Status of the Out-of-Country Voting Program for Iraqi Citizens

Status of the Out-of-Country Voting Program for Iraqi Citizens in the United States and the Accelerating Pace of Preparations for Elections in Iraq

Ambassador Michael Kozak , Acting Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor

Special Briefing Washington, DC January 12, 2005 (2:40 p.m. EST)

MR. ERELI: Hello, everyone. Welcome. Pleased you could join us for what I'm sure will be a very informative briefing with our Acting Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, who will talk to us about what the U.S. -- cooperation with the U.S. Government, the Independent Election Commission of Iraq and the International Organization of Management to facilitate Out-of-Country voting in the United States by Iraqis in the elections and then be able to answer, perhaps, hopefully, other questions you might have about the electoral process from a human rights perspective.

Mike, welcome. Thank you

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: Thanks, Adam. Thank you. I'm glad to have the opportunity.

I thought I might just briefly describe the different ways in which the U.S. Government is interacting with the Iraqi Independent Electoral Commission. As you probably know, this Commission is something that's separate from the executive branch or the legislative or judicial branches in Iraq. Under the Transitional Administrative Law, it was set up as a -- it was kind of like our SEC or something. It's an element of the government, but it's not subordinate to any of the political or judicial branches.

So they have control over the elections. They have been staffed up or receiving technical assistance in this from the United Nations, which has the lead, but also the American NGO, IFES, which is always the International Foundation for Electoral Systems -- I know acronyms better than I do names -- has been working under that UN aegis also in providing technical assistance.

So this is the whole range of things, from helping them write the regulations and write the rules for the elections, setting up the training courses and so on for poll workers and that whole range of activity. And it's been going on for some time. So that's one element in which you've got U.S. involvement but it's in that business of supporting the UN and supporting the Iraqi Election Commission.

Another aspect that we've been working with is that there is a group of electoral officials from a number of different countries led by Canada and Yemen, but where they have a steering committee with, I think, 11 different countries and then officials from a lot of other countries that are going to provide sort of an assessment of the election. The UN doesn't observe elections that itself is running. And if it were in this hemisphere, you'd have the Organization of American States or the Carter Center watching after it. If it were in Europe or Eurasia, you'd have OSCE doing it. But there isn't such a critter in the Middle East area, so this has come together and we've been very supportive of that effort, as well.

And then the final element is this Out-of-Country voting where up until mid-November, I think the initial UN recommendation to the Iraqi Independent Electoral Commission had been, don't do overseas voting, it's just a complicated deal and you've got plenty on your plate already. But the Iraqi parties basically came and said, we really want to have this aspect, and the Iraqi Central Election Commission made the decision to do that.

They have made an arrangement with the International Organization for Migration to administer on their behalf, or help them create and administer and assist them to do this. They, after looking at where populations of Iraqis were located, the system they came up with involves having polling places in 14 different countries outside of Iraq. Again, I emphasize, this was not a decision made by the U.S. or that we had any particular part in; it's made by the Iraqis, they are financing this themselves out of their budget and they've contracted with, you know, a worldwide expert, IOM, to do this. IOM had done it in Bosnia, and most recently, in Afghanistan, so they do have some idea of what they're doing.

Where U.S. Government comes in in this in terms of the U.S. part of it; obviously a significant Iraqi population is resident in the United States. I think the first biggest is in Iran and Syria and Jordan and you've got, you know, the immediately neighboring countries. We have got a big chunk, and then there are some in Europe as well. But with each of those countries, IOM, acting on behalf of the Iraqi Commission entered into a memorandum of understanding, and, in our case, we joined with them in that. But our obligation is to facilitate their efforts. We're not the ones making the rules; we're not the ones selecting the sites, but we've facilitated them. In this case, Department of Homeland Security, for example, gave them the U.S. data about where Iraqi residents, as best we can tell, are located around the United States so that they could take that into account in trying to find, you know, the places that would be most convenient to people to be able to vote.

The procedures for voting and, you know, the days and the eligibility, again, all of that is being governed by them. We've been active and the White House has been active in working with, through the intergovernmental liaison with local authorities on issues like security and finding appropriate locales for these voting sites.

I think probably in that -- this is a somewhat unprecedented step. Normally, when countries do overseas elections in the United States or elsewhere, either they do them like we do with the mail, or, a lot of them do it in their embassies and/or their consulate. But here, because Iraq doesn't really -- they had not had very many embassies or consulates when the change of regime occurred, and, I guess, don't even have some in some of these places, they decided to go and just set up sites for those specific days that IOM is arranging. But our job has been facilitation, helping them get in touch with the right people to do security, giving them data and that type of thing.

On the details of, you know, who can vote, what the dates are, and that kind of thing, I'd refer you to the International Organization for Migration. They've got a website called -- what is it -- www.iraq.ocv -- for Out-of-Country voting -- .org.

MS. JOHNSTONE: No dot. It's iraqocv.org.

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: Yeah, iraqocv.org. I put one too many dots in there. Okay. And then they have a hotline as well that's listed there where people can call in to explain their own situation and get information.

But that's sort of the parameters of that part. I think it's an important step that they're taking. We were just talking. There are 14 million estimated voters in Iraq and they're estimating somewhere around a million in the exterior that are -- you know, it's always hard to tell who's going to turn up or who will claim eligibility, but potentially a million people that are in these other countries, including the United States.

So with that, maybe I'll go to questions.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) instead of being directed to computers while you're here. How many do you think are in the United States? What locations? Apparently, a couple of cities have been circled as good places to conduct this balloting. Can you provide any details?

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: Yeah, I think --

QUESTION: I mean, I know the caveat it's not the U.S.'s duty. It's Iraq. We don't --

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: Right, right, right. I'm going to give you an answer, too. (Laughter.) The initial estimate I think IOM had was around 100,000; now they have upped that to 240,000. So this shows the -- you know, it's an imprecise science, but they're gaining more information as time goes on.

