President Bush Discusses Iraq VIDEO

President George W. Bush delivers a statement on Iraq Thursday, April 10, 2008, from Cross Hall in the White House. Said the President, "All our efforts are aimed at a clear goal: A free Iraq that can protect its people, support itself economically, and take charge of its own political affairs." White House photo by Joyce N. Boghosian

President Bush Discusses Iraq FULL STREAMING VIDEO. Cross Hall Fact Sheet: The Way Forward in Iraq 11:24 A.M. EDT THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Fifteen months ago, I announced the surge. And this week, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker gave Congress a detailed report on the results. The immediate goal of the surge was to bring down the sectarian violence that threatened to overwhelm the government in Baghdad, restore basic security to Iraqi communities, and drive the terrorists out of their safe havens.

As General Petraeus told Congress, American and Iraqi forces have made significant progress in all these areas. While there is more to be done, sectarian violence is down dramatically. Civilian deaths and military deaths are also down. Many neighborhoods once controlled by al Qaeda have been liberated. And cooperation from Iraqis is stronger than ever -- more tips from residents, more Iraqis joining their security forces, and a growing movement against al Qaeda called the "Sons of Iraq."

Improvements in security have helped clear the way for political and economic developments described by Ambassador Crocker. These gains receive less media coverage, but they are vital to Iraq's future. At the local level, businesses are re-opening and provincial councils are meeting. At the national level, there's much work ahead, but the Iraqi government has passed a budget and three major "benchmark" laws. The national government is sharing oil revenues with the provinces. And many economic indicators in Iraq -- from oil production to inflation -- are now pointed in the right direction.

Serious and complex challenges remain in Iraq, from the presence of al Qaeda to the destructive influence of Iran, to hard compromises needed for further political progress. Yet with the surge, a major strategic shift has occurred. Fifteen months ago, America and the Iraqi government were on the defensive; today, we have the initiative. Fifteen months ago, extremists were sowing sectarian violence; today, many mainstream Sunni and Shia are actively confronting the extremists. Fifteen months ago, al Qaeda had bases in Iraq that it was using to kill our troops and terrorize the Iraqi people; today, we have put al Qaeda on the defensive in Iraq, and we're now working to deliver a crippling blow. Fifteen months ago, Americans were worried about the prospect of failure in Iraq; today, thanks to the surge, we've renewed and revived the prospect of success.

With this goal in mind, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker have submitted recommendations on the way forward. After detailed discussions with my national security team, including the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I've accepted these recommendations.

The recommendation likely to receive the most attention is on troop levels. General Petraeus has reported that security conditions have improved enough to withdraw all five surge brigades by the end of July. That means that by July 31st, the number of U.S. combat brigades in Iraq will be down by 25 percent from last year.

Beyond that, General Petraeus says he'll need time to consolidate his forces and assess how this reduced American presence will affect conditions on the ground before making measured recommendations on further reductions. And I've told him he'll have all the time he needs.

Some have suggested that this period of evaluation will be a "pause." That's misleading, because none of our operations in Iraq will be on hold. Instead, we will use the months ahead to take advantage of opportunities created by the surge -- and continue operations across the board.

All our efforts are aimed at a clear goal: a free Iraq that can protect its people, support itself economically, and take charge of its own political affairs. No one wants to achieve this goal more than the Iraqis themselves. Those who say that the way to encourage further progress is to back off and force the Iraqis to fend for themselves are simply wrong. The Iraqis are a proud people who understand the enormity of the challenges they face and are anxious to meet them. But they know that they still need our help until they can stand by themselves. Our job in the period ahead is to stand with the Iraqi government as it makes tough choices and makes the transition to responsibility for its own security and its own destiny.

So what will this transition look like? On the security front, thanks to the significant progress General Petraeus reported this week, it is clear that we're on the right track. In the period ahead, we will stay on the offense against the enemy. As we speak, U.S. Special Forces are launching multiple operations every night to capture or kill al Qaeda leaders in Iraq. Coalition and Iraqi forces are also stepping up conventional operations against al Qaeda in northern Iraq, where terrorists have concentrated after being largely pushed from central and western Iraq. And Prime Minister Maliki's government has launched operations in Basra that make clear a free Iraq will no longer tolerate the lawlessness by Iranian-backed militants.

In the period ahead, we'll also continue to train, equip, and support the Iraqi security forces, continue to transfer security responsibilities to them as provinces become ready, and move over time into an overwatch role. The Iraqi army and police are increasingly capable, and leading the fight to secure their country. As Iraqis assume the primary role in providing security, American forces will increasingly focus on targeted raids against the terrorists and extremists, they will continue training Iraqi forces, and they will be available to help Iraq's security forces if required.

On the economic front, Iraq is moving forward. With Iraq's economy growing, oil revenues on the rise, and its capital investment expanding, our economic role in the country is changing. Iraqis in their recent budget would outspend us on reconstruction by more than ten to one. And American funding for large-scale reconstruction projects is approaching zero. Our share of Iraq's security costs will drop, as well, as Iraqis pay for the vast majority of their own army and police. And that's the way it should be. Ultimately, we expect Iraq to shoulder the full burden of these costs. In the period ahead, Iraq's economy will increasingly move away from American assistance, rely on private investment, and stand on its own.

On the political front, Iraq has seen bottom-up progress -- as tribes and other groups in the provinces who fought terror are now turning to rebuilding local political structures and taking charge of their own affairs. Progress in the provinces is leading to progress in Baghdad, as Iraqi leaders increasingly act together and they share power, and they forge compromises on behalf of the nation. Upcoming elections will consolidate this progress. They'll provide a way for Iraqis to settle disputes through the political process instead of through violence. Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year, and these elections will be followed by national elections in 2009.

On the diplomatic front, Iraq will increase its engagement in the world -- and the world must increase its engagement with Iraq. To help in this effort, I'm directing Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus to visit Saudi Arabia on their trip back to Iraq. I'm directing our nation's senior diplomats to meet with the leaders in Jordan, the UAE, and Qatar, and Kuwait and Egypt. In each capital, they will brief them on the situation in Iraq, and encourage these nations to reopen their embassies in Baghdad, and increase their overall support for Iraq. This will be followed by Secretary Rice's trip to the third Expanded Neighbors Conference in Kuwait City and the second International Compact with Iraq meeting in Stockholm.

A stable, successful, independent Iraq is in the strategic interests of Arab nations. And all who want peace in the Middle East should support a stable, democratic Iraq. And we will urge all nations to increase their support this year.

The regime in Tehran also has a choice to make. It can live in peace with its neighbor, enjoy strong economic and cultural and religious ties. Or it can continue to arm and train and fund illegal militant groups, which are terrorizing the Iraqi people and turning them against Iran. If Iran makes the right choice, America will encourage a peaceful relationship between Iran and Iraq. Iran makes the wrong choice, America will act to protect our interests, and our troops, and our Iraqi partners.

On each of these fronts -- security, economic, political, and diplomatic -- Iraqis are stepping forward to assume more responsibility for the welfare of their people and the fate of their country. In all these fronts, America will continue to play an increasingly supporting role.

Our work in Iraq will still demand sacrifices from our whole nation, especially our military, for some time to come. To ease the burden on our troops and their families, I've directed the Secretary of Defense to reduce deployment lengths from 15 months to 12 months for all active Army soldiers deploying to the Central Command area of operations. These changes will be effective for those deploying after August 1st. We'll also ensure that our Army units will have at least a year home for every year in the field. Our nation owes a special thanks to the soldiers and families who've supported this extended deployment. We owe a special thanks to all who serve in the cause of freedom in Iraq.

The stress on our force is real, but the Joint Chiefs have assured me that an all-volunteer force -- our all-volunteer force is strong and resilient enough to fight and win this war on terror. The trends in Iraq are positive. Our troops want to win. Recruiting and retention have remained strong during the surge. And I believe this: I believe the surest way to depress morale and weaken the force would be to lose in Iraq.

