Right.

MR. CASEY: -- to the conclusion of a peace process that establishes a two-state solution, that there are Palestinian institutions that we and the Israelis and others can rely on to be able to implement and carry out the law, carry out the terms of the agreement. And our support isn’t for parties; it’s for the legitimate institutions of the country that are willing to work towards that end. And that’s always been our policy. It’s been open and transparent and above board. The security assistance we provide, as well as humanitarian and others, has been out there for people to see. So arguing that there was some kind of, you know, plot back there, or what my Spanish friends would call a mano negro, is just silly.

QUESTION: That comes down to supporting Fatah since they’re the legitimate group supporting U.S. goals --

MR. CASEY: Well, again, remember where we started this movie. After the election and after the Hamas-led government came to power, the position of the Quartet, including the United States, was very clear: We would not be able to support or engage with that government as long as it refused to acknowledge the basic Quartet principles. We’ve said, and you’ve heard from the Secretary many times, it’s hard for us or anyone else to ask the Israelis to engage with a “partner for peace” who denies that nation’s right to exist, who believes and continues to support the use of terror against it, who denies the fundamental agreements with which they have been established as a government and which refuses to act in any kind of good-faith manner. So again, the policies here are quite clear. But the fact that we and the Quartet thought that the Hamas-led government ought to acknowledge those basic principles in order for us to be able to work with them and have them engage legitimately with the Israelis as a partner for peace is, you know a totally different matter.

QUESTION: Tom.

MR. CASEY: Charlie.

QUESTION: You know that the Congress prohibits giving lethal aid to the Palestinians, and therefore you couldn't actually arm Fatah to take on Hamas.

MR. CASEY: Right.

QUESTION: Do you know of any discussions between the Administration and the Saudis that the Saudis would pay the bill to fund the rearming of Fatah?

MR. CASEY: Well, Charlie, I know there has certainly been a lot of discussions with other countries in the region and those discussions are ongoing about how you work to support President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad. You know, in terms of the details of who said what to whom over time, I honestly don’t have them. I can’t guarantee you there was never a conversation like that. But you know, the bottom line is an argument that says that the legitimate efforts of the Palestinian Authority president to develop his institutions, including his security institutions, is the cause of or the reason for Hamas violence is one of the worst examples of blaming the victim I can come up with in recent memory.

QUESTION: Tom, I’m not quite sure I follow that.

MR. CASEY: Okay. Well, let’s do some more of it.

QUESTION: Let’s try again. You don’t know of any -- you don’t know of any specific discussions between the Saudis and the Administration wherein they would what you can’t do legally, which is to arm Fatah?

MR. CASEY: Charlie, I’m not aware of any particular conversations in that regard. I can’t speak for every institution of the U.S. Government. What I can say is we have made it a very open and transparent issue that we wanted to work on behalf of the government of President Abbas and work for him and with him to be able to strengthen the legitimate institutions of the state and work with those institutions that were willing to be a partner for peace. And again, I don’t know how many times this was discussed in public in open settings by the President, the Secretary, by other members of the Administration. And to, you know, call that policy a covert plan is just -- sorry, it doesn't pass the reality test.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Tom, excuse me. KCNA, the North Korean news agency, is reporting various foreign ministry officials as saying that the most recent rounds of U.S.-South Korea military war games are going to upset and derail the six-party talks and denuclearization prospects. Does that worry you at all?

MR. CASEY: I’m not familiar with that. But look, as you know, we have a, you know, multi-decade defensive alliance in relationship with South Korea. We conduct exercises all the time. We have throughout the course of the history of that relationship. I certainly expect that whatever else happens, there will continue to be a very important strategic relationship between the United States and South Korea. I’m not aware that any previous exercises of the multiple ones conducted since the six-party talks began have affected or changed the outcome of the six-party process. And I don’t have any reason on the surface to tell you that I would expect there would be any impact from whenever the next ones are scheduled. And you can check with the Pentagon to find out when that is.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Well, North Korea is always upset by these exercises, so was there any effort to perhaps postpone it in the light of the troubles you’re having with North Korea?

MR. CASEY: I would – you would have to talk to the Pentagon, but again, as I pointed out, I think you’ve got a multi-decade history of these kinds of things going on. And we’ve had the six-party process throughout. I understand that it is normal for there to be concerns expressed by the North Koreans, but I don’t have any reason to believe that these exercises are different than any of the previous ones.

QUESTION: All right.

(The briefing was concluded at 12:58 p.m.) DPB # 39 Released on March 4, 2008

Tags: State Department and video or podcast and VENEZUELA or UKRAINE

Medal of Honor Ceremony for Woodrow Wilson Keeble VIDEO

Master Sergeant Keeble Photo by Vets Incorporated, Wahpeton, ND. February 22, 2008

President Bush Attends Medal of Honor Ceremony for Woodrow Wilson Keeble East Room PODCAST OF THIS ARTICLE First Sioux to Receive Medal of Honor. BY Carrie McLeroy WASHINGTON (Army News Service, Feb. 22, 2008) -- During the final allied offensive of the Korean War, Master Sergeant Woodrow Wilson Keeble risked his life to save his fellow Soldiers. Almost six decades after his gallant actions and 26 years after his death, Keeble will be the first full-blooded Sioux Indian to receive the Medal of Honor. The White House announced Friday morning that Keeble will receive the Medal of Honor posthumously in a ceremony scheduled for 2:30 p.m. March 3.

Keeble is one of the most decorated Soldiers in North Dakota history. A veteran of World War II and the Korean War, he was born in 1917 in Waubay, S.D., on the Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Reservation, which extended into North Dakota. He spent most of his life in the Wahpeton, N.D. area, where he attended an Indian school. In 1942 Keeble joined the North Dakota National Guard, and in October that year, found himself embroiled in some of the fiercest hand-to-hand combat of World War II on Guadalcanal.

Guadalcanal

"Guadalcanal seemed to be on his mind a lot," Russell Hawkins, Keeble's stepson, said. "His fellow Soldiers said he had to fight a lot of hand-to-hand fights with the Japanese, so he saw their faces. Every now and then he would get a far-away look in his eyes, and I knew he was thinking about those men and the things he had to do." At Henderson Field on the South Pacific Island, Keeble served with Company I, 164th Infantry - the first Army unit on Guadalcanal.

"I heard stories from James Fenelon, who served with him there, and he would talk about how the men of the 164th rallied around this full-blooded Sioux Indian whose accuracy with the Browning Automatic Rifle was unparalleled," Hawkins said. "It was said he would go in front of patrols and kill enemies before his unit would get there."

The Sioux have a word for that kind of bravery, according to Hawkins - wowaditaka. "It means don't be afraid of anything, be braver than that which scares you the most." Keeble personified the word according to fellow Soldiers, and earned the first of four Purple Hearts and his first Bronze Star for his actions on Guadalcanal.

Korea

Keeble answered the call to arms again when war broke out in Korea. He was a seasoned, 34-year-old master sergeant serving with 1st Platoon, Company G, 19th Infantry Regiment, 24th Division.

According to eyewitness accounts, while serving as the acting platoon leader of 1st Plt. in the vicinity of the Kumsong River, North Korea, on or about Oct. 15. 1951, Keeble voluntarily took on the responsibility of leading not only his platoon, but the 2nd and 3rd Platoons as well.

In an official statement 1st Sgt. Kosumo "Joe" Sagami of Co. G said, "All the officers of the company had received disabling wounds or were killed in action, except one platoon leader who assumed command of the company." The company's mission was to take control of a steep, rocky, heavily fortified hill.

Hawkins recalled how the man everyone knew as "Woody," described the terrain. "We were driving through Colorado on a trip, and Woody was pointing at something out the window," Hawkins said. By that time, Keeble had suffered seven debilitating strokes and lost the ability to speak.