The five cities that they have set upon as being places that both had concentrations and also were dispersed around the country, so as to be able to pick up people who were in places where there was less concentration are Washington, D.C., Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles and Nashville.

QUESTION: And if people, for whatever reason, cannot make it to those places, can they still mail in their ballots?

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: My understanding is not, that it's you have to present yourself in person, both to register, and then you have to come back on voting day and vote in person.

QUESTION: You have to do both?

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: Yes, it's two visits to the -- the dates for registration are next week, 17th through --

MS. JOHNSTONE: January 17th through the 23rd for registration.

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: -- through the 23rd.

MS. JOHNSTONE: And 28th through 30th for voting.

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: Yeah, 28th through 30th. So, actually, they're getting three days to vote, whereas, in Iraq, there is one day where you can vote, but here they have spaced it out a little bit.

QUESTION: It's probably less dangerous here.

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: (Laughter.) Some places.

QUESTION: Is the U.S., being so eager to see a good huge turnout, is the U.S. doing anything to help these would-be voters? Are you financing any of their trips to these places?

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: No.

QUESTION: Are you doing anything for them, serving coffee? I mean, what are you doing to -- (laughter) -- get them to the polls because, God knows, you want them to vote?

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: No, actually, none of the above, I think, is probably the right answer. What we're doing is facilitating the work of IOM in setting up the places and getting the security for it and so on but people are desirous of voting. This isn't something where we're having to twist people's arms to get them to vote. When you look at polling come out of Iraq, 84 percent of Iraqis say they intend to vote, and this is not, you know, with somebody twisting their arms.

As I mentioned earlier, I mean, the initial plan was not to have overseas voting and it was the Iraqis themselves that pushed the Iraqi Election Commission into making provision for it because people there were anxious to vote. And I think, as you may have seen him, I mean, some people here, it's not a question of us needing to encourage them to vote, people, if anything, are saying we'd like to have more places where we can go, we'd like to have more opportunity.

So there's a lot of anxiousness about this in a positive way. I was on a program the other day and was proceeded by an Iraqi-American gentleman and he was just saying these elections are a gift from God. We never thought we'd see this in our lifetime. We're all excited, both in Iraq and in the United States, or other countries where there are Iraqis.

QUESTION: I can't help noticing Iraqis having the right to vote in Washington have superior rights to District of Columbia residents, like me. (Laughter.) That's really democracy.

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: (Laughter.) We'll stay out of that one.

QUESTION: Uh-huh.

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: We're the State Department and D.C. is not a state. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Could I ask you if you're familiar with the situation in any of the 13 other countries? Do you know whether people will be able to vote just in the capital, or whether they're multiple sites in countries like Syria, Jordan, Iran?

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: Yeah. I think in Iran it's six sites. So that's actually the one that's got more sites than the United States. We've got five. And the others, some are one and some are two. Kari’s my expert.

MS. JOHNSTONE: They range in number from one to three in most countries except for Iran and the U.S. that have more. The full list of all the cities are actually on the website, which --

QUESTION: Okay.

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: Yeah.Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Yeah, just a couple things to clarify. The 240,000 figure, just -- that's the number of eligible Iraqi voters you think that are in the U.S.?

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: Yeah. 240,000 is the current estimation of eligible Iraqis. But see, part of the issue here is, to be eligible under the Iraqi Election Law is, you either have to be an Iraqi citizen or somebody who could qualify as an Iraqi citizen. So for example, if your father was an Iraqi citizen, even though you've never claimed Iraqi citizenship -- you're, you know, an American, you grew up in the United States -- you can still go and say, I'm over 18. My dad was an Iraqi. Here is some proof of this. I'm eligible therefore to -- I could claim Iraqi citizenship, therefore, I'm eligible to vote.

And so, you know, the way that we keep our data on who's a citizen, or our immigration authorities do, and the Iraqi voting law don't exactly mesh. So I think that's why there's a certain amount of guesstimation.

QUESTION: And it's father, not mother. Right? I mean, it's just a --

QUESTION: Or was that an example?

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: No that's -- it's father, not mother.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. JOHNSTONE: It's Iraqi law.

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: It's Iraqi law, yeah.

QUESTION: And, do they have any estimate? If there are 2 -- if they think there are 240,000 eligible, do they have any estimate how many will actually vote? I mean, obviously, there's only five cities to do this, so --

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: I, you know, I don't think that anybody -- if you tried to make an estimate or a guesstimate, you'd probably be wrong. Have they -- do you know, Kari? Has anybody tried to put a peg on that?

All I've heard is what they -- they're trying to figure out many people could show up and make provision for that, and, you know, whether it's all of them or half of them -- who knows?

MS. JOHNSTONE: That's the maximum.

QUESTION: And in each of those cities, are there multiple --

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: Yeah, that max that they've --

MS. JOHNSTONE: That's their maximum estimate so they can build capacity. So they're aiming a little high to make sure they can accommodate the maximum number, just to be fair.

QUESTION: And this just lastly, in those five cities --

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: And what I don't want to do is get us so, sort of pegging to some goal that, you know, has to be X amount, because we, we just don't know, really, how many people are out there who even consider themselves -- it's probably somewhere between 100- and, you know, the 240,000, but who knows.

QUESTION: In each of the five cities, how many polling places are there? Are there -- do you have a total number of polling places that will --

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: I think we've got two in some places --

MS. JOHNSTONE: It's not finalized yet.

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: It's not finalized? Okay.

QUESTION: But it will be just, like, one or two? It's just --

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: One or two. Yeah. Yeah.

QUESTION: There have, actually, been reports of security concerns in U.S. cities. Could you talk about that a little bit?