One key to ensuring that our military remains ready is to provide the resources they need promptly. Congress will soon consider a vital emergency war funding request. Members of Congress must pass a bill that provides our troops the resources they need -- and does not tie the hands of our commanders or impose artificial timelines for withdrawal. This bill must also be fiscally responsible. It must not exceed the reasonable $108 billion request I sent to Congress months ago. If the bill meets all these requirements, it will be a strong show of support for our troops. If it doesn't, I'll veto it.

Some in Washington argue that the war costs too much money. There's no doubt that the costs of this war have been high. But during other major conflicts in our history, the relative cost has been even higher. Think about the Cold War. During the Truman and Eisenhower administrations, our defense budget rose as high as 13 percent of our total economy. Even during the Reagan administration, when our economy expanded significantly, the defense budget still accounted for about 6 percent of GDP. Our citizens recognized that the imperative of stopping Soviet expansion justified this expense. Today, we face an enemy that is not only expansionist in its aims, but has actually attacked our homeland -- and intends to do so again. Yet our defense budget accounts for just over 4 percent of our economy -- less than our commitment at any point during the four decades of the Cold War. This is still a large amount of money, but it is modest -- a modest fraction of our nation's wealth -- and it pales when compared to the cost of another terrorist attack on our people.

We should be able to agree that this is a burden worth bearing. And we should be able to agree that our national interest require the success of our mission in Iraq.

Iraq is the convergence point for two of the greatest threats to America in this new century -- al Qaeda and Iran. If we fail there, al Qaeda would claim a propaganda victory of colossal proportions, and they could gain safe havens in Iraq from which to attack the United States, our friends and our allies. Iran would work to fill the vacuum in Iraq, and our failure would embolden its radical leaders and fuel their ambitions to dominate the region. The Taliban in Afghanistan and al Qaeda in Pakistan would grow in confidence and boldness. And violent extremists around the world would draw the same dangerous lesson that they did from our retreats in Somalia and Vietnam. This would diminish our nation's standing in the world, and lead to massive humanitarian casualties, and increase the threat of another terrorist attack on our homeland.

On the other hand, if we succeed in Iraq after all that al Qaeda and Iran have invested there, it would be a historic blow to the global terrorist movement and a severe setback for Iran. It would demonstrate to a watching world that mainstream Arabs reject the ideology of al Qaeda, and mainstream Shia reject the ideology of Iran's radical regime. It would give America a new partner with a growing economy and a democratic political system in which Sunnis and Shia and Kurds all work together for the good of their country. And in all these ways, it would bring us closer to our most important goal -- making the American people safer here at home.

I want to say a word to our troops and civilians in Iraq. You've performed with incredible skill under demanding circumstances. The turnaround you have made possible in Iraq is a brilliant achievement in American history. And while this war is difficult, it is not endless. And we expect that, as conditions on the ground continue to improve, they will permit us to continue the policy of return on success. The day will come when Iraq is a capable partner of the United States. The day will come when Iraq is a stable democracy that helps fight our common enemies and promote our common interests in the Middle East. And when that day arrives, you'll come home with pride in your success, and the gratitude of your whole nation. God bless you. (Applause.)

END 11:42 A.M. EDT. For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary April 10, 2008

Tags: President Bush and Iraq or General Petraeus

Condoleezza Rice International Affairs Budget Request PODCAST VIDEO

Secretary Condoleezza Rice Statement Before the Senate Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs April 9, 2008 PODCAST OF THIS ARTICLE

SECRETARY RICE: Thank you very much, Senator, Senators, members of the Committee. I do have a full statement, Mr. Chairman, and I would ask that it be put in the record, but I will not read it so that we have plenty of time for discussion.

Let me thank --

CHAIRMAN LEAHY: Before you begin --

SECRETARY RICE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN LEAHY: I want to just say this only once. We have people here who have a right to hear what you’re going to say. You have a right to say it, whether we agree or disagree. And every senator has a right to say what they want and ask questions. If anybody is going to block the view or hinder people who are here watching this, officers, they will be removed. And whether they are agreeing with me or disagreeing with me is not the point. Or whether they’re agreeing or disagreeing with you, Madame Secretary, is not the point. We will -- we want to hear what you have to say. Senators will be free to agree or disagree with what you have to say. But we will have an orderly hearing. This is the United States Senate.

Please, go ahead.

SECRETARY RICE: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank the members of this Committee for the work that we have done together over the last several years. I think that despite sometimes differences on policy or on tactics, we have always tried to work in the interests of the United States of America. And I think that we have agreed that that has meant that America needed to represent not just power, but also principle. We’ve worked together to put together an agenda, a compassion agenda that we see in evidence in places like Africa, with the President’s Emergency Program For AIDS Relief, for the malaria program that we have. We have been able to quadruple development assistance to Africa, to triple it worldwide, and to double it for Latin America.

Without this committee, we would not be – not have been able to meet the challenges that we have had in having our diplomats and our civilians in some of the most dangerous places in the world. And I don’t just mean Iraq and Afghanistan, although those are clearly very dangerous, but also in many unaccompanied posts around the world where our people go without family and work in harm’s way and work in difficult conditions in some of the most remote parts of the world to try and help people build a better life. And without your help, we would not have been able to engage in what we call transformational diplomacy, trying to increase the number of well-governed democratic states that can provide for their people and act as responsible citizens in the international community.

With your forbearance, members of the Committee, I would just like to say one word about our people in Iraq in particular right now. It’s a difficult time for our Embassy. We’ve had a number of incidents. It’s been more difficult recently, and I just want to say that we keep them in our thoughts and we appreciate their service, and I know that you do too. Very often, we talk about the honorable service of our men and women in uniform, and it is to be honored. We also have a lot of civilians on the front lines who take risks daily. And so I’d just like to acknowledge their service.

I believe that the President’s budget request this year for State Operations and for Foreign Operations will permit us to continue to pursue our efforts at securing our people, building reasonable facilities for them, increasing our efforts at public diplomacy and exchanges, something that we all agreed we should do at the beginning of my tenure and I think we have done precisely that. There is really no better commercial, if you will, for American democracy and the strength of America than having our people travel abroad and having people travel here. And we’ve tried, through public-private partnerships, more exchanges, more visitors, to give people access to the United States.

We are also requesting in this budget 1,100 new positions for the State Department and 300 new ones for USAID. This represents a rebuilding, if you will, of our civilian capacity to manage programs, to engage in diplomacy. I felt that it was important that we first do some important reallocation and redeployment of our people to demonstrate that we were prepared to make tough choices. And by moving close to 300 people out of Europe and into places like India and the further reaches of China, I think we’ve demonstrated that we are prepared to do what we can with the resources that we have. But the truth is that the diplomatic corps is stretched, USAID is even more stretched. We went through a period in the ‘90s of almost six years where we didn’t hire, didn’t bring in a single Foreign Service Officer. And so we do need to rebuild.

And it speaks, Senator Leahy, to the point that you’ve made about the role of the State Department and what I’ll call reconstruction and development, or, if you wish, nation-building, which is that the Department does want to be at the forefront of those efforts. We need an institutional base from which to do that, and that is why we’ve requested funding for what the President announced in his State of the Union last year, which is the civilian reserve, a Civilian Response Corps, which we believe would be a very important way for civilians to lead the efforts at stabilization and reconstruction.

Finally, let me say that we have, I think, used our foreign assistance well to support efforts at Middle East peace, at consolidation of democratic forces in Latin America. In places like Pakistan where it is very difficult, we have, nonetheless, seen Pakistan now move from military rule to civilian rule, to have democratic elections for the first time in more than a decade. These are processes that I think we’ve been able to support with the assistance and with the efforts of our diplomats.

If I may just on two other points that were raised on – particularly in Latin America, just to underscore what Senator Gregg has said about the importance of the free trade agreement for Colombia. This is a country that was very near being a failed state at the beginning of this decade. It was a country where bombings in the capital were routine, where the government was unable to control almost 30 percent of its territory, either because of the FARC or because of paramilitaries. It is a country that now has a foreign minister who was held six years in captivity by the FARC. And so it is a country that has come a long way back under President Uribe and his program for democratic security. He is, as a result, a very popular leader in Colombia. But I think that is because he has brought his people security and he is devoted to human rights and to furthering the democratic enterprise. I know there are a lot of concerns. But I will just say I was in Medellin very recently with a congressional delegation. And Medellin, which used to be synonymous with Pablo Escobar and trouble, is now a thriving city in which the Colombian citizens believe they can be secure.