"I pulled over and realized he was pointing at a large, rocky cliff with an almost sheer drop. I asked Woody if that was what it was like during that battle in Korea and he nodded, 'yes,'" Hawkins said. "It wasn't quite a straight drop down, but you could get up the hill faster on your hands and knees than on your feet."

Sagami wrote that Keeble led all three platoons in successive assaults upon the Chinese who held the hill throughout the day. All three charges were repulsed, and the company suffered heavy casualties. Trenches filled with enemy soldiers, and fortified by three pillboxes containing machine guns and additional men surrounded the hill.

Following the third assault and subsequent mortar and artillery support, the enemy sustained casualties among its ranks in the open trenches. The machine gunners in the pillboxes however, continued to direct fire on the company. Sagami said after Keeble withdrew the 3rd platoon, he decided to attempt a solo assault.

"He once told a relative that the fourth attempt he was either going to take them out or die trying," Hawkins said.

"Woody used to tell people he was more concerned about losing his men than about losing his own life," he added. "He pushed his own life to the limit. He wasn't willing to put his fellow Soldiers' lives on the line."

Armed with grenades and his Browning Automatic Rifle, Keeble crawled to an area 50 yards from the ridgeline, flanked the left pillbox and used grenades and rifle fire to eliminate it, according to Sagami. After returning to the point where 1st Platoon held the company's first line of defense, Keeble worked his way to the opposite side of the ridgeline and took out the right pillbox with grenades. "Then without hesitation, he lobbed a grenade into the back entrance of the middle pillbox and with additional rifle fire eliminated it," Sagami added.

Hawkins said one eyewitness told him the enemy directed its entire arsenal at Keeble during his assault. "He said there were so many grenades coming down on Woody, that it looked like a flock of blackbirds." Even under heavy enemy fire, Keeble was able to complete his objective. Only after he killed the machine gunners did Keeble order his men to advance and secure the hill.

"When I first started hearing these stories I was amazed that a man of Woody's size (more than six feet tall and 235-plus pounds), could sneak up on the enemy without being noticed," Hawkins said. "So one day, I was out helping him mow the lawn, and I asked him how he did it. He just shrugged his shoulders.

"I joked with him and told him those soldiers must have been blind or old or something, because he would never be able to sneak up on a young guy like me." Hawkins said he continued to mow then was startled when Woody popped up from behind some bushes near him. "He could have reached out and grabbed me by the ankles, and I didn't even know he was there!" Keeble had slid on his back behind the brush. Although Hawkins was not positive, he believed Keeble might have used a similar maneuver when attacking the pillboxes.

Keeble's selfless acts on that rugged terrain in 1951 did not come without a price. According to Sagami and other eyewitnesses, he was wounded on at least five different occasions by fragmentation and concussion grenades. "His wounds were apparent in the chest, both arms, right calf, knee and right thigh and left thigh." Sagami cited blood at the wound locations as evidence.

Hawkins said 83 grenade fragments were removed from Keeble's body, but several others remained. "You could tell that the wounds bothered him sometimes, but he never complained."

Sagami wrote in his statement that Keeble did not complain on the battlefield either. "At no time did he allow himself to be evacuated during the course of the day. Only after the unit was in defensive positions for the night did he allow himself to be evacuated."

According to Hawkins, every surviving member of Co. G signed a letter recommending Keeble for the Medal of Honor on two separate occasions, once in November 1951 and then again in December that same year. On both instances, the paperwork was lost. Keeble was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross Dec. 20, 1952 for his actions in Korea, not the Medal of Honor his men believed he deserved. He also earned the Purple Heart (First Oak Leaf Cluster); Bronze Star (First Oak Leaf Cluster); and the Silver Star as a result of his heroics throughout his tour in Korea. He was honorably discharged March 1, 1953.

Life after the Army

Even after his discharge, Keeble never severed his ties with the Army, Hawkins said, and was a champion for veterans and their causes. "He was always going to different veterans events and he supported the Disabled American Veterans organization. He would wear his uniform in parades, and was the first in line for any type of fundraiser."

Though Keeble knew of his unit's failed attempts to award him the Medal of Honor, Hawkins said he never sensed any bitterness from him. "Whenever someone would bring it up, he just shrugged. He wasn't there to get medals; he was there for his men and his country. He enjoyed the small things in life, and concentrated on what he had, not what he didn't have."

Those who didn't know Keeble the Soldier saw him as a kind-hearted, gentle man full of humility, according to Hawkins. "Woody was a very upbeat person. If you didn't know his war record, you'd think he was just a happy-go-lucky guy. His glass was always half full, never half empty."

In later years, Keeble fell on hard times and was forced to pawn all his medals. He had one lung removed, and in the months and years following the surgery suffered more than a half dozen strokes that Hawkins said eventually left him speechless. "But his mind remained sharp, and he was the same man inside."

Keeble's family was presented with a duplicate set of medals in May 2006, and they, along with his uniform and other memorabilia, are housed at the University of North Dakota in Grand Forks.

Long Road to Medal of Honor

The family's battle to upgrade Keeble's Distinguished Service Cross to the Medal of Honor began in 1972, when both Woody and his wife, Dr. Blossom Hawkins-Keeble, were still alive. According to Hawkins, the family unknowingly started off in the wrong direction. "We thought the paperwork had been lost, but were unaware that it no longer existed. It didn't just get lost on the battlefield, it never made it off the battlefield." When the family finally realized this fact, they sought the support of the Sisseton-Wahpeton tribe and gathered recorded statements from the men who served with Keeble.

The team soon learned that since the statute of limitations for awarding the Medal of Honor was three years from the date of the heroic action, it would literally take, "An Act of Congress," to realize the goal. Beginning in 2002, the tribe involved senators and representatives from North and South Dakota. Armed with written evidence, eyewitness accounts and letters from four senators supporting the effort, tribe officials contacted the Army, which reviewed the evidence and concluded Keeble's actions were worthy of the medal. Finally, on March 23, 2007, North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan introduced a bill, cosponsored by Senators Kent Conrad (ND), Tim Johnson (SD) and John Thune (SD), authorizing the president, "To award the Medal of Honor to Woodrow W. Keeble for his acts of valor during the Korean conflict." Congress passed the bill in early December 2007.

Hawkins will represent Keeble in a White House ceremony March 3, where he will accept the Medal of Honor on his behalf.

"We are just proud to be a part of this for Woody," Hawkins said. "He is deserving of this, for what he did in the Armed Services in defense of this country."

Hawkins added that this victory is as important for the Sisseton-Wahpeton tribe and North and South Dakota as it is for Keeble and his family. "We are all extremely proud that Woody is finally receiving this honor. He epitomized our cultural values of humility, compassion, bravery, strength and honor."

He added that Woody was the embodiment of "woyuonihan," or, "honor," always carrying himself in a way so that those who knew him would be proud of him. "He lived a life full of honor and respect."

Hawkins said his feelings about Keeble echo those of all who knew him. "If he was alive today, I would tell him there's no one I respect more, and how he is everything a man should be: brave, kind and generous. I would tell him how proud I am of him, and how I never realized that all this time, I was living with such greatness."

Tags: President Bush and Woodrow Wilson Keeble or Medal of Honor

Lest We Remember: Cold Boot Attacks on Encryption Keys VIDEO

Attack on computer memory reveals vulnerability of widely used security systems. A team of academic, industry and independent researchers has demonstrated a new class of computer attacks that compromise the contents of “secure” memory systems, particularly in laptops.

The attacks overcome a broad set of security measures called “disk encryption,” which are meant to secure information stored in a computer’s permanent memory. The researchers cracked several widely used technologies, including Microsoft’s BitLocker, Apple’s FileVault and Linux’s dm-crypt, and described the attacks in a paper and video published on the Web Feb. 21.

The team reports that these attacks are likely to be effective at cracking many other disk encryption systems because these technologies have architectural features in common.