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: Yeah, a number of local authorities, you know, had concerns, is this going to draw a problem and so on. And that's where inter-governmental liaison's been active with them and, you know, they worked it through. And I think in all but one place now, the local authorities are comfortable that they've got the security issues resolved.

QUESTION: Were they getting calls saying, we're going to sabotage your sites or --

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: No, I don't think -- I think it was more just -- I am not aware of any specific threats of this. It's just that, you know, when a mayor or something suddenly has it sprung on him that there's an Iraqi election in his city, he says, oh, wow, you know, what's -- you know, what could that draw, and, you know, conjures up a lot of stuff. So that's where our people have been active in going through, okay, what is the threat information, what kind of security would be appropriate for this and working with their police forces and so on. And that's, that's resolved, I think, everywhere but California right now, and there they've got a task force that's working it and they should have it resolved pretty quickly.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: I just want to make sure I'm clear on this.

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: Thanks.

QUESTION: The U.S. will have no role in terms of ensuring the integrity of the vote, making sure those who show up are eligible and that sort of thing -- to make sure that, you know, all votes are counted, if you will?

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: Right. No. That's --

QUESTION: So will you have monitors at these sites?

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: No. You're correct. We don't have a role, the direct role in doing that. That is the role of the Iraqi election authorities.

Now, when I mentioned some of the other things we were doing earlier, and I'll mention a couple more, you know, with these international monitoring effort that's being ginned up that we've been supportive of. In Iraq itself -- National Endowment for Democracy, party institutes, National Democratic Institute and so on -- have been training, as they do in many countries, domestic observers that will go out and watch and try to verify that things are done fairly.

And then here, too, you have the added attraction that the people running this overseas voting on behalf of Iraqis is IOM, which, you know, I think everybody would feel fairly confident doesn't have a bias in favor of one or another Iraqi parties. They're a professional elections organization and so that's a built-in safeguard as well.

So the U.S. Government itself directly, no, we're not administering the elections, we are not observing them as the U.S. Government, but we have put a lot of effort and resources into helping Iraqis and others build up the capacity to do just that. And so there should be some judgment on the process.

QUESTION: Two questions. On that elimination group, the one that's being led by Canada and Yemen, will the U.S. Government -- you said they're going to do an assessment afterwards. Will the U.S. Government respect that assessment, whatever it is?

And secondly, the answer to this question is probably no, but does anybody have an idea of the sort of ethnic or religious makeup of Iraqis in this country? I think a lot of them, at least in the Detroit area, are Iraqi Christians, but do you know if they're Sunni, Shia, Kurds, Turkomen, whatever?

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: Yeah. On the first effort, I mean, I think it's -- that is an assessment we would take very seriously. I mean, these are professional election officials, folks from Elections Canada and so on, and we were very encouraging of this precisely so that it's not just the folks who are helping organize the election.

In the U.S., obviously, we have been very much involved in the, you know, setting up of the Interim Government and so on, so we're probably not the best objective observers, so we wanted to encourage others that don't have that same stake to get in there and look at it from a technical standpoint and say, are the rules fair, are people getting adequate access to the media, and all the things you'd look for when you're assessing an election. So we would expect to respect that very much.

And I think, you know, also, just in terms of expectations here, an Iraqi election, this is the first time they've had an election, you know, that was something other than a rigged election in over 40 years, so you're starting all the machinery from scratch. And there, you know, undoubtedly there are going to be all kinds of defects and mess-ups and so on. I mean, you have them even in the more advanced, mature systems than the one that's -- that we're getting off the ground. Of course there are going to be all kinds of technical problems.

What we're really looking for, though, is is there -- is it a bunch of isolated technical problems that kind of cancel each other out or is there some kind of systematic fraud that's designed to bias the result in favor of one group or another. And I think that's the sort of key standard you're looking for here. At the end of the day, yeah, there are going to be all kinds of problems that pop up, but, you know, can you look at it and say this was something where people were able to vote freely, they were able to debate freely and they weren't being -- having their votes discounted through fraud or some -- or having their people kicked off the ballot or something like that.

The other part of your question --

QUESTION: That was the demographics of Iraqi Americans.

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: Yeah, the demographics. Again, I'm not so sure that we have the data on that. It depends on where you come from. I'm from California and I was getting interventions this morning on behalf of Armenian and Assyrian Iraqis, and there are Christians and -- I think probably nobody knows what the overseas community is because the fact is all the Iraqi parties pushed hard for this, I think each one of them figuring it would advantage them, so they are all sort of betting on the fact that their guys are the most dominant overseas, and I think probably no one knows. It'll come out in the wash.

QUESTION: Can I ask about the assessment, the international assessment?

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Could you walk us through a little bit how that would happen from largely outside of the country? If my understanding is correct, it's maybe a hundred people who are going to be in the country and most outside?

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: Yeah. It's called -- I think they're calling it the International Mission for Iraqi Elections is the name that's been put on this. My understanding of what they're doing is a lot of long -- what we call long-term monitoring -- this isn't a -- to be fair, it's not an observation effort like you would have with the OSCE or something. It's a much more limited operation because of the situation.

But they're doing the kind of stuff that long-term observers would do; namely, you look at the rules that have been made. Are they fair or do they clearly advantage somebody? Look at the decisions the commission is making. Are they kicking everybody from one party and not registering them and registering somebody else, selective enforcement type stuff? They look at media access and so on.

They have set up shop in Amman, Jordan, and then they can make forays into Iraq from there, and I think have had people that are visiting or will be visiting, like, three different cities, have an office in Baghdad as well. So they've got some on-the-ground presence and then on election day their plan is to have about a hundred people in the country.