Finally, let me just in response to something that Senator Gregg said. I really do hope that we can remove these restrictions on the ANC. This is a country with which we now have excellent relations -- South Africa. But it’s, frankly, a rather embarrassing matter that I still have to waive in my own counterpart, the Foreign Minister of South Africa, not to mention the great leader Nelson Mandela.

So we have a lot of work to do. I continue to hope that during the remainder of our tenure that we will be able to make progress in providing for our people compensation reform, security facilities and new positions. And I hope that we’ll be able to make some progress on the great foreign policy issues of our day. But I have been enormously proud to serve as America’s Secretary of State because George Shultz once told me that it’s the best job in government. And I said, “George, why is that?” And he said, “Because there is no greater honor than representing the United States of America as its chief diplomat.” And I have found that and I want to thank you for helping me play that role. Thank you very much.

2008/260 Released on April 9, 2008

Tags: Secretary Condoleezza Rice and International Affairs Budget Request or Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations

Mc Cain, Clinton Question, Petraeus & Crocker Testify VIDEO

Situation in Iraq Today LIVE FEED - FULL STREAMING VIDEO The second day of hearings with Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker . The General and the.Ambassador at the House Armed Services Cmte., offer testimony on the war and politics in Iraq. Wednesday on C-SPAN at 9am (ET)

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) Questions Gen. David Petraeus & Ambassador Ryan Crocker FULL STREAMING VIDEO (April 8, 2008) At a Senate Armed Services Cmte. Hearing, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) questions Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. Washington, DC 10 min.

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) Questions Gen. David Petraeus & Ambassador Ryan Crocker (April 8, 2008) At a Senate Armed Services Cmte. Hearing, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) questions Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. Washington, DC : 13 min.

MORE VIDEO FROM 04/08/08

• Chairman Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI)
• Gen. David Petraeus, Multinational Force Iraq Commander
• Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker

The Senate Armed Services Cmte. Hearing with Gen. David Petraeus & Ambassador Ryan Crocker The Senate Armed Services Cmte. holds the first of several planned Congressional hearings with Ambassador Ryan Crocker and Gen. David Petraeus testifying about the situation in Iraq. 4/8/2008: WASHINGTON, DC: 4: 24:53

LINKS

• Petraeus' Opening Statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee (PDF)
• Charts Accompanying Petraeus' Testimony (PDF)
• Crocker's Prepared Opening Statement (PDF)
• Opening Statement of Senator Carl Levin

Tags: Ambassador Ryan Crocker and Gen. David Petraeus or Senate Armed Services Cmte

President Bush President Putin VIDEO PODCAST

President Bush Participates in Joint Press Availability with President Putin of Russia FULL STREAMING VIDEO Press Center State Residence of the President of Russia, Sochi, Russia. U.S.-Russia Strategic Framework Declaration and Fact Sheet: U.S.-Russia Strategic Framework Declaration and In Focus: NATO 12:07 P.M. (Local) PODCAST OF THIS ARTICLE

PRESIDENT PUTIN: (As translated.) Good afternoon. Dear ladies and gentlemen, first and foremost I would like to thank the President of the United States, Mr. Bush, for accepting the invitation to meet here in Sochi, in order to sort of draw the bottom line of the eight years of our parallel terms in office. And he will probably agree with me, the result has been positive on the whole.

Since our first meeting in Ljubljana back in 2001, we have had an open and sincere relationship, and this has allowed us, without any circumventions or conventions, to start discussion the most pressing issues on the international and bilateral agenda. This dialogue is not always easy between our two countries. There have been and there remain certain disagreements on a number of issues, but the search of common denominators is going on.

George and I, I have already mentioned, have been able to build our agenda in a way that would prevent our disagreements on one set of issues from negatively influencing the state of play in other areas, where we do have progress and where we are converging our positions. This has strengthened the entire architecture of the U.S.-Russian relationship.

In preparing for this meeting, and in the course of this meeting, we have taken stock of major issues on the U.S.-Russian agenda, and here in Sochi we have adopted a declaration on strategic framework. Of course, it does not provide any breakthrough solutions on a number of issues, but we did not really expect this. It is important that the document sums up the positive achievements of the past few years -- these in such areas as security, nonproliferation, including the initiatives that President and I put forward, these on counterterrorism and building business partnerships.

The declaration also reflects our continuing disagreements, primarily in the political-military field, but we reaffirm our willingness to work towards overcoming those differences. The most important thing is that we are talking about a strategic choice of our nations in favor of developing a constructive relationship that goes beyond the previous model of mutual containment. This declaration is a forward-looking one, and it provides a much more accurate assessment of the level of our partnership than what is normally believed based on stereotypes.

Certainly we have taken advantage of this meeting in order to sincerely, without protocol, discuss the most pressing issues of today, primarily those that influence strategic stability and international security for the long term, which is also very important.

I will not conceal that on a number of the most -- one of the most difficult issues was, and remains, the issue of missile defense in Europe. This is not about language; this is not about diplomatic phrasing or wording; this is about the substance of the issue. I'd like to be very clear on this. Our fundamental attitude to the American plans have not changed. However, certain progress is obvious. Our concerns have been heard by the United States. In March at the 2-plus-2 meeting, and earlier today in my conversation with President Bush, we have been offered a set of confidence-building and transparency measures in the field of missile defense, and we can feel that the President of the United States takes a very serious approach here and is sincerely willing to resolve this problem.

We do support this approach, and certainly, in principle, adequate measures of confidence-building and transparency can be found. They can be important and useful in addressing these kind of issues. Thus, we now have room for cooperation, we're ready for such interaction. As far as the concrete substance of the U.S. proposals, it is too early to speak about it at this point. It is up to the experts to discuss the technical details of these proposals, and it is up to them to make any final conclusions. And the alternative that we offered last year is still relevant. We hope that it will be an issue for discussion in the future.

As far as strategic offensive weapons are concerned, we do have certain differences still in our basic approaches. And of course, both Russia and the United States are in favor of the continuation of a process of nuclear disarmament, and we have found some common ground here.

Last year in Kennebunkport, Mr. Bush and I agreed to start work on a new agreement that would replace the START Treaty, which would expire in 2009. We agreed that it would be necessary to maintain all the useful and necessary parts of the START Treaty. We're going to continue working on this. Our concerns are clear to both sides, in such fields as the development of state-of-the-art technology, and I hope that experts will be able to find some agreement here, as well.

We also discussed the CFE Treaty. We discussed the enlargement policy of NATO. We spoke very frankly and in a very substantive fashion. And overall, I am satisfied that our partners are listening to us quite attentively, and I hope that here, as well, we are going to reach some true understanding. Of course, the Sochi declaration had to reflect our cooperation.

In business, we reaffirmed our mutual willingness to ensure Russia's early accession to the WTO on commercially viable terms and commercially justified terms that would not undermine Russia's economic interests. We hope that the United States this year will make Russia exempt from the Jackson-Vanik Amendment, and we hope that the United States will establish permanent normal trade relations with Russia. We have also reaffirmed our willingness to continue our business-to-business cooperation. Another relevant issue is the work on a new incremental agreement on the encouragement and mutual protection of investment.

Another important area of our cooperation is energy. Here we do have certain good progress. We hope that our energy dialogue will carry on, and we hope that it will involve major projects that would be in line with the interests of both countries.

This is my last meeting with President Bush in my current capacity, and I would like to mention here that I have always found it rewarding and interesting to deal with the U.S. President. I have always appreciated his honesty and his openness, his willingness to listen to his counterpart. And this is precious. We have been motivated by our sincere willingness to strengthen our partnership and to strengthen mutual understanding between our two nations. We have sought to find new horizons for our cooperation. And I'm grateful to George for the achievement that we can register, and this achievement is very much due to him and his support.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Thank you, Vladimir. Thanks for your gracious invitation. This is the very room where you served an unbelievably good dinner last night, with fabulous entertainment. Thank you for your hospitality. Laura and I are thrilled to be with you. And also, thank you for the briefing on the Winter Olympics. I'm sure the people in this area are really excited about the fact that you've been awarded the Winter Olympics. I congratulate you and wish you all the very best. And maybe you'll invite me to come as your guest -- who knows.