“We’ve broken disk encryption products in exactly the case when they seem to be most important these days: laptops that contain sensitive corporate data or personal information about business customers,” said Alex Halderman, a Ph.D. candidate in Princeton’s computer science department. “Unlike many security problems, this isn’t a minor flaw; it is a fundamental limitation in the way these systems were designed.”

The attack is particularly effective against computers that are turned on but are locked, such as laptops that are in a “sleep” or hibernation mode. One effective countermeasure is to turn a computer off entirely, though in some cases even this does not provide protection.

Halderman’s Princeton collaborators included graduate students Nadia Heninger, William Clarkson, Joseph Calandrino, Ariel Feldman and Professor Edward Felten, the director of the Center for Information Technology Policy. The team also included Seth Schoen of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, William Paul of Wind River Systems and independent computer security researcher Jacob Appelbaum.

Felten said the findings demonstrate the risks associated with recent high-profile laptop thefts, including a Veterans Administration computer containing information on 26 million veterans and a University of California, Berkeley laptop that contained information on more than 98,000 graduate students and others. While it is widely believed that disk encryption would protect sensitive information in instances like these, the new research demonstrates that the information could easily be read even when data is encrypted.

“Disk encryption is often recommended as a magic bullet against the loss of private data on laptops,” Felten said. “Our results show that disk encryption provides less protection than previously thought. Even encrypted data can be vulnerable if an intruder gets access to the laptop.”

The new attacks exploit the fact that information stored in a computer’s temporary working memory, or RAM, does not disappear immediately when a computer is shut off or when the memory chip is taken from the machine, as is commonly thought. Under normal circumstances, the data gradually decays over a period of several seconds to a minute. The process can be slowed considerably using simple techniques to cool the chips to low temperatures.

Disk encryption technologies rely on the use of secret keys -- essentially large random numbers -- to encode and protect information. Computers need these keys to access files stored on their own hard disks or other storage systems. Once an authorized user has typed in a password, computers typically store the keys in the temporary RAM so that protected information can be accessed regularly. The keys are meant to disappear as soon as the RAM chips lose power.

The team wrote programs that gained access to essential encryption information automatically after cutting power to machines and rebooting them. The method worked when the attackers had physical access to the computer and when they accessed it remotely over a computer network. The attack even worked when the encryption key had already started to decay, because the researchers were able to reconstruct it from multiple derivative keys that were also stored in memory.

In one extremely powerful version of the attack, they were able to obtain the correct encryption data even when the memory chip was physically removed from one computer and placed in another machine. After obtaining the encryption key, they could then easily access all information on the original machine.

“This method is extremely resistant to countermeasures that defensive programs on the original computer might try to take,” Halderman said.

The attacks demonstrate the vulnerability of machines when they are in an active state, including “sleep mode” or the “screen lock” mode that laptops enter when their covers are shut. Even though the machines require a password to unlock the screen, the encryption keys are already located in the RAM, which provides an opportunity for attackers with malicious intent.

None of the attacks required specialized equipment. “I think we're going to see attackers doing things that people have previously though impractical or impossible,” Appelbaum said.

The researchers were able to extend the life of the information in RAM by cooling it using readily available “canned air” keyboard dusting products. When turned upside down, these canisters spray very cold liquid. Discharging the cold liquid onto a memory chip, the researchers were able to lower the temperature of the memory to -50 degrees Celsius. This slowed the decay rates enough that an attacker who cut power for 10 minutes would still be able to recover 99.9 percent of the information in the RAM correctly.

“Hints of problems associated with computers retaining their temporary memory have appeared in the scientific literature, but this is the first systematic examination of the security implications,” said Schoen.

The researchers posted the paper describing their findings on the website of Princeton’s Center for Information Technology Policy. They submitted the paper for publication and it is currently undergoing review.

In the meantime, the researchers have contacted several manufacturers to make them aware of the vulnerability: Microsoft, which includes BitLocker in some versions of Windows Vista; Apple, which created FileVault; and the makers of dm-crypt and TrueCrypt, which are open-source products for Windows and Linux platforms.

“There’s not much they can do at this point,” Halderman said. “In the short term, they can warn their customers about the vulnerability and tell them to shut their computers down completely when traveling.”

In the longer term, Halderman said new technologies may need to be designed that do not require the storing of encryption keys in the RAM, given its inherent vulnerability. The researchers plan to continue investigating this and other defenses against this new security threat.

RELATED: Full research paper IN PDF FORMAT

Contact: Steven Schultz sschultz@princeton.edu 609-258-3617 Princeton University, Engineering School

Tags: Princeton University, Engineering School and computer attacks or Encryption Keys and Information Technology

Freedom Calendar 03/01/08 - 03/08/08

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.

March 2, 1953, Republican Clare Booth Luce, U.S. Ambassador to Italy, becomes first woman to serve as ambassador to a major power.

March 3, 1865, Republican Congress establishes Freedmen’s Bureau to provide health care, education, and technical assistance to emancipated slaves.

March 4, 1954, President Dwight Eisenhower appoints J. Ernest Wilkins to serve as first African-American U.S. Asst. Secretary of Labor.

March 5, 1875, Blanche Bruce (R-MS) becomes first African-American to serve full term in U.S. Senate; in 1879 he was first African-American to preside over Senate.

March 6, 1857, Republican Supreme Court Justice John McLean issues strenuous dissent from decision by 7 Democrats in infamous Dred Scott case that African-Americans had no rights “which any white man was bound to respect”.

March 7, 1965, Police under the command of Democrat Governor George Wallace attack African-Americans demonstrating for voting rights in Selma, AL.

March 8, 1990, Republican Evan J. Kemp appointed by President George H. W. Bush as Chairman of U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; first person with a disability to serve on the 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 03/01/08

Presidential Podcast 03/01/08 . 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. 2008 National Drug Control Policy (PDF, 6.73MB, 79 pages)

Tags: President Bush and White House radio address or National Drug Control Policy and methamphetamine

Bush radio address 03/01/08 full audio, text transcript

bush radio address 03/01/08 full audio, text transcript. President's Radio Address 2008 National Drug Control Policy (PDF, 6.73MB, 79 pages)

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. Today, my Administration is releasing our 2008 National Drug Control Strategy. This report lays out the methods we are using to combat drug abuse in America. And it highlights the hopeful progress we're making in the fight against addiction.

When I took office in 2001, our country was facing a troubling rate of drug abuse, particularly among young people. Throughout America, young men and women saw their dreams disrupted by the destructive cycle of addiction. So I committed our Nation to an ambitious goal: In 2002, we began efforts to cut drug use among young people by 25 percent over five years.

Our strategy has three key elements. First, we are working to disrupt the supply of drugs by strengthening law enforcement and partnering with other countries to keep drugs out of the United States. Second, we're working to reduce the demand for drugs through prevention and education programs. And third, we're providing treatment options for those who've fallen prey to addiction.

These efforts have produced measurable results. Since 2001, the rate of youth drug abuse has dropped by 24 percent. Young people's use of marijuana is down by 25 percent. Their use of Ecstasy has dropped by more than 50 percent. And their use of methamphetamine has declined by 64 percent. Overall, an estimated 860,000 fewer young people in America are using drugs today than when we began these efforts.

Our drug control strategy will continue all three elements of this successful approach. It will also target a growing problem -- the abuse of prescription drugs by youth. Unfortunately, many young Americans do not understand how dangerous abusing medication can be. And in recent years, the number of Americans who have died from prescription drug overdoses has increased.

One of the factors behind this trend is the growing availability of highly addictive prescription drugs online. The Internet has brought about tremendous benefits for those who cannot easily get to a pharmacy in person. However, it has also created an opportunity for unscrupulous doctors and pharmacists to profit from addiction.

One victim of such a doctor was Ryan Haight. The young man from California was only 18 when he overdosed on pain killers that were illegally prescribed over the Internet. With only a few clicks of the mouse, Ryan was able to get a prescription from a doctor he had never met and have the pills sent to his front door. The doctor who wrote Ryan's prescription had previously served time in prison for illegally dispensing controlled substances.