Now, you know, you look at different -- we just went through Ukraine, where we flowed a lot of people in, but I think the OSCE, the total observers there, were around 900 or something for a country of 40 million. So yeah, this may be -- it's a little on the low side but it's not -- it's not nothing, either.

But I think what you're really looking for, it's not -- you're clearly not going to get coverage at every polling station to see that, you know, the hanging chads or something were dealt with at that level, but it's really looking at it in a more systemic way and saying, is the system one that's designed to be fair, and is it, in general, being applied fairly? And then spot-checks.

QUESTION: Well, the 8,000 Iraqi observation --

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: Yeah, exactly. And that's -- I mentioned briefly earlier with the gentleman here, I mean, NDI has been working to train up Iraqi observers, so that's where you really get your -- you know, there's 6,000 polling places, you've got 8,000 Iraqi neutral observers who will then be plugging into this international system as well, so.

QUESTION: And to follow that, I know this may be above your pay grade, but if 2 percent of Sunnis vote, say, or less, how can anyone assess this as being a credible election?

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: The same way you can assess any election where people have the opportunity to vote and to vote freely and fairly and so on. If people decide to boycott an election, it's their -- that's their choice. It's part of your democratic choice. You can decide not to go to the polls and not -- but then you have no one to blame but yourself.

Now, is that a desirable result? Of course not. But in terms of the credibility of an election, where you're usually looking is one group, usually a group in power, trying to exclude some other group from voting. When a group excludes itself from voting, despite the efforts of the people in power to get them to come in and so on and so on, that's -- and you see it with the people who are doing the intimidation, too. They're mostly trying to intimidate their own group from voting, not trying to intimidate somebody else.

So I think there are two different things you have to look at. One is credibility of the election process. And if the process is clean, whether people choose to take advantage of it or not doesn't undermine its credibility.

The second, though, is political future of the country and what you'd like to see there, and obviously, we're encouraging people to participate. When you look at the slates that have been registered and that are on the ballot, they're multiethnic -- and many of them, I think most of them, each of the different slates are multiethnic. It's not that there's one slate of one group and one of another. There are also opportunities. I mean, as you know, this is an election to, in a sense, a constitutional convention.

This is not electing the new government, the new, permanent government. It'll be a temporary legislature; it will appoint the new president and so on. But its job is to draft a constitution, which, then, will be put up to a referendum later this year. And assuming it's approved, then there will be another election under the constitution for the government.

So in that context, when you're naming the commission to draft the constitution, the ethnic composition of that isn't governed -- it's not proportional representation like the assembly is. Who is in the ministries in the government, again, not -- there's no ethnic limitation on that. And I think it's a very positive sign when you look at it that all the different parties in Iraq are encouraging -- the other parties are all encouraging the Sunnis to participate and trying to draw them into the process, so again, I would make that distinction, though, between the credibility of the election and the desirability of Sunni participation -- two different things.

That's all. Let me get this gentleman over here because --

QUESTION: Thank you. I just wanted to go back to the registration process, particularly for Iraqis who are in the United States.

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: Right.

QUESTION: Have any Iraqi officials been invited to the U.S. to oversee the registration process? The reason I'm asking is, let's say somebody on -- whatever that date that she mentioned --

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: Mm-hmm. The 17th through the 23rd.

QUESTION: Right. Let's say they'd go to register, but there are questions about their lineage or anything like that.

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: Right.

QUESTION: Is it this group, IOM, that'll make the final determination? Or will there be an official from Baghdad present to make that determination?

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: There'll be some here, but I don't think in every polling place.

MR. DENEHY: The IOM, as the agent for the IECI is able to adjudicate complaints at the polling places.

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: Yeah.

MR. DENEHY: However, there will be officials from the Election Commission of Iraq who will travel to all of the 14 countries to oversee the general process, the registration, as well as the count, because the counting will occur in the countries where the voting takes place.

QUESTION: And do you know how many have been invited to the U.S.?

MR. DENEHY: I don't think it was our invitation or IOM's --

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: No. It’s how many have asked to come. Yeah.

MR. DENEHY: -- again, I -- we can get you the number. Off the top of my head, I don't know what it is.

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: Yes.

QUESTION: You mentioned some of the imperfections that are likely in the vote --

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: Yeah.

QUESTION: But you've also said some of the good things -- that the polling shows a lot of people want to vote. As a model for democracy or for an election in the Middle East, how important do you think this election is? Or is it too flawed to be used as a model?

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: I think it's very important. And, you know, the model of it comes from -- it's not going to be from the perfection of implementation of every detail because, I mean, I hope it's perfect, but that would be a silly standard to -- when you're starting from scratch like this.

But what you can look on as models is already what's happened. Look at the regulations that the Iraqi Central Election Commission have issued on eligibility and the procedures for registering a party and media access and the impartiality of the Commission and its independence from the other branches of government.

I mean, already all of those things, I think, have been very successful and are models. And I think -- I haven't heard any real complaints about people saying, we'll gee, I was unfairly excluded from being able to register, for example. There's, you know, 111 or something slates now registered that are -- and this ballot is highly complicated (laughter) because it's huge with the number of candidates that are on it. But, I mean, all of those are good examples.

Now, you know, do you adopt the single, nationwide slate proportional representation system or some other system? There are all kinds of different models. There are different advantages and disadvantages. When you were mentioning registration, I mean, one of the reasons that they went with that approach, the UN recommended it, was precisely because it was a shortcut to establishing of a new registration system for people. They were using the food distribution system in Iraq that already existed. But, you know, if you tried to do it in district by district, it's harder to control people moving over to other districts.

But, so the Iraqis may well change that kind of thing themselves when the write the constitution. This is an election to get that temporary body to do constitution writing. They may seize on something else. But I think the parts that are a model and are clear are this -- sort of the impartiality, no -- you know, not trying to exclude parties because of their ties to -- or their ideology or their ties to one ethnic group or another.