We spent a lot of time in our relationship trying to get rid of the Cold War. It's over. It ended. And the fundamental question in this relationship is, could we work together to put the Cold War in the past? And I fully recognize there are people in America and Russia that think the Cold War still exists. And sometimes that makes relations difficult. But it's very important for leaders to think strategically and not get stuck in the past, and be willing to advance agendas.

And so we worked very hard over the past years to find areas where we can work together, and find ways to be agreeable when we disagree. And I think we've done a pretty good job of it. And I want to thank you for your openness, as well. It's been a remarkable relationship.

Today, the signing of this strategic framework declaration really does show the breadth and the depth of our cooperation. It shows where we differ, as Vladimir mentioned, but it shows that when you work hard, you can find areas where you can figure out how to cooperate. The document speaks of the respect of rule of law, international law, human rights, the tolerance of diversity, political freedom and a free market approach to economic policy and practices.

One of the areas where we've agreed to work together is in missile defense. And obviously, as Vladimir mentioned, this an area where we've got more work to do to convince the Russian side that the system is not aimed at Russia. As the agreement mentioned, we agree today that the United States and Russia want to create a system for responding to potential missile threats, in which Russia and the United States and Europe will participate as equal partners.

This is a powerful and important strategic vision. It's the vision that Vladimir Putin first articulated in Kennebunkport, Maine. For those of you there, you might remember the moment. And this is what we're building on. We're taking the vision that we discussed in Kennebunkport and now we're putting it in a document form, to help not only this administration but future American administrations work with future Russian administrations on this very important issue.

To help counter those threats, the United States is working with the Czech Republic and Poland, and as the President has done consistently, he expressed his concerns about those relationships. There's no doubt where he stands. That's why I like him. You don't have to guess. And he is concerned about it. Yet Russia appreciates the confidence-building and transparency measures that we have proposed, and declared that if agreed and implemented, such measures will be important and useful in ensuring [sic]* Russia concerns.

He's got doubts about whether or not these systems are aimed at him. My view is, is that the more open we are, the more transparent we are, the more we share technological information, the more likely it will be that people throughout the system understand that this is an opportunity to deal with the threats of the 21st century, such as a launch from the Middle East or elsewhere. And the document shows areas where we agree and where we disagree, but where we can work together in the future. And I appreciate that very much.

We're talk -- we're working together to stop the spread of dangerous weapons, and I appreciate the fact that we're implementing the Bratislava Nuclear Security Initiative, which is an important initiative. We continue to work together to meet the threat of nuclear terrorism, including through the global initiative to combat nuclear terrorism. It's an important initiative in which the Russians and the United States have worked cooperatively and have taken the lead.

We talked about Iran. As I told Vladimir, that in the States, when asked about this at the press conferences, I've always told people how much I appreciate his leadership on the Iranian issue. After all, Russia went to the Iranians and said: You should have civilian nuclear power. I agree. He then went on to say: And we'll provide the fuel for you. Therefore, there's no need for you to enrich.

And it's your leadership on this issue, Mr. President, that's very important in making sure that the regime honors the international commitments that we expect it to.

We briefly touched about the six-party talks with North Korea -- the need for us to work together to help that nation move forward.

We talked about fighting terror. The United States has suffered terrorist attacks on its soil, as have Russia. And I will tell you, there's been no firmer person in the world who understands the threat of radicalism, and the capacity of these radicals and extremists to murder the innocent people. I remember full well when that happened on your soil. I remember our discussions right after -- right thereafter.

And I want to thank you for working hard to deal with terrorist and terrorist financing, to share intelligence to protect our people. That's our most important job. And we improved our relations along these fronts. We did talk about -- Vladimir did talk about economic cooperation. I support Russia's efforts to join the WTO. I support Russia's efforts to join the OECD. I think we ought to get rid of Jackson-Vanik. I think it's time to move this relationship in a new light. And I look forward to reminding Congress that it's in our interest to do such.

And so we had -- this is a good agreement, and a good understanding. And, Mr. President, this is our last meeting as Presidents and -- it won't be our last meeting as people, but it will be our last meeting as Presidents of our country. And it's a little bit nostalgic. It's a moment where it just proves life moves on. And I want to thank you for introducing me to the new President. We had a good meeting. And I appreciate you providing the opportunity for us to meet. And I look forward to working with him through the rest of my term.

In the meantime, thanks very much for your hospitality and your friendship, and for giving me a chance to have yet another press conference with you. (Laughter.)

PRESIDENT PUTIN: (As translated.) Dear colleagues, two questions from each side. The first question will be asked by our guests, the United States.

Q President Putin, President Bush has expressed some confusion about who's going to run Russia's foreign policy when you step down and become Prime Minister. And he wondered who was going to represent Russia at the G8. Who is in charge? And will you represent Russia at the G8?

And, Mr. President, seven years ago you said that you looked into Mr. Putin's soul and that you found him to be trustworthy.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Yes.

Q You met today with his successor. Did you have a similar experience, and what was your take?

PRESIDENT BUSH: I did find him to be trustworthy, and he was trustworthy.

Q No, I mean his successor.

PRESIDENT BUSH: No, I know. I'm setting it up. (Laughter.) He's going to go first, though.

PRESIDENT PUTIN: Regarding foreign policy of the Russian Federation. In accordance with the constitution of the Russian Federation, foreign policy is determined by the President. And the newly elected President of the Russian Federation, Dmitry Medvedev, will represent Russia at most important international fora, including the G8 summit.

Once again, I would like to emphasize that over the past years as head of Russian Federation, the President of Russian Federation, first Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation, and member of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, Mr. Medvedev has been one of the co-authors of the Russian foreign policy. He is in the course of -- he's quite knowledgeable about all the current affairs and our strategic plans.

Therefore, this will be a reliable partner, a professional partner, who will be ready for constructive dialogue, with priority given to Russia's national interest, of course.

I don't know if there's anything I can add to what I've just said. Now, as far as your humble servant, myself, if I become Prime Minister, the Prime Minister will have many other issues and problems on his agenda. Those relate mostly to the state of the economy and various social policy issues. And those are issues that the rank and file citizen in any country is concerned with, including in the Russian Federation. And I intend to focus my attention and my efforts at addressing precisely these tasks.

PRESIDENT BUSH: My comments about Vladimir Putin were aimed to say that I found him to be the kind of person -- I thought he'd be the kind of person who would tell me what's on his mind. A lot of times in politics you have people look you in the eye and tell you what's not on their mind. He looks you in the eye and tells you what's on his mind. He's been very truthful. And to me, that's the only way you can find common ground, and to be able to deal in a way that you don't let your disputes interrupt your relationships.

And, you know, I just met the man for about 20 minutes, the President-Elect, and it seemed -- he seemed like a straightforward fellow, somebody who would tell you what's on his mind. But he is -- he is not the President. This man is the President. So our conversation was -- he was very respectful of the fact that he is waiting his time until he gets duly sworn in as President of the Russian Federation. And then he'll act as the President.

And so my first impressions are very positive -- smart fellow. You know, I got to see him at Crawford once before, and then he came to the White House, I think with Vladimir, and then came on his own one time. But we never really had a full discussion. And I just repeat to you, from my observation, he understands there's a certain protocol, and that he is taking his time, he's studying, he's preparing to assume office. But he is not going to act like a President, nor assume presidential duties until he gets to be the President.

And so you can write down, I was impressed and looking forward to working with him.

Q My first question is to Mr. Putin. We can see from the declaration what you say about missile defense, the concerns are still there. Issues relating to the third site in Russia are still on the agenda. And my question to Mr. Bush, you talk about transparency. Will you be able to convince your colleagues in Poland and the Czech Republic to be as transparent as you are going to be in missile defense issues?

