White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 03/06/08 VIDEO

Press Briefing by Dana Perino, FULL STREAMING VIDEO, Running time is 20:29, James S. Brady Press Briefing Room, Dana M. Perino Biography, 12:34 P.M. EDT. Press Briefing Slides (PDF, 571 KB, 2 pages)

MS. PERINO: Hello. Just a few -- couple of announcements for you. Today USA Freedom Corps launched the Financial Literacy Volunteer Initiative, to mobilize volunteers who can help homeowners improve their financial literacy and avoid foreclosure in the wake of America's transitioning housing market. The new initiative provides tools and resources for Americans who are interested in sharing their financial services, nonprofits in need of skilled volunteers, and homeowners who are seeking financial guidance. And more information can be found at their website, at volunteer.gov

Also this morning, the President met with a visiting group of Shia councilmen from Sadr City and a Sunni Arab group of Adhamiyah city councilmen here as part of a State Department international visitor leadership program. This 10-person delegation is from two of Baghdad's most prominent suburbs. This group is here in the United States to meet with local and federal officials, and to see how our democracy works. They have visited Oklahoma City and Denver, and now they're in Washington, D.C.

The President asked them about what they've seen so far, the diversity of America, and how people from different backgrounds and competing interests are working together. He told them he appreciates their hard work in serving the people of Iraq, and expressed his hope that they will take home with them some of what they have seen and learned here, and share it with the rest of the Iraqi people.

We also continue to watch the situation in northern Iraq. As we have said before, the PKK is a common enemy. We have been strongly supporting Turkey in its efforts to combat the PKK. We have encouraged dialogue and coordination between the United States, Turkey and Iraq, but we have not and we will not negotiate or hold talks with the PKK, nor do we expect Turkey to do so.

We are encouraged by the continued diplomatic discussion that is ongoing between Turkey and Iraq, between the governments of Iraq and Turkey; that they continue to try to reach -- try to strengthen their ties, as well as to work together to beat back the PKK.

And finally, on March 1, 2003, five years ago, this nation undertook the largest reorganization of our government in more than half a century, with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. The good people of DHS work hard every day to protect our nation from the threats that we face, and the President will commemorate their hard work and successes when he speaks to DHS employees at DAR Constitution Hall at 1:15 p.m. today, in about 45 minutes.

Q Could I ask you about the housing market? Home foreclosures soared to an all-time high in the final quarter of last year, and separately the Federal Reserve said Americans' percentage of equity in their homes has fallen below 50 percent for the first time since 1945. What's the White House reaction to this continuing bad news, and do you see it getting worse or getting better?

MS. PERINO: Well, we're right in the middle of it right now, and so we're taking action to see how we can help homeowners who are in this situation. I would point to -- point out to you Secretary Paulson's comments from earlier in the week, in which he recognized that there are still 93 percent of American homeowners who are doing okay, meeting their payments. But there is a concern that there is a large amount of people who are facing foreclosure.

We do not believe that the American taxpayer should be bailing out lenders or borrowers, but what we do believe is that we can help try to bring them together so that they can work on renegotiating these loans where possible, so that people can stay in their communities and in their homes, and that we can mitigate against people, one, losing their shelter, but also really harming neighborhoods, which depend on homeowners for a lot of the services.

So we are going to continue to work on that. And another thing that we can do is try to help people who are in a situation where they might need a little help on -- in terms of financial literacy, which is one of the things I just announced today. So we continue to work on those things, as well as ask Congress to finally try to move forward on Federal Housing Administration reform.

Q In addition to those numbers, the delinquency rate for mortgages is also at an all-time high. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve says that more can and should be done. So is there something more that the government can do to alleviate this problem?

MS. PERINO: Well, we are constantly looking at ways that we can help. And that's what Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke, as well as Secretary Jackson at HUD continues to look at. We have a shared interest, all of us in America, to make sure that we can avoid foreclosures where possible. There are going to be some people who are not able to afford their loan, and foreclosure might be the only option to them. But we would hope that it is a last resort. And that's why we can try to work with the private sector to try to bring them along.