One of the things I actually kind of liked in their rules was that they said parties that have armed militias cannot participate, which is a nice --

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: Well, it's how much they distance themselves from the militia, I guess. (Laughter.) It's a good model whether it gets implemented or not.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.) This is ridiculous.

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: Yeah. No, I -- but it's -- it's a good idea whether they've been able to do it or not.

QUESTION: There are Kurdish elections --

QUESTION: So, as a --

QUESTION: Go ahead. I'm sorry.

QUESTION: Sorry. As a follow-up and giving your wider brief of democracy and human rights, do you think then that the Iraqi election can influence democracy in the Middle East?

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: You know, I say, yes, just on the grounds that I think everywhere, the more that you get democratic countries, you know, then other countries are adjacent to them and there's some bleed-over and it has an effect over time. I mean, it's not a -- you know, that there's some kind of automatic domino effect formula or something here. Each country you have to work it. You have to work with the people.

One of the rules that we follow is you can't, from the outside, create a democratic system in a country. You have to find the people in that country who are themselves pushing for it and then you can put your weight with them rather than the people that are trying to repress them. But you can't substitute for their efforts. And that's where these different models, people are going to have their own formulas. But there are those basics about, you know, the impartiality of the vote, the access to the media and so on, that are common to any democratic system, and systems that don't have them aren't democratic.

QUESTION: There are Kurdish elections, too. Have you fine-tuned this to the extent that Kurds living in this country can be distinguished from other Iraqis and vote without -- in the --

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: I don't think it's -- this does not cover the provincial elections. It's only for the national level elections that the Out-of-Country voting is applicable.

QUESTION: And can I follow up Barbara's good question? Maybe it's -- I don't want to just make a statement. I'd like to put it in question form. But this arrangement permits thousands, tens of thousands, of Iraqis who do not choose to return to the country --

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- to determine the country's fate, whereas, tens of thousands who live there won't be voting. It sounds very weird. It sounds like, you know, a personal -- my father would have been able to vote for a Polish president because his father emigrated from Poland. He left Poland because it wasn't a nice place to live. These people that left had reason to leave, especially Kurds, and you can't guarantee that it's going to be a better place to live after the election, although you hope so.

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: I mean, in some ways you can say the same thing. I think American expatriates tend to vote more than Americans living in the United States, you know.

QUESTION: Well, Greece has this kind of thing. Do grandchildren of Greek citizens vote?

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: Yeah. And, I mean, this is a question of Iraqi law. They made this judgment that people -- and I suspect part of it is, as I understand it, the law applies not just to the external voting but to internal. Because you could have people that came here, or came to another country just to escape from --

QUESTION: Right. Persecution.

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: No, but there's a difference between -- from persecution, exactly; and then they go back. Okay, their kids may have married a foreigner when they were overseas; their kids may have been born in another country, so they're saying, no, you can still be eligible to be an Iraqi citizen even though you were born in another country and so there are peculiarities in every country's citizenship laws. And, you know, I guess I'm not out to question it here.

My guess is the Iraqis that really care about it are the ones that are going to vote, the ones who have abandoned their ties with Iraq and are comfortable living in the United States or another country are probably less inclined. But you know, it's -- I mean, I don't want to sort of pass a value judgment on different countries' immigration laws. You have weird things. Years ago I worked on the Panama Canal Treaties, and any American born in the Canal zone is a Panamanian citizen by birth and qualifies under the Constitution, so every kid of an American serviceman who was born there --

QUESTION: Right.

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: Senator McCain is a good example of that. He could go vote in a Panamanian election if he wanted to. He doesn't do it, but --

QUESTION: Is Israel one of the 14 countries for polling, considering there are about 11 Jews left in Iraq, speaking of persecution?

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: No, it's not one of --

QUESTION: I mean, can Iraqi-Israelis or Israelis of Iraqi descent vote?

MR. DENEHY: The only country that is not allowing sort of dual voting like that is Iran. If you vote in an Iranian election, you cannot vote in an Iraqi election. But --

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: No, but he's asking about Israel, though.

QUESTION: No, excuse me. I thought there were only 14 countries that are providing -- in which polling places are provided.

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: Yeah.

MR. DENEHY: That is correct.

QUESTION: Is Israel one of those 14 countries?

MR. DENEHY: It is not.

QUESTION: But there is no provision prohibiting a citizen or resident of another country to go to one of those 14 countries and vote?

MR. DENEHY: Correct.

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: Yeah. In other words, an Iraqi --

QUESTION: An Iraqi-Israeli (cross talk) -- the son of an Iraqi-Israeli -- will fly to Nashville and vote? I mean, --

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: Yeah, or to London or to --

QUESTION: It's a little expensive, isn't it?

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: Well, it's -- sometimes it is.

QUESTION: To follow up on the other part of Barbara's question on Sunni involvement here, we're not talking a question of boycotts. I mean, some of the Sunnis may not be voting because they're afraid they're going to get killed if they go to vote. So if you end up with a situation where you have this 275-member assembly, as Barbara proposed, only two percent or some low percentage of Sunnis, is there a mechanism to get more Sunni involvement in that constitutional rights process?

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: As I said, I mean, they can try to bring more people in in the drafting process and that kind of thing or into the government itself because that -- you don't have to be a member of the assembly to be a minister in the government or something. You have to be a president or something. But --

QUESTION: More importantly on this --

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: Let me say something, Bill, about this kind of intimidation and violence. I mean, this, unfortunately, is not unique. I remember El Salvador in '84 because I was working that from the legal advisor's office in those days and there, the FMLN said that when the interim government that Duarte was heading up said, we're going to have free elections, the FMLN said, we're boycotting it and anybody who tries to vote, we'll kill them. And they shelled and killed poll workers and blew up polling stations. And you know, it was the same problem.