PRESIDENT PUTIN: (As translated.) True, we have not resolved all the problems relating to missile defense and the third site in Europe. However, I have already mentioned before and today, we have seen once again that our U.S. partners not only understand our concerns, but are sincerely trying to overcome our concerns. And another important observation is that I do have certain cautious optimism with regard to mutual agreements. I believe that this is possible. But the devil is in the details, and it is important here that our experts could work at the expert level -- it's important for them to agree on the concrete confidence-building measures, and they should see how those measures will be implemented in practical terms.

And the third issue mentioned by President Bush, he says that we should work together on these systems, it would be desirable. I believe that this is the most important thing, if, at the expert level, and then at the political level, we are able to start cooperation on a global missile defense system, as we are now talking about -- missile defense in Europe -- if we manage to achieve this kind of level of cooperation on a global missile defense system, this will be the best kind of result for all our proceeding efforts.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Precisely, what he said is true. And that is, that is if we can, first of all, earn enough trust to be able to cooperate regionally and then globally, that's in our interest, because one of the concerns from the Russian side, a clear concern is that if they believe the system is aimed at them, they're going to obviously do something about it. They'll spend money to avoid the system.

And I view this as defensive, not offense. And obviously we've got a lot of work to do to convince the experts that the system is not aimed at Russia. It's really to help deal with the threats that we all are going to face. And, therefore, the vision about having a global system is something I strongly support, where we're working cooperatively together. Look, there's a lot -- we got a lot of way to go.

And as to your question about the Czech Republic and Poland, it's important for the leaders in those countries -- and I've discussed the issue with them -- to understand that Russia is not an enemy, Russia is somebody with whom we need to work. And we'll work through the differences there, as well. Transparency is going to require more than just a briefing. Transparency is going to require true openness in a system.

I have no problem with that. I have no problem sharing technologies and information to make sure that all people understand this system is designed to deal with multiple -- I mean, single or dual-single launch regimes that could try to hold us hostage. This system is not designed to deal with Russia's capacity to launch multiple rockets.

Now, we got work to do, but we've come a long way since our first discussions. And this document really does express a vision that will make it better for America and Russia when -- to work together along these lines. And so, yes, I thank you for your question.

Q Thank you. Mr. President, your joint statement on missile defense is still far short of a deal for Russian support or even acquiescence on this project. Isn't this just a matter of kicking the can down the road, in the twilight of both of your terms, to a new U.S. administration that may or may not even support it?

And, President Putin, what would it take for you to be convinced that such a system would not be a threat to Russian security? And how would Russia respond if the U.S. went ahead with this anyway, as well as bringing Ukraine and Georgia into NATO?

PRESIDENT BUSH: I think I just explained how far we have come on this issue. This is a concept that I talked to Vladimir about a while ago, and we have come a long way. Read the document and read what it says. It clearly talks about a strategic relationship. It talks about the need for transparency and confidence-building measures. It is a really good opportunity to put a framework in place for our nations to work together.

Now, you can cynically say it's kicking the can down the road. I don't appreciate that because this is an important part of my belief that it's necessary to protect ourselves. And I have worked -- reached out to Vladimir Putin. I knew this was of concern to him, and I have used my relationship with him to try to get something in place that causes Russia to be comfortable with it.

Is it going to happen immediately? No, it's not going to happen immediately. But is this a good opportunity to work together? You bet it is. For the common good. And so I feel comfortable with it, and I think it is -- you know, I happen to believe it is a significant breakthrough, simply because I've been very much involved with this issue and know how far it's come.

PRESIDENT PUTIN: (As translated.) What could convince Russia that this system is not aimed against our nation? I would like to point out several elements here. First, the best thing to do is to work jointly on a global missile defense, with an equal democratic-style access to managing such a system. This is what George was just talking about when he said that, at the technological level, certain exchanges made it possible -- information exchange may be possible. We can work jointly if we launch such joint work with equal democratic access to managing the system. This will be the best guarantee of the security of all.

If we fail to do it at this point, then we will insist that the system, the transparency that we talk about, verification matters could be objective and could work on -- function on an ongoing basis, on a permanent basis, with the help of experts that should be present at those sites on a permanent basis. This is the answer to the first part of your question.

As far as NATO enlargement is concerned, we talked about it at length earlier today. I reaffirmed Russia's position on this count. I believe that in order to improve relations with Russia it is necessary not to pull the former Soviet republics into political/military blocs, but to develop relations with Russia, itself. And then the actions of the bloc, of this or that issue, in a few years will not be perceived so acutely in this country, as is the case today.

As far as enlargement is concerned, technical enlargement of NATO, I believe that this is a policy which is in conformity with former, old logic, when Russia was perceived as an adversary, which is no longer the case today. As Churchill said, if you can't change the subject it is a sign of radicalism.

Q My question is first to both Presidents. You mentioned that yesterday and today you summed up the eight years of your cooperation. I'd like to ask you if you assess your work -- have there been more pluses, or minuses? And please tell me, what have you achieved and what concrete things will be bequeathed to your successors? Do you think the world has become a safer and more secure place? And how has the U.S.-Russian relationship influenced world politics?

And my question to the United States now, to the President of the United States now. You have met President-Elect today, Dmitry Medvedev. You talked about the impression you have of him. I would like to ask you, did you discuss the schedule of your further exchanges with him in the course of this year -- for the remaining part of this year?

PRESIDENT PUTIN: (As translated.) Okay, I will start answering. Has it become better or has it become worse? We always want to have more of a good thing, and we shouldn't forget that the -- as we say, the better is the worst enemy of the good.

Let us remember the world on the brink of a nuclear disaster during the Caribbean crisis, and now let us look at the U.S.-Russia relationship today. A crisis like the Cuban crisis would not be possible now. It would be unthinkable. I agree with George when we said that Russia and the United States no longer consider each other as enemies. At a minimum, they look at each other as partners, and I believe this is very important.

Of course, a lot of outstanding issues remain. It is true that we do have disagreements on some sensitive areas of our cooperation, but, at the same time, we do have enough strength to search for solutions. And as our meeting today has shown, we are capable of achieving positive results -- that is, on the whole, in counterterrorism, in fighting proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and missile technology, of fighting the drug threat. All of these create a reliable platform for cooperation, not only between Russia and the United States, but a platform that contributes to ensuring international security.

If we mention on top of that our economic cooperation, we can state that in the past eight years we have been able to improve the relations between our two countries and in the world as a whole.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Yes, I agree with that answer. And secondly, I spent -- I told President-elect that I would see him in Japan at the G8, and that's the only scheduling matters that we discussed. And I'm going to finish out my term -- my time with Vladimir, and then I'll turn my attention to the President when he gets to be the President. But the first time I suspect we'll meet will be in the scheduled meeting in Japan.

Thank you.

END 12:40 P.M. (Local)

* assuaged

For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary April 6, 2008

Tags: President Bush and Vladimir Putin or NATO

'Digital skills divide' along SES lines, according to study from Tufts University

Different socioeconomic strata prefer different search engines MEDFORD/SOMERVILLE, Mass. -- A new study from Tufts University shows that while the "digital divide" may be narrowing in terms of access to the Internet, a significant "digital skills divide" is emerging.

"Parents' access to childrearing information appears to be on the rise, in large measure because of the Web," said Professor Fred Rothbaum from the Eliot-Pearson Department of Child Development at Tufts University. "Unfortunately, the rise in Web use has been accompanied by a pronounced 'digital divide' involving socio-economic status differences in Web use, Web skills and Web satisfaction. This gives rise to concerns about the quality of information lower SES parents are accessing."

Rothbaum and colleagues examined socio-economic status differences in parents' Web use, skills and satisfaction, and found the higher the socio-economic status, the greater the time spent on the Web and the more sophisticated the search and evaluation skills. Their findings were published in the March/April issue of the "Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology." The research was funded by the William T. Grant Foundation.

Rather than relying on self-reporting, the Tufts researchers conducted face-to-face interviews with 120 parents and observed their Web skills as the participants searched for information on the Internet. The participants -- 60 mothers and 60 fathers -- fell into three socio-economic strata -- low, middle and high. Socio-economic status was based on education and income levels.

During the first phase of the interviews, parents were asked a combination of forced-choice and open-ended questions about how often they use the Web, how satisfied they are with the information they find online, and about their Web use skills in general. During the second part of the interviews, parents were asked to search for a given topic on the Internet while researchers observed and asked the participants to talk out loud and explain why they made the choices they did.