At the same time, we call on Congress to take up this legislation. We do think they would be able to insure more mortgages if this legislation were to be able to get a vote on the Senate or the House floor.

Q What about people who are already in trouble? Is there more that the government could do?

MS. PERINO: That's one of the things that just, I think it was last week or 10 days ago, that Secretary Paulson announced through this private sector initiative, Project Lifeline. This is for people who are specifically and already in arrears on their loans. And they can call them, and we encourage them to. HOPE NOW is the program. They have a toll-free number; I can't remember if it's 1-800 or 1-888, so I won't make the same mistake that was made a few months ago.

Q Presumably, the Chairman of the Fed understood that when he said that there was -- more can and should be done.

MS. PERINO: Well, and I don't have anything to announce for you today as to what those things might be, but I will tell you that we continue to look at it and try to figure out the best ways that we can help America as a whole -- not just lenders, and not just borrowers, but everybody, since we have a shared interest in making sure we can mitigate against this problem.

Helen.

Q Does the President realize he's going to further tarnish our image for humanity if he vetoes a ban on torture?

MS. PERINO: That's not what he's suggesting, Helen. You're talking about the Senate -- the intelligence authorization bill?

Q Isn't he supposed to veto the ban this week, or so?

MS. PERINO: Helen -- well, he is going to veto a bill, but it's not the bill in which you describe. The bill that he is going to veto is the intelligence authorization bill. We've had a statement of administration position that has been out for a long time. There are many different reasons he's going to veto it. One of the main ones is that it would apply the Army Field Manual, which is very good guidance for young soldiers who are out on the field who might capture somebody out on the battlefield, but it is not something that should apply to a terrorist interrogation program that is run by the CIA.

Q Why? It's torture, isn't it?

MS. PERINO: It isn't -- no, we are not torturing, and that is not what the bill says.

Q Well, it would ban --

MS. PERINO: Torture is already illegal.

Q -- he is vetoing a ban on torture, isn't he?

MS. PERINO: Torture is already illegal in this country, and the President has already signed a bill reiterating that fact. The simple point of this bill is that the Army Field Manual -- the President does not believe, nor does the intelligence community -- I'd point you to General Hayden and others who say that it should not --

Q The military certainly believes in it.

MS. PERINO: It is appropriate for the military to have the Army Field Manual as its guidelines. But we do not believe that it should apply to the Central Intelligence Agency.

Q Why? Are they human beings? Are we humane people?

MS. PERINO: We are humane people. We have a terrorist interrogation program that helps make sure that we keep this country safe. We do not torture. But what I will tell you is that you will hear more about this this weekend. The President's radio address will be on this issue.

I'm going to go to David, I'll come back.

Q There was a lot of concern voiced on Capitol Hill yesterday about the contract that the Air Force has agreed to enter into for refueling tankers. Should Boeing get another shot? Should the Air Force proceed with the contract at this point? Boeing feels like it was -- the rules were changed as they were going downstream here. Does the President believe that it makes sense to offshore jobs to Europe as the country teeters or is in recession?

MS. PERINO: I know there's a lot of interest in this topic across America, and in fact, indeed, the world. But in regards to it, I have to refer you over to the Pentagon, because those decisions were not made over here, and it's not appropriate to talk about it from this podium.

Q I guess what I'm asking, though, is, should Boeing get another shot?

MS. PERINO: That's going to be a question that other people are going to have to answer, because that decision doesn't rest here.

Go ahead.

Q You mean the President couldn't decide to do so? Come on, I mean, if the President said, let's reconsider this, don't you think somebody would?

MS. PERINO: Maybe they would. I don't know what the laws are, Bill. I know that this decision was not made at the White House. The questions regarding this decision are not appropriately asked here. I understand that there's interest in it, but we're not going to be able to answer them from here.