What are we going to do in the provinces where they're heavily present? The army, you know, was spread thin. What do you do? What do you do? At the end of the day, it was Salvadoran citizens who solved that problem. They went out and stared these guys down.

And it's not nice. Of course, the Government of Iraq and its allies have every obligation to try to improve the security situation for people, but at the end of the day, you know, they're going to be able to face down the guys who are trying to intimidate them. And they're making some, you know, accommodations for that in a number of the areas where there have been this heavy intimidation going on, the Election Commission has said, okay, you don't have to vote at your particular precinct. You can go to any precinct in the province and vote.

Now, that's not everywhere in Iraq but it's for some of the violence-prone areas. In Fallujah, where so many people are still displaced from the city because of the fighting that went on there earlier and the mess that it made of the city, they're setting up polling stations in the area where the people who are displaced are camped out so that they can vote.

So, you know, they're trying to do work-arounds. They're trying to do security. But the worst thing in the world in this kind of situation is to say the election is not valid because the intimidators succeeded in preventing some people from voting because that just encourages them to intimidate even more. So I'm not trying to discount the virtue of that. We're putting all maximum effort into trying to get as much security for people, to give them as many options as possible, but you can't predict everybody, everywhere, all the time.

And yet common people actually have a very strong weapon in their hands. We saw it in Salvador. We saw it recently in Afghanistan in some areas there where people were trying to intimidate them from voting and they said no, we won't be intimidated. We saw it in Peru with Shining Path trying to do the same thing. So there's -- you know, this is not unique, is all I'm saying, and we've got to work it as hard as we can but --

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Yeah, I have a question about media access to the polling stations. As far as I know, the stations have not been made public, the exact locations, for example, here in D.C. When will that become public and is there a credentialing process to go through?

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: The answer is I don't know at this -- I know that they haven't gotten pinned down where the sites are going to be in some of the cities, but they should have --

MR. DENEHY: IOM.

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: Yeah, IOM should have that up on that website we gave, and I would be in touch with them about accreditation. I just don't know whether they're planning to have --

MR. DENEHY: They are.

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: They are? They're --

MR. DENEHY: You have to go through IOM.

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: Okay, so that's the place to go and you get credentialed and go report on it.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Can you tell us more about the staffing of the polling stations in this country? Who are these people? Are they getting any training? Because, apparently, they're the ones who will determine who is eligible and who's not eligible, right? Is that right?

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: That's -- yes. And it's --

QUESTION: And it's all --

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: But they're employees of IOM. There's people that are being recruited by IOM. I don't know how many of them are from the Iraqi population here or --

MR. DENEHY: The majority.

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: Majority? Yeah, so that they have language skills and so on. But they --

MS. JOHNSTONE: IOM had been training them and sent several of their core trainers to where IOM has headquartered the voting process to get training directly there from Iraqi authorities.

QUESTION: And can you just quickly remind us, how did --

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: I think the check in this, so the import of your question, is that it's not like we're going to -- that they're going, you know, to the leaders of this community or that community and saying, "Would you guys please set this up?" They're going out. IOM is going out and trying to select people that they believe will be unbiased and will be properly trained and everything so that it will have credibility and impartiality.

QUESTION: I can't recall it very well, but how did this process happen in the Afghan election? Were they able to vote by mail or do you remember the criteria?

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: I will turn that to Kari, since she -- I sent her for two weeks to Afghanistan and she didn't see her husband for seven months and ran this process there.

MS. JOHNSTONE: IOM also ran the Out-of-Country voting and it was only in Pakistan and Iran and it was also an in-person registration process followed by, a few days later, in-person voting. Very similar process.

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: That's the answer.

QUESTION: Can you tell us what the numbers were on the Out-of-Country voting for the Afghan?

MS. JOHNSTONE: I believe it was approximately 800,000 total in both Pakistan and Iran.

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: So kind of the same level that we're anticipating here globally for Iraqis.

MS. JOHNSTONE: Mm-hmm.

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: So, again, a follow-on to the sort of the kind of comment that Barbara raised. I've seen it reported that the United States pushed very hard for this slate type of vote to facilitate this expatriate voting, but now has sort of a case of buyer's remorse, realizing that it will accentuate the marginalization of the Sunnis.

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: No. I would say no precisely because there wasn't -- there was no conception of having Out-of-Country voting until November of this year and the slate system was developed by the UN back during -- before the transition of authority to this interim government. So it couldn't -- the slate system wasn't picked because of Out-of-Country voting because both the UN and we were saying that's not necessary.

As I understand it, the main driver on this was, if you're going to have elections in a short period of time, you don't have time to create this whole registration system and the slate system facilitated that. It's also if you're doing -- if you're trying to develop a constitution or something, having proportionate representation, I mean, it's slates and then proportional to those slates, is not a bad idea.

I mean, you're getting that way, hopefully -- if all these slates were only tied to particular ethnic groups, you'd still have, presumably, percentages that would reflect the percentage of those people in the population. Now, as it's turned out -- I mean, to me, it's a very healthy thing that all of them are looking and saying, well, you know, maybe I've got 60 percent but I don't want to have the other 40 percent alienated from me so I need to pick up some guys from this community and that community and get them on my slate.

I mean, we're used to in this country, you know, the sort of two-party system and you either win the presidency or you don't, or you win a majority in the House or you don't. But as you all know, I mean, countries that have parliamentary systems and have proportionate representation, you know, they're constantly -- they're making coalitions before the election and they make coalitions after the election to get the job done.

And so, to me, that's what's really healthy when you look at Iraq these days is that all of these guys are looking around saying, you know, I don't want to get this guy too mad at me because I may need him to get something I care about passed when we're drafting the constitution or when we're appointing the new government. And so, you know, there's advantages and disadvantages to almost any system you can think of, but this is the one we got. It's -- and I think it can work quite well.