Millions lack skills needed to identify trustworthy information

After parents completed their Web search, researchers asked them how confident they were that the information they found was trustworthy. Confidence levels did not vary between socio-economic groups, but the reasons for their confidence did differ. More than 40 percent of parents in the higher socio-economic group said that they were more likely to trust sites associated with a credible organization, such as a university or research organization, compared to 26 percent of middle SES parents and 16 percent of low SES parents.

"SES differences in parents' abilities to find and evaluate Web-based child development information may mean that low SES parents are more likely to obtain information from dubious websites that fail to provide research-based information," the researchers wrote in the study.

Researchers also asked participants about their satisfaction with the information about children that they found on the Web and with the user-friendly language of the Web sites. While the differences between the three groups were low, for both questions parents in the low socio-economics group reported they were more satisfied than parents in the middle and high socio-economic strata.

"Millions of American parents have access to both good and bad-quality information, but may not have skills to tell the difference," the study reported. "This is especially of concern given the greater satisfaction with Web information in lower than higher SES parents."

Google favored by parents in high socio-economic group

Results showed that parents in the high socio-economic group were more likely to choose their own search engine rather than use a default search engine, and 55 percent of those parents preferred Google over other search engines compared with 28 percent of middle SES parents and 8 percent of low SES parents. In contrast, 36 percent of parents in the low socio-economic status preferred AOL. There were no differences in parents' selection of Yahoo! or MSN -- the other most frequently mentioned search engines.

In terms of other Web skills, parents in the high socio-economic status group were more likely than those in the other two groups to return to the main search results and select another link, or revise the search by changing a keyword or start a new search from scratch. They also more often expressed frustration when search results included irrelevant sites.

Researchers suggest the digital skills divide should be addressed through training "to improve skills in evaluating search engines, choosing alternate keywords, and building searches from scratch" as well as training in evaluating sites for credibility and trustworthiness. ###

Tufts University, located on three Massachusetts campuses in Boston, Medford/Somerville, and Grafton, and in Talloires, France, is recognized among the premier research universities in the United States. Tufts enjoys a global reputation for academic excellence and for the preparation of students as leaders in a wide range of professions. A growing number of innovative teaching and research initiatives span all Tufts campuses, and collaboration among the faculty and students in the undergraduate, graduate and professional programs across the university's schools is widely encouraged.

Contact: Suzanne C. Miller suzanne_c.miller@tufts.edu 617-627-4703 Tufts University

Tags: Tufts University and Digital skills divide or Google

Freedom Calendar 04/05/08 - 04/12/08

April 5, 1839, Birth of African-American U.S. Rep. Robert Smalls (R-SC), who escaped slavery by commandeering a Confederate gunboat.

April 6, 1869, Republican Ebenezer Bassett is first African-American presidential appointment, as President Ulysses Grant’s Minister to Haiti.

April 7, 1862, President Lincoln concludes treaty with Britain for suppression of slave trade.

April 8, 1865, 13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate with 100% Republican support, 63% Democrat opposition.

April 9, 1866, Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Johnson’s veto; Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on African-Americans, becomes law.

April 10, 1953, Oveta Culp Hobby, appointed by President Eisenhower, confirmed as first woman to be U.S. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare.

April 11, 1908, Birth of Republican Jane Bolin, first African-American woman in nation to serve as judge, appointed by New York Mayor LaGuardia in 1939.

April 12, 1824, Birth of African-American U.S. Rep. Richard Cain (R-SC); served 1873-75 and 1877-79, securing passage of civil rights legislation.

“We love freedom more, vastly more, than slavery; consequently we hope to keep clear of the Democrats!”

Rep. Joseph Rainey (R-SC), the first African-American in the U.S. House of Representatives (1870-79)

Tags: President Bush and Freedom Calendar or NAACP and Republicans or African-Americans and 13th Amendment or right to vote and Civil Rights or Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass or 40 acres and a mule or Brown v. Board of Education and Martin Luther King or Dred Scott

Presidential Podcast 04/05/08

Presidential Podcast 04/05/08 . Subscribe to Our Podcast feed or online podnova Podcast Channel and receive the weekly Presidential Radio Address in English and Spanish with select State Department Briefings. Featuring full audio and text transcripts, More content Sources added often so stay tuned. In Focus: NATO

Tags: President Bush and White House radio address or NATO

Bush radio address 04/05/08 full audio, text transcript

bush radio address 04/05/08 full audio, text transcript. President's Radio Address In Focus: NATO

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. I'm speaking to you from Europe, where I attended the NATO summit and witnessed the hopeful progress of the continent's youngest democracies.

The summit was held in Romania, one of the 10 liberated nations that have joined the ranks of NATO since the end of the Cold War. After decades of tyranny and oppression, today Romania is an important member of an international alliance dedicated to liberty, and it is setting a bold example for other former communist nations that desire to live in peace and freedom.

One of those nations is Croatia, which I'm also visiting on my trip. Croatia is a very different place than it was just a decade ago. Since they attained their independence, the Croatian people have shown the world the potential of human freedom. They've overcome war and hardship to build peaceful relations with their neighbors, and they have built a maturing democracy on the rubble of a dictatorship.

This week NATO invited Croatia, as well as the nation of Albania, to join the NATO Alliance. These countries have made extraordinary progress on the road to freedom, prosperity, and peace. The invitation to join NATO represents the Alliance's confidence that they will continue to make necessary reforms and that they will become strong contributors to NATO's mission of collective defense.

I regret that NATO was not able to extend an invitation to a third nation, Macedonia, at this week's summit. Like Croatia and Albania, Macedonia has met all the criteria for NATO membership. Unfortunately, its invitation was delayed because of a dispute over its name. I made clear that the name issue should be resolved quickly, that NATO should intensify its engagement with Macedonia, and that we look forward to the day when this young democracy takes its place among the members of the NATO Alliance.

After a century when the great wars of Europe threatened destruction throughout the world, the continent has now entered into a promising new era. Less than two decades ago, Albania, Croatia, and Macedonia suffered under the yolk of communist oppression. The people in these countries know what the gift of liberty means, because they know what it is like to have their liberty denied. They know the death and destruction that can be caused by the followers of radical ideologies who kill the innocent in pursuit of political power. And these lessons have led them to work alongside America in the war on terror.

Today, soldiers from Croatia, Albania, and Macedonia are serving bravely in Afghanistan, helping the Afghan people defeat terrorists and secure a future of liberty. And forces from Albania and Macedonia are also serving in Iraq, where they're helping the Iraqi people build a society that rejects terror and lives in freedom. These nations have displayed the ultimate devotion to the principle of liberty -- sacrificing to provide it for others.

Albania, Croatia, and Macedonia are not alone in discarding the change to their past and embracing the promise of freedom. Another burgeoning democracy is Ukraine. Earlier this week I traveled to Kyiv to express America's support for beginning the process of bringing both Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. In recent years, both of these nations have seen tens of thousands take to the streets to peacefully demand their God-given liberty. The people of Ukraine and Georgia are an inspiration to the world and I was pleased that this week NATO declared that Ukraine and Georgia will become members of NATO.

Nearly seven years ago I came to Europe and spoke to the students and faculty at Warsaw University in Poland. On that day I declared that all of Europe's new democracies -- from the Baltic to the Black Sea -- should have the same chance for security and freedom and the same chance to join the institutions of Europe. Seven years later we have made good progress toward fulfilling this vision, and more work remains.

In many parts of the world, freedom is still a distant aspiration -- but in the ancient cities and villages of Europe, it is at the center of a new era of hope.

Thank you for listening.

END For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary April 5, 2008

Tags: President Bush and White House radio address or NATO

Discurso Radial del Presidente a la Nación 04/05/08

forre el audio de la dirección de radio 04/05/08 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.

Les estoy hablando desde Europa, donde asistí a la cumbre de OTAN y fui testigo del progreso alentador de las democracias más jóvenes del continente.