Q Again on the economy. Oil hit a new high today, $106. What is the President -- can the President do about this, because when he -- during the Mideast trip he tried to pressure OPEC; they obviously didn't listen to him on the output. Is there anything else that he can do?

MS. PERINO: There are things that we can do that will have an impact over the long term, but not necessarily in the short term; the President has been very explicit about that. It would be wrong for us to say that we could do something in the short term, because the reality is there is no short-term solution to this problem.

Q But he tried to do something in the short-term, he tried to pressure OPEC, and it didn't work.

MS. PERINO: He did try to encourage, but if OPEC has decided that they are not going to increase output, there's not a lot that the President can do. We don't control their decisions. What we can do here is continue to try to do several different things, which is increase -- improve technologies, so that we can have better efficiency, and also so that we can use alternative and renewable fuels. The President just spoke about that as recently as yesterday, the need to diversify our supply, and also to have more exploration and production here domestically in environmentally friendly ways.

But it would be wrong for any politician to suggest that there's something in the short term that they can do to alleviate the problem of very high global demand and tight supply.

Kathleen.

Q I don't know if you're aware of this, but Congresswoman Nita Lowey this morning said she's put a hold on funding for the Palestinian Authority until it provides certification about transparency and clarifies statements made by President Mahmoud Abbas that Palestinians may have to return to armed conflict with Israel. What's the White House reaction to the hold on that --

MS. PERINO: I'm not familiar with the --

Q -- $150 million for the Palestinians?

MS. PERINO: I'm not familiar with it. I'll take a look at it. I know one of the things Secretary Rice has been talking about there was a message that she's taking from the -- delivering from the President, which is that we are very concerned about the humanitarian situation in Gaza, and we are trying to help make sure that they can have the food, water, medical supplies and other such necessities that they need. And so we'll take a look at her announcement, but I -- this is the first I've heard of it.

Go ahead, Bret.

Q Dana, what are the prospects for the Protect America Act, from the White House point of view?

MS. PERINO: Well, what's interesting is I actually have a slide, I can actually bring up now that you've asked. It was almost 21 days ago -- (laughter.)

Q First day back. (Laughter.)

MS. PERINO: We've been waiting to use this for a couple of days. (Laughter.) If you remember, it was about four weeks ago, everyone in this briefing room was asking why President Bush wouldn't accept a three-week extension, and everyone thought it would be very reasonable to just give them 21 more days to work. Well, we're nearing -- I think we're at 20 days today, and they're not even near --

Q I think that statement was the House Majority Leader, by the way.

MS. PERINO: He is. It is a bad slide.

Q That says Senate.

MS. PERINO: I know, and it's the House. That's why it's bad. So I will take Pete Seat and I will get him -- (laughter) -- in a lot of trouble. His mother will not be happy. (Laughter.)

But the point of the matter is, they said they needed three more weeks. It's been nearly three weeks, and they haven't done it. And so -- they're nowhere near where they were, I don't think, except it was interesting last week when Chairman Reyes said on Sunday morning that he thought that they were closer. We were hoping this week that there would be a vote, and now it appears that they're going to kick it to maybe next week.

So they wouldn't have met their three week deadline anyway, so what we would encourage them to do is to look at the fact that they have right in front of them the solution -- a bipartisan bill that passed the Senate 68-29. It is -- it would garner a majority of the votes in the House, so we could get this done very easily. We've spent countless hours up there. We have many lawyers and policy folks who have been made available to members of Congress and their staffs in order to try to answer any questions that they have. And right now, I think that we're at a little bit of an impasse. But we were hopeful, given that Chairman Reyes said that they were closer.

Peter.

Q Back on energy for a minute. You said that there's nothing in the short term that could be done. There have been a couple of energy analysts who have said that a nationwide conservation effort, people pulling back on driving, would do a lot to increase the supply. Has there been anything like that ever contemplated here?