We need to prevent tragedies like this from happening in the future. So I'm asking Congress to work with my Administration to put an end to the illegal sale of highly addictive prescription drugs on the Internet. By working together to meet this goal, we can ensure a safer future for our children.

Government action is only one part of the solution to the problem of drug abuse. Others in our society have an important role to play as well. People in the entertainment and sports industries serve as role models to millions of young Americans, and that comes with the responsibility to dispel the notion that drug abuse is glamorous and free of consequences. Teachers, pastors, and parents also have an obligation to help young people develop the character and self-respect to resist drugs. The Federal Government will continue to do its part to keep our young people safe, and I urge all Americans to do the same. Our children deserve nothing less.

Thank you for listening. # # #

For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary March 1, 2008

Tags: President Bush and White House radio address or National Drug Control Policy and methamphetamine

Discurso Radial del Presidente a la Nación 03/01/08

forre el audio de la dirección de radio 03/01/08 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.

Hoy mi Administración está divulgando nuestra Estrategia Nacional para el Control de las Drogas para el año 2008. Este informe muestra los métodos que estamos usando para combatir el abuso de las drogas en Estados Unidos. Y destaca el progreso prometedor que estamos logrando en la lucha contra la adicción.

Cuando asumí la Presidencia en el 2001, nuestro país enfrentaba una tasa alarmante de abuso de drogas, particularmente entre las personas jóvenes. A lo largo de Estados Unidos, hombres y mujeres jóvenes vieron derrumbarse sus sueños por el ciclo destructivo de la adicción. Por lo tanto, comprometí nuestra Nación a una meta ambiciosa: en el 2002 comenzamos esfuerzos para reducir el uso de drogas entre los jóvenes en un 25 por ciento en cinco años.

Nuestra estrategia tiene tres elementos claves. Primero, estamos trabajando para desbaratar la oferta de drogas mediante un refuerzo de las agencias del orden público y asociándonos con otros países para mantener las drogas fuera de Estados Unidos. Segundo, estamos trabajando para reducir la demanda de drogas mediante programas de prevención y educación. Y tercero, estamos ofreciendo opciones de tratamiento para quienes se han convertido en víctimas de la adicción.

Estos esfuerzos han producido resultados que se pueden medir. Desde el 2001 la tasa de abuso juvenil de drogas ha caído en un 24 por ciento. El uso de la marihuana por personas jóvenes ha disminuido en un 25 por ciento. Su uso de Éxtasis ha caído en más del 50 por ciento. Y su uso de metamfetamina ha disminuido en un 64 por ciento. En su conjunto, hay aproximadamente 860,000 jóvenes menos en Estados Unidos usando drogas hoy en día que cuando comenzamos estos esfuerzos.

Nuestra estrategia de control de las drogas seguirá los tres elementos de este enfoque exitoso. También tendrá como objetivo un problema creciente - el abuso por jóvenes de medicamentos recetados. Desafortunadamente, muchos jóvenes estadounidenses no comprenden lo peligroso que puede ser el abuso de los medicamentos. Y en años recientes, el número de estadounidenses que han muerto de sobredosis de medicamentos recetados ha crecido.

Uno de los factores detrás de esta tendencia es la creciente disponibilidad en línea de medicamentos recetados altamente adictivos. El Internet ha traído enormes beneficios para quienes no pueden ir fácilmente a una farmacia en persona. Sin embargo, también ha creado una oportunidad para que médicos y farmacéuticos sin escrúpulos hagan ganancias de la adicción.

Una víctima de un tal médico fue Ryan Haight. El joven de California tenía apenas 18 años cuando tomó una sobredosis de analgésicos ilegalmente recetados por el Internet. Con sólo unos cuantos "clics" del ratón, Ryan logró obtener una receta de un médico que nunca había conocido y conseguir que le entregaran las pastillas a la puerta de su casa. El médico que escribió la receta para Ryan previamente había servido una cadena en prisión por ilegalmente dispensar sustancias controladas.

Tenemos que evitar que tragedias como ésta sucedan en el futuro. Por lo tanto le pido al Congreso que trabaje con mi Administración para poner fin a la venta ilegal por Internet de medicamentos recetados altamente adictivos. Trabajando juntos para alcanzar esta meta, podemos asegurar un futuro más sano para nuestros hijos.

La acción del gobierno es solo una parte de la solución al problema del abuso de las drogas. Otros en nuestra sociedad también tienen un papel importante que desempeñar. Personas en las industrias del entretenimiento y los deportes sirven como modelos de conducta para millones de jóvenes estadounidenses - y eso conlleva la responsabilidad de disipar la noción de que el uso de las drogas es atractivo y libre de consecuencias. Los maestros, pastores y padres también tienen la obligación de ayudar a los jóvenes a desarrollar el carácter y el auto- estima para resistir las drogas. El gobierno federal seguirá haciendo su parte para mantener sanos a nuestros jóvenes y les pido encarecidamente a todos los estadounidenses que hagan lo mismo. Nuestros hijos merecen nada menos.

Gracias por escuchar.

Para su publicación inmediata Oficina del Secretario de Prensa 1 de marzo de 2008

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

Staying to Help in Iraq By Angelina Jolie

Secretary Rice with UN High Commissioner for Refugees Goodwill Ambassador Angelina Jolie launch World Refugee Day at the National Geographic Society. State Department photo by Michael Gross. [remarks] Grosvenor Auditorium, Washington, DC. June 15, 2005

We have finally reached a point where humanitarian assistance, from us and others, can have an impact. By Angelina Jolie Thursday, February 28, 2008; 1:15 PM The request is familiar to American ears: "Bring them home." But in Iraq, where I've just met with American and Iraqi leaders, the phrase carries a different meaning. It does not refer to the departure of U.S. troops, but to the return of the millions of innocent Iraqis who have been driven out of their homes and, in many cases, out of the country.

As for the question of whether the surge is working, I can only state what I witnessed: U.N. staff and those of non-governmental organizations seem to feel they have the right set of circumstances to attempt to scale up their programs. And when I asked the troops if they wanted to go home as soon as possible, they said that they miss home but feel invested in Iraq. They have lost many friends and want to be a part of the humanitarian progress they now feel is possible. FULL TEXT

Tags: Angelina Jolie and Iraq

Press Conference of the President 02/28/08 VIDEO PODCAST

President George W. Bush gestures as he speaks to the press during a morning news conference Thursday, Feb. 28, 2008, in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room. White House photo by Chris Greenberg

Press Conference of the President FULL STREAMING 10:05 A.M. EST. PODCAST OF THIS ARTICLE THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Laura and I, as you know, recently came back from Africa, where we saw firsthand how the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief is saving lives. I had a chance to go to the -- speak to the Sullivan Foundation the other day about our trip, and the reason I did so was to remind the American people about how important it is for our nation to remain generous and compassionate when it comes to helping people overseas.

I also, during my trip, urged Congress to reauthorize the Emergency Plan and increase our commitment, and they did. They approved a good, bipartisan bill, that maintains the principles that have made this program effective. And so I want to thank acting Chairman Howard Berman and Ranking Member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and all the members of the Committee for the action they took. This afternoon they're going to come down and I'll be able to thank them in person -- I'm going to brief them on the trip. Obviously, our hope is now that the House will act quickly and send the bill reauthorizing PEPFAR to the Senate, and I'd like to sign it into law as quickly as possible.

Members should also act on a very urgent priority, and that is to pass legislation our intelligence officials need to quickly and effectively monitor terrorist communications. At issue is a dispute over whether telecommunications companies should be subjected to class-action lawsuits because they are believed to have helped defend America after the attacks of 9/11. Allowing these lawsuits to proceed would be unfair. If any of these companies helped us, they did so after being told by our government that their assistance was legal and vital to our national security.