Esta cumbre se celebró en Rumanía, una de 10 naciones liberadas que se han unido a las filas de OTAN desde el final de la Guerra Fría. Luego de décadas de tiranía y opresión, hoy en día Rumania es un miembro importante de una alianza internacional dedicada a la libertad. Y está poniendo un ejemplo audaz para otras antiguas naciones comunistas que desean vivir en paz y libertad.

Una de esas naciones es Croacia, la cual también visitaré en mi viaje. Croacia es un lugar muy distinto de lo que era hace apenas una década. Desde que lograron su independencia los Croatas han mostrado al mundo el potencial de la libertad humana. Han superado la guerra y las privaciones para construir relaciones pacíficas con sus vecinos. Y han construido una democracia cada vez más madura de los escombros de una dictadura.

Esta semana OTAN invitó a Croacia, así como la nación de Albania, a unirse a la alianza de OTAN. Estos países han logrado un progreso extraordinario en el camino hacia la libertad, la prosperidad y la paz. La invitación para formar parte de OTAN representa la confianza de la Alianza en que seguirán llevando a cabo las reformas necesarias y que serán fuertes contribuidores a la misión de OTAN de defensa colectiva.

Lamento que OTAN no pudo extender una invitación a una tercera nación, Macedonia, en la cumbre de esta semana. Al igual que Croacia y Albania, Macedonia ha cumplido con todos los criterios para membresía en OTAN. Desafortunadamente, su invitación fue demorada debido a una disputa en torno a su nombre. Yo dejé claro que el tema del nombre debería resolverse sin demora… que OTAN debe intensificar su compromiso con Macedonia… y que miremos hacia el día en que esta joven democracia ocupe su lugar entre los miembros de la Alianza OTAN.

Después de un siglo en que las grandes guerras de Europa amenazaron al mundo entero con destrucción, el continente ahora ha entrado en una nueva era prometedora. Hace menos de dos décadas, Albania, Croacia, y Macedonia sufrían bajo el yugo de la opresión comunista. Los pueblos de estos países saben lo que significa el regalo de la libertad – porque saben lo que significa que se les niegue su libertad. Saben que la muerte y la destrucción pueden ser causadas por los seguidores de ideologías radicales que matan a los inocentes en su búsqueda de poder político. Y estas lecciones las han llevado a trabajar al lado de Estados Unidos en la guerra contra el terror.

Hoy en día, soldados de Croacia, Albania y Macedonia están sirviendo valientemente en Afganistán – ayudando al pueblo afgano a derrotar a terroristas y asegurar un futuro de libertad. Y fuerzas de Albania y Macedonia también están sirviendo en Irak – donde están ayudando al pueblo iraquí a construir una sociedad que rechace el terror y viva en la libertad. Estas naciones han mostrado la máxima devoción al principio de la libertad – sacrificando para ofrecérsela a otros.

Albania, Croacia y Macedonia no son los únicos en desechar las cadenas de su pasado y abrazar la promesa de la libertad. Otra democracia creciente es Ucrania. A principios de esta semana, viajé a Kiev para expresar el apoyo de Estados Unidos al inicio del proceso de incorporar tanto a Ucrania como a Georgia en OTAN. En años recientes, ambas naciones han visto a decenas de miles salir a las calles para exigir pacíficamente su libertad que es regalo de Dios. Los pueblos de Ucrania y Georgia son una inspiración al mundo. Y me sentí satisfecho que esta semana OTAN declaró que Ucrania y Georgia “serán miembros de OTAN”.

Hace casi siete años, yo vine a Europa y hablé con los estudiantes y los maestros de la Universidad de Varsovia en Polonia. En ese día, declaré que “todas las nuevas democracias de Europa, del Mar Báltico al Mar Negro…deberían tener la misma oportunidad para seguridad y libertad – y la misma oportunidad para unirse a las instituciones de Europa”. Siete años después hemos logrado buen progreso hacia el cumplimiento de esta visión – y más trabajo queda por delante.

En muchas partes del mundo, la liberta todavía es una aspiración lejana. Pero en las antiguas ciudades y aldeas de Europa, está al centro de una nueva era de esperanza.

Gracias por escuchar.

Para su publicación inmediata, Oficina del Secretario de Prensa, 5 de abril de 2008

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

President Bush Attends North Atlantic Council Summit Meeting VIDEO PODCAST

President Bush Attends North Atlantic Council Summit Meeting FULL STREAMING VIDEO, Palace of the Parliament Bucharest, Romania In Focus: NATO 2008 2:05 P.M. (Local) PODCAST OF THIS ARTICLE NATO Summit PHOTO GALLERY

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Secretary General, President Basescu, thank you all very much. For nearly six decades the NATO Alliance has been the hope of a world moving toward freedom and justice, and away from patterns of conflict and fear. During times of great challenge we have advanced our ideals. We've stood form in defending -- firm in defending them, and we have offered NATO's promise to nations willing to undertake the hard work and sacrifices required of its members.

Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has welcomed 10 liberated nations to its ranks. These countries have brought new ideas, new enthusiasm and new vigor. NATO's embrace of these new members has made Europe stronger, safer and freer. These countries have made our Alliance more relevant to the dangers we confront in the new century.

In Bucharest, we're inviting more nations to join us. I'm pleased that the Alliance has agreed to invite Albania and Croatia to become members of NATO. Both these nations have demonstrated the ability and the willingness to provide strong and enduring contributions to NATO. Both have undertaken challenging political, economic and defense reforms. Both have deployed their forces on NATO missions. Albania and Croatia are ready for the responsibility NATO brings, and they will make outstanding members of this Alliance.

We regret that we were not able to reach consensus today to invite Macedonia to join the Alliance. Macedonia has made difficult reforms at home. It is making major contributions to NATO missions abroad. The name issue needs to be resolved quickly, so that Macedonia can be welcomed into NATO as soon as possible.

In the interim, NATO needs to intensify its engagement with Macedonia to make sure that NATO looks forward to the day when Macedonia takes its place among the members of the Atlantic Alliance.

Albania, Croatia and Macedonia all know the difference between good and evil, because they clearly remember evil's face. These nations do not take their freedom for granted, because they still remember life without it. These nations respect the hard work of building democracy, because they brought it to life in their countries.

The United States and all members of the Alliance strongly support the aspirations of their people. And we pledge to stand with them as they continue to work on reform. Together we will continue to help build a Europe that is stable, strong and free. We'll bring more stability to a once troubled Balkan region. We will be able to demonstrate the benefits that come from siding with the forces of freedom.

NATO's door must remain open to other nations in Europe that share our love for liberty, and demonstrate a commitment to reform, and seek to strengthen their ties with the transatlantic community. We must give other nations seeking membership a full and fair hearing. As we invite new members today we're also clear that the progress of enlargement will continue.

The Alliance has always welcomed those willing to make the sacrifices necessary to protect our nations and serve as forces for peace. And that is what's made our Alliance unbreakable, and that is why NATO remains the most successful alliance in history on behalf of human freedom.

Congratulations. And thank you.

END 2:10 P.M. (Local)

Tags: President Bush and NATO Summit or Bucharest Romania

John McCain Episcopal High School VIDEO

Service to America: Episcopal High School in Alexandria, Virginia

ARLINGTON, VA -- U.S. Senator John McCain delivered the following remarks as prepared for delivery during the second stop of his "Service to America" tour at Episcopal High School in Alexandria, Virginia at 04/01/08 10:45 a.m. EST:

Thank you. I'm happy to be back at Episcopal, my alma mater, which I have many happy memories of, and a few that I'm sure former teachers, school administrators and I would rather forget. Until I enrolled at Episcopal, my education had been constantly disrupted by the demands of my father's naval career, which required us to move so often that I lost track of the number of schools I attended. My parents had resolved finally to put an end to our haphazard education and enrolled my sister, brother and me in boarding schools. I arrived here a pretty rambunctious boy, with a little bit of a chip on my shoulder. I was always the new kid, and was accustomed to proving myself quickly at each new school as someone not to be challenged lightly. As a young man, I would respond aggressively and sometimes irresponsibly to anyone whom I perceived to have questioned my sense of honor and self-respect. Those responses often got me in a fair amount of trouble earlier in life. In all candor, as an adult I've been known to forget occasionally the discretion expected of a person of my years and station when I believe I've been accorded a lack of respect I did not deserve. Self-improvement should be a work in progress all our lives, and I confess to needing it as much as anyone. But I believe if my detractors had known me at Episcopal they might marvel at the self-restraint and mellowness I developed as an adult. Or perhaps they wouldn't quite see it that way.