MS. PERINO: Well, I think that the market in a way is doing that for us. We've seen people actually decreasing their use of fuel, and that can help a little bit, in terms of supply issues here in America. But one of the things that we're facing is increased global demand. And a lot of the product that would be coming to America, now there's competition for that, and there is buyers that exist all over, especially in China and India, as their economies continue to grow.

Everyone in America knows that they can take steps, and actually, the Energy Department has a great website where they list different things that people can do in order to conserve energy. We know how to do some of that here. But also, people still need to get to work, and they need to get -- to take their kids to school and to band practice and to do all the things that they do to live. It's also important -- transportation is very important to our economy, and the last thing that we need to do is try to cause anything that would further exacerbate the slowdown that we are experiencing right now.

Q So are you saying that, like, a presidential call for conservation would do that?

MS. PERINO: The President does encourage people to conserve, and that's why he's encouraged the Energy Department to get out the word for how everybody can take individual action, as a family or as a business, to take action on it. But if you're asking me if it was something more formal, in terms of a mandate, he would not support that.

I'm going to go to John real quick, and I'll come back. Go ahead, John.

Q Thank you, Dana. Congressman Dana Rohrabacher has made a serious charge against the administration. He pointed out that Ramsey Yousef, who was a top lieutenant of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the architect of 9/11, is in federal prison. He has pretty substantial material suggesting that Mr. Yousef was also involved in the Oklahoma City bombing. Yet he's repeatedly been thwarted in trying to interview him. Now, as I understand the law, and as Congressman Rohrabacher said, a member of Congress can interview any federal prisoner. He said that the White House Counsel's Office, the Justice Department, has continually thwarted him on this. Your response.

MS. PERINO: I'm completely unfamiliar with the matter of what you're talking about, so I will check into it.

Q Will you?

MS. PERINO: Yes.

Q Okay.

MS. PERINO: Mark.

Q Yes, Cuba, tomorrow, on the President -- he's meeting with these families, and speaking afterward. A couple of weeks ago he called for the beginning of a democratic transition in Cuba. Has he seen any sign of anything like that?

MS. PERINO: No, in fact, the President continues to be disappointed that the people of Cuba aren't being given the chance for a free and prosperous life. And he will continue to meet with the families of political prisoners in Cuba. It affects him deeply. I think you saw, when he was here at the press conference last week, he feels very passionately about these people and it weighs on him that there's so much sadness, when that island, just 90 miles to the south of the United States, could be such a thriving place if just given a chance to have democracy.

Q And those who say that the beginning of a democratic transition might be encouraged by lifting the American embargo?

MS. PERINO: The President spoke to that last week, and he said that one of the things that he will not do is lift an embargo so that people who are the elites in Cuba, who are repressing everybody else, would benefit from that, and that the people who are the workers in the country would continue to be repressed. And the President just cannot accept that.

Remember, this embargo, it's not the President's policy, it's longstanding United States policy that the President has continued.

Les.

Q Thank you, Dana. Two questions. The first: The state of Massachusetts has begun fining residents who, for whatever reason, failed to purchase health insurance, with fines as high as $912 a year. My question: What does the President believe this will do to people with too little money, and health care and insurance that costs too much for them?

MS. PERINO: That's a -- I don't know if those facts are accurate. Obviously it's something that all of these states are going to have to take into consideration as they move forward to deal with health care. The President has health care policies that he would like to see acted on by Congress that try to use the market in order to drive down prices. And so I think I'll have to just refer you to the state on that.

Q There has been extensive media coverage of Senator Obama's statement in Nelsonville, Ohio, on Sunday: "I don't think same-sex unions should be called marriage, but I think it is a legal right that they should have. If people find that controversial, then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans." And my question: Has the President, as an active Christian, been able to find where in the Sermon on the Mount there is any justification for same-sex unions? And does he consider --

MS. PERINO: Lester, stop --

Q -- anything in the Epistles to the Romans to be obscure?