Allowing the lawsuits to proceed could aid our enemies, because the litigation process could lead to the disclosure of information about how we conduct surveillance, and it would give al Qaeda and others a roadmap as to how to avoid the surveillance. Allowing these lawsuits to proceed could make it harder to track the terrorists, because private companies besieged by and fearful of lawsuits would be less willing to help us quickly get the information we need. Without the cooperation of the private sector, we cannot protect our country from terrorist attack.

Protecting these companies from lawsuits is not a partisan issue. Republicans and Democrats in the United States Senate came together and passed a good bill, protecting private companies from these abusive lawsuits. And Republicans and Democrats in the House stand ready to pass the Senate bill, if House leaders would only stop blocking an up or down vote and let the majority in the House prevail.

Some in Congress have said we have nothing to worry about, because if we lose the cooperation of the private sector we can use the old FISA law. They're wrong. FISA was out of date. It did not allow us to track foreign terrorists on foreign soil quickly and effectively. And that is why a dangerous intelligence gap opened up last year, and that is why Congress passed legislation that reformed FISA -- but they did so only temporarily. The law expired; the threat to America has not expired.

Congress understood last year that FISA did not give our intelligence professionals the tools they needed to keep us safe. The Senate understands that the FISA -- old FISA didn't give us the tools needed to protect America. The bipartisan bill it passed provides those tools our intelligence professionals need. Yet the House's failure to pass this law raises the risk of reopening a gap in our intelligence gathering, and that is dangerous.

Another vital priority for protecting the nation is prevailing in Iraq. Unfortunately, this week the Senate debated yet another bill that threatens to cut off funding and tie the hands of our commanders in Iraq. It seems that no matter what happens in Iraq opponents to the war have one answer: Retreat. When things were going badly in Iraq a year ago, they called for withdrawal. Then we changed our strategy, launched the surge and turned the situation around. Since the surge began, high-profile terrorist attacks are down, civilian deaths are down, sectarian killings are down, and our own casualties are down. U.S. and Iraqi forces have captured or killed thousands of extremists, including hundreds of key al Qaeda operatives and leaders. Reconciliation is taking place in local communities across the country. That reconciliation is beginning to translate into political progress in the capital city.

In the face of these changes on the ground, congressional leaders are still sounding the same old call for withdrawal. I guess you could say that when it comes for pushing for withdrawal, their strategy is to stay the course. It's interesting that many of the same people who once accused me of refusing to acknowledge setbacks in Iraq now are the ones who are refusing to acknowledge progress in Iraq. If we followed their advice a year ago, Iraq would be a far different and more dangerous place than it is today. And the American people would be at greater risk.

If we follow their advice now, we would put at risk the gains our troops have made over the past year. Congress does need to act when it comes to Iraq. What they need to do is stand by our brave men and women in uniform and fully fund the troops.

Finally, Congress needs to act to help homeowners avoid foreclosure. Unfortunately, the Senate is considering legislation that would do more to bail out lenders and speculators than to help American families keep their homes. The Senate bill would actually prolong the time it takes for the housing market to adjust and recover and it would lead to higher interest rates. This would be unfair to the millions of homeowners who make the hard choices every month to pay their mortgage on time and it would be unfair to future home buyers. Instead, Congress should move ahead with responsible legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. By taking these steps we can help struggling homeowners and help our economy weather the difficult time in the housing market.

I'd be glad to take some questions. Terry.

Q Mr. President, bad economic news continues to pile up, the latest today with the GDP barely growing. Are you concerned that a sagging economy and hard times will help defeat John McCain, like it did your father in 1992? And how far are you willing to go to prevent that?

THE PRESIDENT: I'm concerned about the economy because I'm concerned about working Americans, concerned about people who want to put money on the table and save for their kids' education. That's why I'm concerned about the economy. I want Americans working.

And there's no question the economy has slowed down. You just cited another example of slowdown. I don't think we're headed to a recession, but no question we're in a slowdown. And that's why we acted, and acted strongly, with over $150 billion worth of pro-growth economic incentives -- mainly money going into the hands of our consumers. And some money going to incent businesses to invest, which will create jobs.

And so we acted robustly. And now it's time to determine whether or not this pro-growth package will actually work. Now, the checks will start going out in the second week of May. There are going to be letters out soon explaining who is eligible for the refunds. Credit will happen in the first week of May. In other words, some people will choose to have their bank accounts credited. And in the second week of May, we anticipate the checks start moving out of Washington.

And the purpose is to encourage our consumers. The purpose is to give them money -- their own to begin with, by the way -- but give them money to help deal with the adverse effects of the decline in housing value. Consumerism is a significant part of our GDP growth, and we want to sustain the American consumer, encourage the American consumer and, at the same time, we want to encourage investment. So we'll see how the plan works.

Q But the political context --

THE PRESIDENT: You're trying to get me to be the pundit again. Look, you all figure that out. I mean, we've -- what I'm dealing with is the situation at hand, and I appreciate that -- both Democrats and Republicans in the United States Congress and Senate for getting this bill done very quickly. And it's a substantial piece of legislation, and it's a good sign that we can figure out how to cooperate with each other at times.

And so we'll see the effects of this pro-growth package. I know there's a lot of -- here in Washington, people are trying to -- stimulus package two and all that stuff. Why don't we let stimulus package one, which seemed like a good idea at the time, have a chance to kick in?

Yes.

Q Mr. President, Turkey's ground offensive in northern Iraq is now a week old with no end in sight. How quickly would you like to see Turkey end its offenses, its incursion? And do you have any concerns about the possibility of protracted presence in northern Iraq causing further destabilization in the region?

THE PRESIDENT: A couple of points on that. One, the Turks, the Americans, and the Iraqis, including the Iraqi Kurds, share a common enemy in the PKK. And secondly, it's in nobody's interests that there be safe haven for people who are -- have the willingness to kill innocent people.

A second point I want to make to you, Matt, is that there is a special forces presence in northern Iraq -- in Kurdistan -- now, apart from what you're referring to. So there is a presence. And there has been a presence for a while.

Thirdly, I strongly agree with the sentiments of Secretary Gates, who said that the incursion must be limited, and must be temporary in nature. In other words, it shouldn't be long-lasting. But the Turks need to move quickly, achieve their objective, and get out.

Q But how quickly, sir, do they need to move out?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, as quickly as possible.

Q Days or weeks?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as possible.

Q Sir, I'd like to ask you about Russia. The Democratic candidates, when asked about the new Russian leader, Dmitry Medvedev, didn't appear to know a great deal about him. I wonder what you can say about him, how much power you think he's really got, with Putin still in the picture? And critics would say you badly misjudged Vladimir Putin. So what would be your cautionary tale to your successor about the threat Russia poses, and how to deal with this new leader?

THE PRESIDENT: I don't know much about Medvedev either. And what will be interesting to see is who comes to the -- who represents Russia at the G8, for example. It will be interesting to see -- it will help, I think, give some insight as to how Russia intends to conduct foreign policy after Vladimir Putin's presidency. And I can't answer the question yet.

I can say that it's in our interests to continue to have relations with Russia. For example, on proliferation matters, it's in our interest to be able to make sure that materials that could cause great harm aren't proliferated. It's in our interest to work together on Iran. As I said I think in this room the last time I was here, I appreciated the fact that Vladimir Putin told the Iranians that they will provide -- they, Russia -- will provide enriched uranium to run the Bushehr power plant, thereby negating the need for the Iranians to enrich in the first place. I thought that was a constructive suggestion, and we need to be in a position to be able to work with Russia on Iran.

There's a lot of areas where -- yesterday, for example, with the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic, I talked about a missile defense system in Europe, but I believe it's in our interests to try to figure out a way for the Russians to understand the system is not aimed at them, but aimed at the real threats of the 21st century, which could be a launch from a violent regime -- a launch of a weapon of mass destruction.