However much I was captive to the unruly passions of youth, which some of my classmates and friends at Episcopal could attest to as they shared more than a few of those attributes themselves, after a difficult first year adjusting to life here, I came to appreciate this place very much. Episcopal had borrowed some of its traditions from military academies. One in particular, bothered me a bit: the designation of first year students as "rats," and the mild hazing that accompanied the designation. Mild or not, I resented it, more than I should of, and I made my resentment clear in my usual immature ways to upperclassman and school officials, piling up demerits and earning the distinction at the end of the year of "worst rat." But, for whatever reason, Episcopal did offer me a home here, and if it regretted that decision, it didn't make it known through the usual means.

Memory often accords our high school years the distinction of being among the happiest of our lives. I remember Episcopal in that light. The academics were superb and serious, a testament to the many fine teachers here. Athletics were accorded almost equal weight, and I appreciated the opportunity it gave a mediocre athlete to participate in team sports. And the honor code here -- I will not lie, I will not cheat, I will not steal -- was much the same as the code my parents had taught and which would govern my behavior at Annapolis and in the Navy. And if I didn't appreciate it as much as I should have, I learned to do so when my honor was challenged by more serious threats than I ever faced in high school. And I had good friends here, and those friendships make up the best parts of my remembrance.

There was one friendship that enriched my life at EHS beyond measure. Were William B. Ravenel the only person I remembered from Episcopal, I would credit those days among the best in my life. His influence in my life was more important and more benevolent than that of any person outside my family. Mr. Ravenel was head of the English Department, and coached the junior varsity football team, on which I played. He had been a star running back at Davidson College and had a master's degree in English from Duke. Like most men of his generation, he had known far greater danger than that posed by a tough defensive line. He had served in Patton's tank corps during the Third Army's aggressive advance across Europe, and had survived hard encounters with Hitler's panzer divisions. He was a lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve, the only master at school who still served in the military.

He seemed to his students to be as wise and capable as anyone could expect to be. He loved English literature, and taught us to love it as well. He had a way of communicating with his students that was uniquely personal and effective. He made us appreciate how profound were the emotions that animated the characters in Shakespeare's tragedies. MacBeth and Hamlet in his care were as compelling to boys as they were to the most learned scholar. No other teacher had as much of our respect and affection. He was simply the best man at the school; one of the best men I have ever known.

As luck would have it, I was ordered to work off my demerits in Mr. Ravenel's yard. I don't know if school authorities were intentionally doing me a favor and knew that Mr. Ravenel would be able to help repair the all-too-evident flaws in my personality. Neither do I know why he took an interest in me. But I count the fact that he did among the most fortunate relationships in my life. I discussed all manner of subjects with him, from sports to the short stories of Somerset Maugham; from his combat experiences to my future. He was one of the few people to whom I confided that I was bound for Annapolis and a Navy career, and to whom I confessed my reservations about my fate.

In the fall of my senior year, a member of the j.v. football team had broken team rules. I cannot recall the exact nature of the offense, but it was serious enough to warrant his expulsion from the team. Mr. Ravenel called a team meeting, and most players argued the accused should be dropped from the roster. I offered the only argument for a less severe punishment.

The student in question had broken training. But unlike the rest of us, he had chosen at the start of the year not to sign a pledge promising to abide faithfully by the training rules. Had he signed it, I wouldn't have defended him. Moreover, he had confessed his offense and expressed remorse freely without fear of discovery. I thought his behavior honorable. So did Mr. Ravenel. But he kept his own counsel, preferring his boys to reason the thing out for ourselves. As we were doing so, Mr. Ravenel began to nod his head when some of the others began to take up the defense. Finally, he closed the matter by voicing his support for leniency. The team voted to drop the matter. After the meeting broke up, Mr. Ravenel told me we had done the right thing and thanked me. He said he had been anxious before the meeting, but had not wanted to be the one who argued for exoneration. He wanted the decision to be ours. He told me he was proud of me.

Every child should be blessed with a teacher like I had, and to learn at institutions with high academic standards and codes of conduct that reinforce the values their parents try to impart to them. Many students do have that opportunity. But too many do not. And government should be concerned with their fate. I supported the No Child Left Behind Act because it recognizes that we can no longer accept high standards for some students and low standards for others. With honest reporting of student progress we begin to see what is happening to students who were previously invisible to us. That is progress on its own, but we can and we must do better.

If a failing school won't change, it shouldn't be beyond the reach of students to change their schools. Parents should be able to send their children to the school that best suits their needs just as Cindy and I have been able to do, whether it is a public, private or parochial school. The result will not be the demise of the public school system in America, but competition that will help make public schools accountable and as successful as they should be in a country as great and prosperous as ours. Teaching is among the most honorable professions any American can join. After our parents, few people influence our early life as profoundly as teachers. Theirs is an underpaid profession, dedicated to the service of others, which offers little in the way of the rewards that much of popular culture encourages us to crave -- wealth and celebrity. But though it might lack much in the way of creature comforts and renown, teaching offers a reward far more valuable: the profound satisfaction that comes from knowing you have made a difference for the better in someone else's life. Good teachers occupy a place in our memory that accords them a reverence we give few others. We should be wise enough to understand that those who work diligently and lovingly to educate the children we entrust to their care, deserve the gratitude and support many of us wish we had given those of our own teachers, who once made such a difference in our own lives.

We should reward the best of them with merit pay, and encourage teachers who have lost their focus on the children they teach to find another line of work. Schools should compete to be innovative, flexible and student-centered institutions, not safe havens for the uninspired and unaccountable. They should be able to compete for dedicated, effective, character-building teachers, hire them and reward them. I believe we should encourage military veterans to enter the teaching profession, and I've advocated the Troops-to-Teachers Act. The sense of heightened responsibility and duty to a cause greater than themselves that veterans were taught in the discipline and code of conduct of the armed forces make many of them excellent candidates to impart those virtues to our children, and help them see the value of learning as a means to self-improvement and much nobler ends. There is no reason on earth that this great country should not possess the best education system in the world. We have let fear of uncertainty, and a view that education's primary purpose is to protect jobs for teachers and administrators degrade our sense of the possible in America. There is no excuse for it.

In the global economy what you learn is what you earn. But today, studies show that half of Hispanics and half of African Americans entering high school do not graduate with their class. By the 12th grade, U.S. students in math and science score near the bottom of all industrialized nations. We need to shake up failed school bureaucracies with competition, empower parents with choice, remove barriers to qualified instructors, attract and reward superior teachers, and have a fair, but sure process to weed out incompetents.

Speaking personally, I doubt I will ever meet another person who had the impact on my life that my English teacher at Episcopal High School did. But I know there are many Americans who should teach and could influence children as beneficially as he did me. All children should have a teacher like I had, who they remember when they have children and grandchildren as one of the most fortunate relationships of their lives.

I have never forgotten the confidence Mr. Ravenel's praise and trust in me gave me. Nor have I forgotten the man who praised me. Many years later, when I came home from Vietnam, Mr. Ravenel was the only person outside of my family whom I wanted to see urgently. I felt he was someone to whom I could explain what had happened to me, and who would understand. That is a high tribute to Mr. Ravenel. For I have never known a prisoner of war who felt he could fully explain the experience to anyone who had not shared it.

I regret that I was never able to pay him that tribute. He had died of a heart attack two years before I came home. He lived for only fifty-three years, but in that time he had made a life for himself and so many others that was so much greater than the brief moment of life he was allowed. His death was a great loss to his family, friends, Episcopal, to the students he had taught with such devotion and to everyone who had been blessed with his company, a loss I still find difficult to accept. But because he helped teach me to be a man, and to believe in the possibility that we are not captive to the worst parts of our nature, I will always believe that there is a Mr. Ravenel somewhere for every child who needs him.

Tags: John McCain and Episcopal High School