MS. PERINO: I am not going to comment on '08 politics. I welcome your questions in the briefing room, but I'm not going to comment on '08 politics, and I'm not going to comment on that.

Q But --

MS. PERINO: Go ahead, David.

Q I don't want to sound like a one-issue guy here, but one thing on the Boeing deal. (Laughter.)

MS. PERINO: Okay. I wasn't clear before?

Q Right.

Q The United States has gone to WTO because of subsidies given to Airbus and competing unfairly with Boeing, and it's in front of the WTO right now, and yet the Air Force is doing a deal with the parent company of Airbus; in essence, some on the Hill believe, funding the subsidies that are hurting American manufacturers. And the Trade Rep on the Hill said that this decision by the Air Force will make it more difficult to prosecute that WTO claim by the United States. Does it make sense to be doing -- hurting your own case in front of WTO?

MS. PERINO: I can -- I see why you asked the question, and I didn't see Sue Schwab's comments, our Trade Representative. But I really do not have anything for you at this time on this. I will double-check to see if there's anything more that we can say about this.

Q It's a broader question -- it's a broader question about --

MS. PERINO: I have not commented on -- to date, and I don't that I will.

Q Dana, one more?

MS. PERINO: Well, I'll just go to Kevin. Go ahead.

Q On foreclosures, if I could follow up just real briefly. If there is just two things you want people to understand about this circumstance, if you're giving them advice, people who are very concerned about losing their homes, they've been reading the headlines -- what two pieces of advice can you give them?

MS. PERINO: Well, I think one of the most important things that they can do if they think that they're going to be facing trouble is to go to this HOPE NOW alliance, which has been able to help over a million people just since it's started last fall. And in addition to that, if they need other help -- obviously this volunteer initiative can help -- but they should get in touch with their lender.

Q But you know it's a very emotional issue. How concerned is the President about people -- they're reaching out, they're begging for help here.

MS. PERINO: And that's why the President has encouraged all of this activity by his Cabinet Secretaries. So he understands that it's traumatizing for people who are at risk of losing their home, and that's why he wants them to have access to tools that will help them renegotiate, so that they can figure out how to make their payments and continue to live in their neighborhood.

Q Dana --

MS. PERINO: Last one for Bret. Go ahead.

Q Last one on FISA, minus the slide. (Laughter.) The House Speaker said there are fundamental problems with the Senate bill this morning, and she said one of them is the exclusivity. And she said, "The President believes he has inherent authority in the Constitution, and that is wrong. No President, Democrat or Republican, should have that authority. It is unconstitutional in my view." This is to collect intelligence other than through the FISA law.

MS. PERINO: Well, I think that there are laws on the books that would suggest otherwise. She likes to play this one note, saying that the President doesn't understand that there are -- is more than one branch of government. The President fully understands that, and that is why we have spent hundreds of hours up on Capitol Hill trying to work with them on this. Sixty-eight members of the United States Senate, a huge bipartisan majority, agree that this is the bill that we need in order to help protect the country. And the President is going to continue to push for it.

Q Thank you.

END 12:56 P.M. EST. For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary March 6, 2008

Tags: President Bush and White House or Dana Perino and Financial Literacy Volunteer Initiative

President Bush Meets with Senator John McCain VIDEO PODCAST

President Bush Meets with Senator John McCain FULL STREAMING VIDEO Rose Garden 1:10 P.M. EST. PODCAST OF THIS ARTICLE

THE PRESIDENT: It's been my honor to welcome my friend, John McCain, as the nominee of the Republican Party. A while back I don't think many people would have thought that John McCain would be here as the nominee of the Republican Party -- except he knew he would be here, and so did his wife, Cindy.

John showed incredible courage and strength of character and perseverance in order to get to this moment. And that's exactly what we need in a President: somebody that can handle the tough decisions; somebody who won't flinch in the face of danger.