So there's areas, David, where we need to cooperate and -- let me finish -- and so it's -- I'm going to try to leave it so whoever my successor is will be able to have a relationship with whoever is running foreign policy in Russia. It's in the country's interest. That doesn't mean we have to agree all the time. I mean, obviously we didn't agree on Kosovo. There will be other areas where we don't agree. And yet it is in the interest of the country to have a relationship, leader to leader, and hopefully beyond that.

Q But first of all, are you suggesting, or are you worried that, in fact, Medvedev is a puppet for Vladimir Putin? And --

THE PRESIDENT: No, I wouldn't say that. That's your conclusion, not mine.

Q No, I'm asking the question about whether you're concerned. But isn't there something you took away that you can offer to your successor about how it's risky in the process of sizing up your Russian counterpart? Don't you think that you learned something from your time with Putin?

THE PRESIDENT: Here's what I learned -- here's what I learned: I learned that it's important to establish personal relations with leaders even though you may not agree with them -- certain leaders. I'm not going to have a personal relationship with Kim Jong-il, and our relationships are such that that's impossible.

But U.S.-Russian relations are important. It's important for stability. It's important for our relations in Europe. And therefore my advice is to establish a personal relationship with whoever is in charge of foreign policy in Russia. It's in our country's interest to do so.

Now, it makes it easier, by the way, when there's a trustworthy relationship, to be able to disagree and yet maintain common interests in other areas. And so we've had our disagreements. As you know, Putin is a straightforward, pretty tough character when it comes to his interests. Well, so am I. And we've had some head-butts, diplomatic head-butts. You might remember the trip to Slovakia. I think you were there at the famous press conference. But -- and yet, in spite of that, our differences of opinion, we still have got a cordial enough relationship to be able to deal with common threats and opportunities. And that's going to be important for the next President to maintain.

Yes, Jonathan.

Q Mr. President, do you believe if we have the kind of rapid pull-out from Iraq that Democrats are talking about, that we would be at greater risk of a terrorist attack here at home? And when Senator Obama was asked a similar question, he said, "If al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad." So I'm wondering if --

THE PRESIDENT: That's an interesting comment. If al Qaeda is securing a al Qaeda base -- yes, well, that's exactly what they've been trying to do for the past four years. That's their stated intention, was to create enough chaos and disorder to establish a base from which to either launch attacks or spread a caliphate. And the intent of the surge was to send more Marines into the area that -- where they had proclaimed their desire to set up a base. That was Anbar province. And so, yes, that's one of the challenges we face, is denying al Qaeda a safe haven anywhere. And their intentions -- that's what they said, that they would like to have a base or safe haven in Anbar province.

Yes, Bill.

Q But --

THE PRESIDENT: No, next turn.

Q But the question about --

THE PRESIDENT: Nice try. (Laughter.)

Q Mr. President --

THE PRESIDENT: You obviously haven't been here long. John, where have you been, Jonathan? (Laughter.)

Q Across the river.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, okay, yes. Welcome to the other side. (Laughter.)

Q You can get the Congress to protect telecom companies from lawsuits, but then there's no recourse for Americans who feel that they've been caught up in this. I know it's not intended to spy on Americans, but in the collection process, information about everybody gets swept up and then it gets sorted. So if Americans don't have any recourse, are you just telling them, when it comes to their privacy, to suck it up?

THE PRESIDENT: I wouldn't put it that way, if I were you, in public. Well, you've been long been long enough to -- anyway, yes, I -- look, there's -- people who analyze the program fully understand that America's civil liberties are well protected. There is a constant check to make sure that our civil liberties of our citizens aren't -- you know, are treated with respect. And that's what I want, and that's what most -- all Americans want.

Now let me talk about the phone companies. You cannot expect phone companies to participate if they feel like they're going to be sued. I mean, it is -- these people are responsible for shareholders; they're private companies. The government said to those who have alleged to have helped us that it is in our national interests and it's legal. It's in our national interests because we want to know who's calling who from overseas into America. We need to know in order to protect the people.

It was legal. And now, all of a sudden, plaintiffs attorneys, class-action plaintiffs attorneys, you know -- I don't want to try to get inside their head; I suspect they see, you know, a financial gravy train -- are trying to sue these companies. First, it's unfair. It is patently unfair. And secondly, these lawsuits create doubts amongst those who will -- whose help we need.

I guess you could be relaxed about all this if you didn't think there was a true threat to the country. I know there's a threat to the country. And the American people expect our Congress to give the professionals the tools they need to listen to foreigners who may be calling into the United States with information that could cause us great harm. So, on the one hand, the civil liberties of our citizens are guaranteed by a lot of checks in the system, scrutinized by the United States Congress.

And secondly, I cannot emphasize to you how important it is that the Congress solve this problem. The Senate has solved the problem. And people say, would you ever compromise on the issue? The Senate bill is a compromise. And there's enough votes in the House of Representatives to pass the Senate bill. It's a bipartisan bill. And the House leaders need to put it on the floor, let the will of the House work. In my judgment, it happens to be the will of the people, to give the professionals the tools they need to protect the country.

Elaine.

Q Mr. President, you've stressed over and over in recent days particularly the importance of FISA reform to help keep America safe, and yet you have not yet filled a key national security post. Fran Townsend announced her resignation months ago, in November. What is the delay there, and what are Americans to make of that delay? Is America less safe because of it?

THE PRESIDENT: We got a fine man named Joel Bagnal working that office right now. He's a professional. I trust his judgment. He's a real good guy. And no, they shouldn't worry about Joel. He knows what he's doing.

John.

Q But, sir, the American --

THE PRESIDENT: John.

Q The Homeland Security Advisor is a key post. What's taking so long?

THE PRESIDENT: Joel Bagnal has occupied the position, Elaine. He's doing the job, and I've got confidence in him. And so should the American people have confidence in him. He's a fine professional. He knows what he's doing. And I'm very comfortable in saying, on your cameras, that our staff in the White House, led by Joel Bagnal, knows what they're doing when it comes to advising the President on matters of homeland security.

John.

Q Thanks, Mr. President. There's been a lot of criticism on the campaign trail of free trade policies and even talk about the U.S. opting out of NAFTA. And it doesn't seem that you want to discuss the prospects of Republican candidates on the campaign trail this year, but --

THE PRESIDENT: Not yet.

Q Not yet. But just given all the concerns about the economy that people have, do you feel like you could win in a state like Ohio if you were running again for President?

THE PRESIDENT: Landslide. (Laughter.) Look, I am a big believer in free trade. And the reason why is I firmly believe that free trade is essential to the formation of high-paying, quality jobs. In other words, people who work for industries that export goods to overseas are likely to be paid more than their -- other workers.

Secondly, if you look at the -- our economic growth recently, particularly last year, a major portion of that growth came as a result of exports. It's an essential part of our economic picture.

Yes, I heard the talk about NAFTA. One statistic I think people need to know is I think there's roughly like $380 billion worth of goods that we ship to our NAFTA partners on an annual basis. Now, $380 billion worth of goods means there's a lot of farmers and businesses, large and small, who are benefiting from having a market in our neighborhood. And the idea of just unilaterally withdrawing from a trade treaty because of trying to score political points is not good policy. It's not good policy on the merits, and it's not good policy as a message to send to our -- people who have, in good faith, signed a treaty and worked with us on a treaty.

Thirdly, those of us who grew up in Texas remember what the border looked like when we were kids, and it was really poor. And you go down to that border today, it is prosperous on both sides of the river, to the credit of those who proposed NAFTA, and to the credit of those who got NAFTA through the Congress. If you're worried about people coming into our country illegally, it makes sense to help a place like Mexico grow its economy. Most folks would rather be finding a job close to home; most folks would rather not try to get in the bottom of an 18-wheeler to come and put food on the table.