QUESTION: Can I ask you a quick question on outreach? How are you going to notify Iraqi Americans that these are the specific polling locations? Do you plan an ad campaign, advertisements, commercials, these kinds of --

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: Yeah, IOM has got posters that they've put up already. Again, this is not -- it's not a U.S. Government function. I mean, we're in this position here where we're trying to facilitate this. Obviously, we want -- we have a big interest in seeing these elections work and work well and for all the obvious reasons. At the same time, we're not running them. They're not ours and we don't want to overstep our bounds and start to get -- to do that.

That's why I keep making that caveat. I'm trying to tell you what we know about it and what we're doing. But the IOM people on behalf of the Iraqi authorities are doing that. They're doing outreach with local authorities and with the communities. I mean, in many of these places, you know, through churches and so on you can get the word around pretty quickly.

And then once people know that this opportunity is out there -- and I think your -- hopefully, your stories and so on will continue to make that known to them -- if they know that okay, I can go on this website and I can find out the latest information and learn where I have to go and when I have to go and what documents I need to bring with me, that's as good as it gets.

QUESTION: Can you talk -- I mean, just to follow on that, I have actually two questions. Who's going to be paying for security? Is it the Iraqis through the IOM or is it the U.S.? And also, to continue on the outreach, is there going to be a voter education? Because you know, there's not -- there can't necessarily be a campaign here in the United States because the candidates obviously are over there.

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: Right.

QUESTION: So how do you educate the Iraqi Americans about who's running, what they -- what their platform is?

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: Yeah, it's -- I think it's very much the same as what happens when you're an American overseas. You know, the -- well, as we were teasing earlier, the French press may tell you who to vote for, but most countries, you know, you have to get your information on what's going on in the U.S. by, you know, getting on the Web or talking to your family back home or something. There's not a lot of information.

You'll get information through the consulate on, you know, what the model ballot looks like or where to send for it or something, but you -- the voter education, it's really going to depend on their own self help. We're not doing anything on that front and I don't think -- IOM's job is not to do that either. They're not advertising the platforms of the different groups.

But on the education about how you can go vote and so on, yeah, that's where they've got websites up and they're --

QUESTION: And on security?

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: And TV and radio ads.

On security, the sites themselves, they are financing all of that. Now, whether it involves -- I don't know what they've worked out in terms of sharing costs if the local police think that they need to up the --

MR. DENEHY: No, it's very little government involvement. IOM is accepting the burden of cost.

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: Yeah.

MR. ERELI: Let's see. There's a few more -- two more questions.

Barbara.

QUESTION: I just have one more question if I could.

It was my understanding that the assembly that's going to be elected is a constituent assembly and that the assembly itself would be writing the constitution. You're saying that the assembly will appoint a commission and that they could bring in people who are not elected to put on this commission?

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: Yeah, I mean, I was getting more to the proportions of it. One assumes that they will not all sit as a group of 275 and write everything together, but they'll name a committee like congresses do. And so what I'm saying is, if they want to, the balance on that committee doesn't have to reflect the exact proportions within the overall body. But --

QUESTION: But presumably, they would all have to be members of the assembly. Or not?

Not necessary?

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: No. You can always get experts and so on to come in. Again, there are all kinds of different models, but -- but where you are right is that at the end of the day, the 275 have to vote for whatever the product is. And then the Iraqi people also have to vote for it because it has to be approved by referendum.

MR. DENEHY: Right. A great precedent in Iraq is Iraqi Constitutional Scholars, and they're -- it's presumed that they'll be part of that process.

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: Mm-hmm.

MR. ERELI: Well, let's do one more question.

Yes.

QUESTION: Yes, as you know, there is a Kurdish organization called PKK and, which is accepted as a terrorist organization by the State Department. And they have a presence in camps not only in northern Iraq, but in -- here; in Europe they have a great presence. So they will be allowed to participate in the elections? And what is the situation with Turkey? Do you have anything?

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: Yeah, well, you know, in terms of excluding terrorists. If somebody knows that somebody is a terrorist, they'd probably get arrested, I would imagine, if the Iraqis have any sense. But I mean, if somebody is a secret member of a terrorist organization --

QUESTION: Not a secret, they have the camps over there.

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: -- there, they may vote in our elections, too. You don't know -- I mean that's -- it's an enforcement problem, I would say, more than a conceptual problem.

QUESTION: Why I'm asking this --

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: Turkey --

MR. DENEHY: Turkey has an OCV. It concluded an agreement with IOM and Iraqis in Turkey will be eligible to vote.

QUESTION: Because Turkey's government just very recently opposed participation of two parties in the elections because they represent PKK.

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: Okay, but the eligibility here to vote is whether or not you're an Iraqi citizen. It's not who you're affiliated with. I'm saying if you're a criminal and, you know, if they have a record of that, I don't know what Iraqi law is. It may disqualify you, but I just don't know.

But just, you know, the polling people can't tell when somebody walks in -- I'm just being practical -- you know, it's like in this country. If somebody walks into the polling station and they're registered, they're a citizen of Virginia or something, you know, maybe they belong to a bad organization, but you can't expect the poll workers to figure that out, so --

QUESTION: No, just a practical question, you know, if they have the two parties list on the ballot paper --

MR. DENEHY: Yes, Turkey -- I mean, the ballot in Iraq -- the ballot is the same all over the world.

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: No, but is the PKK on --

MR. DENEHY: No, the PKK is not on it.

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: The PKK is not a party here.

QUESTION: Well, they have two parties, which have great connections with PKK.

MR. DENEHY: Right, but there'sobviously -- the question -- I think the point is that the ballot that's in Iraq will be the ballot that's going to be in the 14 countries. So if the two parties appear on the ballot in Iraq, it will appear in the other 14 countries.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. ERELI: Thanks very much, Mike.