We also need somebody with a big heart. I have got to know John well in the last eight years. I've campaigned against him, and I've campaigned with him. Laura and I have spent time in their house. This is a man who deeply loves his family. It's a man who cares a lot about the less fortunate among us. He's a President, and he's going to be the President who will bring determination to defeat an enemy, and a heart big enough to love those who hurt.

And so I welcome you here. I wish you all the best, and I'm proud to be your friend.

SENATOR McCAIN: Thank you, sir. Well, I'm very honored and humbled to have the opportunity to receive the endorsement of the President of the United States, a man who I have great admiration, respect and affection [for]. We -- he and I, as is well known, had a very good competition in the year 2000, and I was privileged and proud to have the opportunity to campaign for his election and reelection to the Presidency of the United States.

I appreciate his endorsement. I appreciate his service to our country. I intend to have as much possible campaigning events together, as it is in keeping with the President's heavy schedule. And I look forward to that opportunity. I look forward to the chance to bring our message to America.

Last night, as you know, both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton called to congratulate me. I pledged at that time, and I pledge again, a respectful campaign -- a respectful campaign based on the issues and based on the stark differences in vision that we have for the future of America.

I hope that the President will find time from his busy schedule to be out on the campaign trail with me, and I will be very privileged to have the opportunity of being again on the campaign trail with him -- only slightly different roles this time. (Laughter.)

I thank you, Mr. President, and it's a pleasure.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, we'll answer a couple of questions.

Abramowitz. Sorry you got such a lousy seat back there. (Laughter.)

Q I wanted to ask about the -- the voters, according to a lot of the exit polls, seem to be searching for change this year. And I'd like to ask both of you -- excuse me -- I'd like to ask both of you how the Republican Party, which has been here for eight years, is going to make the case that you're going to provide the change that the voters seem to want, both on Iraq and the economy?

THE PRESIDENT: Let me start off by saying that in 2000 I said, vote for me, I'm an agent of change. In 2004, I said, I'm not interested in change -- I want to continue as President. Every candidate has got to say "change." That's what the American people expect.

And the good news about our candidate is, there will be a new President, a man of character and courage -- but he's not going to change when it comes to taking on the enemy. He understands this is a dangerous world, and I understand we better have steadfast leadership who has got the courage and determination to pursue this enemy, so as to protect America.

John McCain will find out, when he takes the oath of office, his most important responsibility is to protect the American people from harm. And there's still an enemy that lurks, an enemy that wants to strike us. And this country better have somebody in that Oval Office who understands the stakes, and John McCain understands those stakes.

SENATOR McCAIN: Thank you, sir. I don't have anything to add. (Laughter.)

Q Can I follow-up, sir? How would you --

THE PRESIDENT: No, you can't follow up. Thank you. (Laughter.)

Q Yes, on --

THE PRESIDENT: No, no, not you. Kelly.

Q Senator McCain, given President Bush's low approval ratings, will this be a negative or a positive for you? And how much do you hope he'll campaign for you on the trail?

SENATOR McCAIN: I hope that he will campaign for me as much as is keeping with his busy schedule. I'll be pleased to have him with me both from raising money and the much needed finances for the campaign, and addressing the challenging issues that face this country. I'm pleased to have him as is -- as it fits into his busy schedule.

Kelly.

Q Mr. President, Senator McCain, sir, how would you counsel Senator McCain to choose a running mate, how quickly? And given the fact that Democrats will field a nominee who will make some kind of history -- a woman, an African America -- should Republicans consider that in selecting a Vice Presidential nominee?

THE PRESIDENT: I'd tell him to be careful about who he names to be the head of the selection committee. (Laughter.) Look, he's got plenty of experience. He knows what he needs to do, which is to have a process that vets candidates, and the person -- somebody he's going to be comfortable with and somebody whose advice he relies upon. And he can answer his own question on that, but --

SENATE McCAIN: Could I just say, Kelly, I didn't think it was appropriate to contemplate this process, as I've discussed before, until after we had secured the nomination of the party. Now we'll begin that process.