This agreement has meant prosperity on both sides of our borders, north and south. And I believe it's in the interests to continue to seek markets for our farmers, ranchers and businesspeople. I also know it's in our interest to insist that when people sell products into our countries [sic], that we get treated fairly. In other words, if we treat a country one way, people in a country one way, we expect to be treated the same way -- like Colombia.

The Colombia Free Trade vote is coming up. Many of their products come into our country much easier than our products go into theirs. It makes sense to be treated equally. But on this vote, there's an additional consequence. If the Congress rejects the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, it will sorely affect the national security interests of the United States. It will encourage false populism in our neighborhood. It will undermine the standing of courageous leaders like President Uribe. And I strongly urge the Congress, when they bring this -- when the Colombia Free Trade Agreement is brought to a vote, to seriously consider the consequences of rejecting this trade agreement.

Mike.

Q Mr. President, on FISA, do you worry that perhaps some House Democratic leaders are playing a high-stakes game of "wait and see," in terms of if we get attacked, we all lose; if we don't get attacked, then maybe that makes the case that you don't need all the powers in FISA?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I don't think so. I mean, I think that's -- that would be ascribing motives that are -- I just don't they're the motives of the House leaders to do that. I think they're really wrestling with providing liability protecting to phone companies. I don't think that's cynical or devious, Michael. That's just too risky.

A lot of these leaders understand that there is an enemy that wants to attack. The caucus, evidently, in the House -- the Democratic Caucus -- is, you know, concerned about exactly Plante's question, you know. And I just can't tell you how important it is to not alienate, or not discourage, these phone companies.

How can you listen to the enemy if the phone companies aren't going to participate with you? And they're not going to participate if they get sued. Let me rephrase -- less likely to participate. And they're facing billions of dollars of lawsuits, and they have a responsibility to their shareholders. And yet they were told what they were going to do is legal.

And anyway, I'm going to keep talking about the issue, Mike. This is an important issue for the American people to understand. And it's important for them to understand that no renewal of the Patriot Act -- I mean, the Protect America Act -- is dangerous for the security of the country, just dangerous.

I'm sure people, if they really pay attention to the details of this debate, wonder why it was okay to pass the Protect America Act last summer, late last summer, and all of a sudden it's not okay to pass it now. And so I will keep talking about the issue, and talking about the issue.

Michael.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to ask you about another issue that's kind of come up on the campaign trail, in terms of discussion, which is, this is a point of view that has been espoused, that we would be better off if we talked to our adversaries, in particular, Iran and Cuba, you know, without preconditions. And as President, you have obviously considered and rejected this approach. And I'm wondering if you can give us a little insight into your thinking about this, and just explain to the American people what is lost by talking with those when we disagree?

THE PRESIDENT: What's lost by embracing a tyrant who puts his people in prison because of their political beliefs? What's lost is it will send the wrong message. It will send a discouraging message to those who wonder whether America will continue to work for the freedom of prisoners. It will give great status to those who have suppressed human rights and human dignity.

I'm not suggesting there's never a time to talk, but I'm suggesting now is not the time -- not to talk with Raul Castro. He's nothing more than an extension of what his brother did, which was to ruin an island, and imprison people because of their beliefs.

I had these wives of these dissidents come and see me, and their stories are just unbelievably sad. And it just goes to show how repressive the Castro brothers have been, when you listen to the truth about what they say. And the idea of embracing a leader who's done this without any attempt on his part to release prisoners and free their society would be counterproductive and send the wrong signal.

Q No one is saying embrace him, they're just saying talk --

THE PRESIDENT: Well, talking to him is embracing. Excuse me. Let me use another word -- you're right, "embrace" is like big hug, right? You're looking -- I do embrace people. Mike, one of these days, I'm just thinking about -- (laughter.) Right, okay, good, thank you for reminding me to use a different word. Sitting down at the table, having your picture taken with a tyrant such as Raul Castro, for example, lends the status of the office and the status of our country to him. He gains a lot from it by saying, look at me, I'm now recognized by the President of the United States.

Now, somebody would say, well, I'm going to tell him to release the prisoners. Well, it's a theory that all you got to do is embrace and these tyrants act. That's not how they act. That's not what causes them to respond. And so I made a decision quite the opposite, and that is to keep saying to the Cuban people, we stand with you; we will not sit down with your leaders that imprison your people because of what they believe; we will keep an embargo on you; we do want you to have money from people here in the homeland, but we will stay insistent upon this policy until you begin to get free.

And so that's the way I've conducted foreign policy, and will continue to conduct foreign policy. I just remind people that the decisions of the U.S. President to have discussions with certain international figures can be extremely counterproductive. It can send chilling signals and messages to our allies; it can send confusion about our foreign policy; it discourages reformers inside their own country. And in my judgment, it would be a mistake -- on the two countries you talked about.

Sheryl.

Q Mr. President, thank you. I want to bring you back to Senator Obama's comment on Iraq. Do you believe that his comment was naive?

THE PRESIDENT: I believe Senator Obama better stay focused on his campaign with Senator Clinton, neither of whom has secured their party's nominee yet -- nomination yet. And my party's nomination hasn't been decided yet either. And so there will be ample time to discuss whoever their candidate -- the positions of whoever their candidate is.

Nice try, Sheryl. Would you like to try another tact, another question?

Q Well, you said it was an interesting comment. Okay, I'll follow on it. About Iraq, you have said in the past -- (laughter) -- that you want to leave a sustainable policy --

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q Wait a minute --

Q I'd like to have another question.

THE PRESIDENT: Okay.

Q You want to leave your --

THE PRESIDENT: Well, it was just -- give her -- should we vote on whether she gets another question? (Laughter.)

Q You've said, Mr. President, that you want to leave Iraq in a sustainable situation --

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I do.

Q -- at the end of your administration. Can you describe for us specifically what do you mean by "sustainable"? Do you have specific goals and objectives that in your mind would meet the criteria of sustainability?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, which is to keep enough troops there so we can succeed. And David Petraeus will -- for example, David Petraeus will come back, along with Ryan Crocker, here later on this spring and will make a recommendation as to what those troop levels ought to be.

The idea of having a request by the Iraqi government for a long-term security agreement is part of sustainability. And obviously we're going to be pushing hard at the same time to get the political process moving forward.

I don't know if you noticed yesterday, but it was a very interesting moment in Iraqi constitutional history, when part of the -- a member of the presidency council utilized his constitutional right to veto one of the three pieces of legislation recently passed. I understand the use of the veto, intend to continue to use it, but I thought it was a healthy sign that people are thinking through the legislation that's passed, and they're worrying about making sure that laws are constitutional. And I feel pretty good about the fact that they're, of course, going to continue to work to make sure that their stated objective of getting provincial elections done by October of 2008 will happen.

So there's going to be a lot of -- my only point is sustainability is political, economic and security.

Yes, Ed.

Q Good morning, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you.

Q If I could get back to the economy. The GDP numbers today show that our economy is increasingly relying on U.S. exports to keep growing. How important is a competitive dollar in keeping U.S. exports strong?

THE PRESIDENT: We believe in a strong dollar policy, and we believe that -- and I believe that our economy has got the fundamentals in place for us to be a -- is to grow and continue growing more robustly, hopefully, than we're growing now. And the dollar, the value of the dollar will be reflected in the ability for our economy to be -- to grow economically. And so we're still for a strong dollar.

Q Can I follow up on that, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: Maybe.

Q The --

THE PRESIDENT: I guess you are -- I haven't said yes. (Laughter.)

Q What's your advice to the average American who is hurting now, facing the prospect of $4 a gallon gasoline, a lot of people facing --

THE PRESIDENT: Wait, what did you just say? You're predicting $4 a gallon gasoline?

Q A number of analysts are predicting --

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yeah?

Q -- $4 a gallon gasoline this spring when they reformulate.

THE PRESIDENT: That's interesting. I hadn't heard that.

Q Yes, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. I know it's high now.