Q Should history make a difference with a woman or an African American on the Democratic side?

THE PRESIDENT: People don't vote for Vice Presidents -- as much as I hate to say that for those who have been candidates for Vice President -- they're going to vote for who gets to sit inside that Oval Office and make decisions on how to protect the country and keep taxes low and how to have a culture that respects the dignity of every human being. That's what the race is all about. I know there's going to be a lot of speculation on who the Vice President, this and that, but the speculation is over about who our party is going to nominate.

Liz.

Q Mr. President, do you -- how much do you intend to do for Senator McCain? And do you think, in some cases, that your help could actually hurt him more than help him?

THE PRESIDENT: Look, if it -- if my showing up and endorsing him helps him, or if I'm against him and it helps him -- either way, I want him to win. (Laughter.) You know, look, this is an age-old question that you -- every President has had to answer, and there's an appropriate amount of campaigning for me to do.

But they're not going to be voting for me. I've had my time in the Oval Office. It's been a fabulous experience, by the way. And they're going to be voting for the next person to come in here and make the tough decisions about America -- America's security, America's prosperity, and, you know, America's hopefulness. That's what this race is about, and it's not about me. You know, I've done my bit.

And, by the way, I'm not through, and I'm going to do a lot. And John is right -- I do have a day job to keep, and I plan on keeping it. I've told the people that follow me in this press corps that I'm going to sprint to the finish, and I mean what I say. I've got a lot to do. But I'm going to find ample time to help, and I can help raising money, and if he wants my pretty face standing by his side at one of these rallies, I'll be glad to show up.

But they're going to be looking at him, you know. I'm going to be in Crawford -- (laughter) -- with my feet up. He's going to be sitting in there behind that desk, making the decisions on war and peace, and I'm thankful our party has nominated somebody plenty capable of making those decisions. And when the American people take a hard look, they're going to feel comfortable, like I feel comfortable, in recommending him to take my place.

Listen, we thank you.

Wolf, where's Wolf? No, I'm not calling you. Wolf. No, not you, either. Where's Wolf?

Q Right here.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, ask something, will you? (Laughter.)

Q Where do you think you can be most helpful campaigning for him around the country?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, look -- I mean, if --

Q And Senator McCain, where would you like the President to campaign with you?

THE PRESIDENT: As I told you, you know, if he wants me to show up, I will. If he wants me to say, "You know, I'm not for him," I will. Whatever he wants me to do, I want him to win. And, you know, Wolf, I don't know where. I mean, look --

SENATOR McCAIN: Could I start out with --

THE PRESIDENT: I'm focusing on, you know, protecting America, and succeeding in Iraq, and dealing with the North Korea, and dealing with the Iranian, and dealing with the issues around the world where we're making a difference in terms of keeping peace. I want to get this in as good as a position as possible so that when John McCain is the President -- and he will be -- he can deal with these issues in a way that yields peace.

SENATOR McCAIN: Wolf, could I say -- one state springs to mind: Texas. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: He's not going to need me in Texas. He's going to be a landslide in Texas.

SENATOR McCAIN: Could I just say that I do intend to campaign all across the country. I think that literally every section in this country is at -- in play. And I will be glad to have the President with me, in keeping with his schedule, in any part of America. And we're going to go everywhere in America with this campaign.

THE PRESIDENT: Listen, thank you all very much for coming.

Q Did you talk names for Vice President? (Laughter.)

Q One press conference every week if you're elected, Senator?

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all very much. It's been a pleasure to see you. Obviously we've invited some unruly members of the fourth estate here. I'm disappointed in the conduct of some of the people that have come. I told John it would be a nice and polite crowd. Thank you all very much.

END 1:20 P.M. EST For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary March 5, 2008

Tags: George H.W. Bush and John McCain

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