Q And the other economic problems facing people. Beyond your concern that you stated here, and your expectations for these stimulus checks, what kind of hope can you offer to people who are in dire straits?

THE PRESIDENT: Permanent tax -- keep the tax cuts permanent, for starters. There's a lot of economic uncertainty. You just said that. You just said the price of gasoline may be up to $4 a gallon -- or some expert told you that -- and that creates a lot of uncertainty if you're out there wondering whether or not -- you know, what your life is going to be like and you're looking at $4 a gallon, that's uncertain. And when you couple with the idea that taxes may be going up in a couple of years, that's double uncertainty. And therefore one way to deal with uncertainty is for Congress to make the tax cuts permanent.

Secondly, it's -- people got to understand that our energy policy needs to be focused on a lot of things -- one, renewables, which is fine, which I strongly support, as you know; two, conservation. But we need to be finding more oil and gas at home if we're worried about becoming dependent on oil overseas. And this -- I view it as a transitory period to new technologies that will change the way we live, but we haven't built a refinery in a long time. We're expanding refineries, but we haven't built a refinery in a long time. I strongly suggested to the Congress that we build refineries on old military bases, but, no, it didn't pass. But if you've got less supply of something, as demand continues to stay steady or grow, your price is going to go up.

Secondly, on oil, we -- the more oil we find at home, the better off we're going to be in terms of the short-run. And yet our policy is, you know, let us not explore robustly in places like ANWR. And there are environmental concerns, and I understand that. I also know there's technologies that should mitigate these environmental concerns. They got a bill up there in Congress now. Their attitude is, let's tax oil companies. Well, all that's going to do is make the price even higher. We ought to be encouraging investment in oil and gas close to home if we're trying to mitigate the problems we face right now.

And so, yes, there's a lot of uncertainty, and I'm concerned about the uncertainty. Hopefully this pro-growth package will help -- this, one hundred -- I think it's $147 billion that will be going out the door, starting electronically in the first week of May, and through check in the second week of May. And the idea is to help our consumers deal with the uncertainty you're talking about. But, yes, no question about it, it's a difficult period.

Yes, Ken.

Q Thank you, sir. Now that you've found a location for your presidential library, you've got to find the money to build it. Reports indicate that you may be trying to collect as much as $200 million. Is that figure accurate? Do you believe it's important for the American people to know who is giving that kind of money to their President? Will you disclose the contributions as they come in? And will you place any restriction on who gives money and how much they can give?

THE PRESIDENT: No, yes, no, yes. (Laughter.) Next question. (Laughter.) I haven't -- phew, man. You obviously haven't asked a question in a long time. It was like, you know, -- one, I haven't seen the final budget. Two, as Donnie Evans said, who is the chairman of the foundation, we'll look at the disclosure requirements and make a decision. You know, here's -- there's a lot of people -- or some people; I shouldn't say "a lot" -- some people who like to give and don't particularly want their names disclosed, whether it be for this foundation or any other foundation. And so we'll take that into consideration.

Thirdly -- and what was the other?

Q Any restrictions on who can give? Will you take foreign money for this?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I'll probably take some foreign money, but don't know yet, Ken. We just haven't -- we just announced the deal and I, frankly, have been focused elsewhere, like on gasoline prices and, you know, my trip to Africa, and haven't seen the fundraising strategy yet. So the answer to your question, really, I can't answer your question well.

Q Where does the people's right to know this fit into all that?

THE PRESIDENT: We're weighing, taking a look, taking consideration, giving it a serious consideration. Nice try, though.

Olivier.

Q Thank you, sir. In China a former factory worker who says that human rights are more important than the Olympics is being tried for subversion. What message does it send that you're going to the Olympics, and do you think athletes there should be allowed to publicly express their dissent?

THE PRESIDENT: Olivier, I have made it very clear, I'm going to the Olympics because it's a sporting event, and I'm looking forward to seeing the athletic competition. But that will not preclude me from meeting with the Chinese President, expressing my deep concerns about a variety of issues -- just like I do every time I meet with the President.

And maybe I'm in a little different position. Others don't have a chance to visit with Hu Jintao, but I do. And every time I meet with him I talk about religious freedom and the importance of China's society recognizing that if you're allowed to worship freely, it will benefit the society as a whole; that the Chinese government should not fear the idea of people praying to a god as they see fit. A whole society, a healthy society, a confident society is one that recognizes the value of religious freedom.

I talk about Darfur and Iran and Burma. And so I am not the least bit shy of bringing up the concerns expressed by this factory worker, and I believe that I'll have an opportunity to do so with the President and, at the same time, enjoy a great sporting event. I'm a sports fan. I'm looking forward to the competition. And each Olympic society will make its own decision as to how to deal with the athletes.

Yes, Mark.

Q Mr. President, back to the oil price -- tax breaks that you were talking about a minute ago. Back when oil was $55 dollars a barrel, you said those tax breaks were not needed; people had plenty of incentive to drill for oil. Now the price of oil is $100 a barrel and you're planning to threaten a plan that would shift those tax breaks to renewables.

THE PRESIDENT: I talked about some -- some of the breaks. And this is a -- this generally is a tax increase, and it doesn't make any sense to do it right now. We need to be exploring for more oil and gas. And taking money out of the coffers of the oil companies will make it harder for them to reinvest. I know -- they say, well, look at all of the profits. Well, we're raising the price of gasoline in a time when the price of gasoline is high.

Secondly, we've invested a lot of money in renewables. This administration has done more for renewables than any President. Now, we got a problem with renewables, and that is the price of corn is beginning to affect food -- cost of food, and it's hurting hog farmers and a lot of folks. And the best way to deal with renewables is to focus on research and development that will enable us to use other raw material to produce ethanol. I'm a strong believe in ethanol, Mark. This administration has got a great record in it. But it is a -- I believe research and development is what's going to make renewable fuels more effective.

Again, I repeat, if you look at what's happened in corn out there, you're beginning to see the food issue and the energy issue collide. And so, to me, the best dollar spent is to continue to deal with cellulosic ethanol in order to deal with this bottleneck right now. And secondly, the tax -- yes, I said that a while ago -- on certain aspects, but the way I analyze this bill is it's going to cost the consumers more money. And we need more oil and gas being explored for; we need more drilling; we need less dependence on foreign oil.

And as I say, we're in a period of transition here in America, from a time where we were -- where we are oil and gas dependent, to, hopefully, a time where we got electric automobiles, and we're spending money to do that; a time when we're using more biofuels, and we've taken huge investments in that; a time when we've got nuclear power plants and we're able to deal with the disposal in a way that brings confidence to the American people -- so we're not dependent on natural gas to fire up our -- a lot of our utilities, and a time when we can sequester coal.

That's where we're headed for, but we've got to do something in the interim. Otherwise, we're going to be dealing, as the man said, with $4 gasoline. And so that's why I'm against that bill.

I thank you. It's been a pleasure. Enjoyed being with you.

Q Sir, do you think Hillary Clinton will be the nominee?

THE PRESIDENT: Pardon me?

Q You still think Hillary Clinton will be the nominee?

THE PRESIDENT: I'm not talking about politics.

Q You said that before, though --

THE PRESIDENT: Trying to get me to be pundit-in-chief.

Q Are they qualified to be commander-in-chief?

THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate you doing that.

Jackson -- Jackson, nice to see you. (Laughter.) Glad to see you back. (Laughter.)

END 10:51 A.M. EST

For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary February 28, 2008

Tags: George Bush and AIDS Relief

Video Slideshow of President's Trip to Africa:

Video Slideshow of President's Trip to Africa: - President and Mrs. Bush traveled to Africa from February 15-21, 2008. They visited Benin, Tanzania, Rwanda, Ghana, and Liberia.

The trip was an opportunity for the President to review firsthand the significant progress since his last visit in 2003 in efforts to increase economic development and fight HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other treatable diseases, as a result of the United States robust programs in these areas.

Tags: George Bush and Africa