AMBASSADOR KOZAK: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 3:30 p.m.)

2005/58 Released on January 12, 2005

President Signs Condolence Book at the Indonesian, Indian Embassys

President Signs Condolence Book at the Indonesian Embassy The Indonesia Embassy Washington, D.C. 10:40 A.M. EST

bush signatures

THE PRESIDENT: It's our honor to come today to pay our respects for those in Indonesia who suffered under this tremendous disaster. I appreciate the former Presidents joining me. I'm proud Laura is here, too, as we sign the condolence book.

We're also committed to helping the Indonesian government and the people of Indonesia. Presidents Clinton and Bush have agreed to help tap into the great generosity of the American people by serving as co-chairmen of what will be a massive private relief effort. Of course, I will continue to make sure our government provides relief, as well. I look forward to working with the Indonesian government to help those who need food and medicine and water and shelter, to get their lives back in order so that the great country of Indonesia can rise up from this disaster and provide the hope necessary for the people of that important country.

It's our honor to be here with our friend and ally. Mr. Ambassador, thank you for having us. May God bless the people of Indonesia.

END 10:41 A.M. EST For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary January 3, 2005

President Signs Condolence Book at the Indian Embassy The Indian Embassy Washington, D.C. 11:01 A.M. EST

Q Mr. President, you have come this far; are you planning to extend your visit someday to India? It could be before your presidency --

bush thailand

THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate that very much. I was just telling the Ambassador, when I spoke to the Prime Minister I assured him that my intentions were to make it this year to India. In the meantime, though, our country stands with the people who've suffered. We want the Indian government, the Indian people to know that we'll help in any way we can. I've asked President Clinton and President Bush to lead an effort to raise private contributions to go to the families of those who have suffered, and to help provide food, medicine, water, shelter, whatever the Indian government thinks is necessary.

I want to thank the Indian government for taking a lead in this issue. One of the first things that we did was to put together a core group of nations, nations that are capable of organizing relief efforts around the region, and the Indian government has been especially strong, as a part of this core group. And I told the Ambassador to thank the Prime Minister for his very strong leadership.

Our navies are coordinating together; our search and rescues are coordinating together. And now the American people and the American government want to help where help is needed.

Thank you all. END 11:03 A.M. EST For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary
January 3, 2005

Bush 43 Bush 41 Clinton, Funds for Tsunami Relief

presidents

President Asks Bush and Clinton to Help Raise Funds for Tsunami Relief The Roosevelt Room President's Remarks 10:15 A.M. EST FULL STREAMING VIDEO

THE PRESIDENT: I'm honored to be standing here with two former Presidents, President Bush 41, President Clinton 42. We have come together to express our country's sympathy for the victims of a great tragedy. We're here to ask our fellow citizens to join in a broad humanitarian relief effort.

bush clinton

Eight days ago, the most powerful earthquake in 40 years shook the island of Sumatra. The earthquake caused violent tsunamis in the Indian Ocean, which left an arc of destruction from Thailand to the Horn of Africa. The devastation in the region defies comprehension. More than 150,000 lives are estimated to be lost, including 90,000 in Indonesia, alone. As many as 5 million people are thought to be homeless, or without food or shelter; thousands more are missing, and millions are vulnerable to disease.

Across the United States this week, our flags will fly at half-staff to honor the victims of this disaster. We mourn especially the tens of thousands of children who are lost. We think of the tens of thousands more who will grow up without their parents or their brothers or their sisters. We hold in our prayers all the people whose fate is still unknown.

The United States government is in close contact with the governments of the affected countries, and America is playing a leading role in the relief and recovery efforts. Our nation has committed military assets and made an initial commitment of $350 million for disaster relief. We're working with the United Nations and with governments around the world to coordinate the comprehensive international response. American military assets in the region are now aiding recovery efforts. Patrol and cargo aircraft have been surveying damage and delivering supplies for several days. Air Force C-130s are flying aid missions 24 hours a day.

We are grateful for the hard work of the men and women who wear our nation's uniform. The Abraham Lincoln carrier group is in place near Indonesia and transporting relief supplies by helicopter. Other naval and Marine assets will arrive shortly to generate clean water and provide further logistical help.

I have sent a delegation headed by Secretary of State Powell and Governor Bush of Florida to the Indian Ocean region. There they will meet with fellow leaders and international organizations to assess relief efforts in place, as well as the needs that remain. Secretary Powell and Governor Bush will report their findings directly to me, so we can ensure that our government provides the most effective assistance possible.

We're showing the compassion of our nation in the swift response. But the greatest source of America's generosity is not our government: it's the good heart of the American people. In the weeks since the tsunami struck, private citizens have contributed millions of dollars for disaster relief and reconstruction. Organizations like the Red Cross and the Red Crescent, the Salvation Army, Catholic Relief Services, Save the Children, CARE, UNICEF, and America Cares responded rapidly after the tsunamis hit. They have reported an outpouring of generosity from around the world.

To draw even greater amounts of private donations, I have asked two of America's most distinguished private citizens to head a nationwide charitable fundraising effort. Both men, both Presidents, know the great decency of our people. They bring tremendous leadership experience to this role, and they bring good hearts. I am grateful to the former Presidents, Clinton and Bush, for taking on this important responsibility and for serving our country once again.

In the coming days, President Clinton and Bush will ask Americans to donate directly to reliable charities already providing help to tsunami victims. Many of these organizations have dispatched experts to the disaster area, and they have an in-depth understanding of the resources required to meet the needs on the ground. In this situation, cash donations are most useful, and I've asked the former Presidents to solicit contributions both large and small.

Over the past week, we have seen some of the innovative ways Americans are helping people in need. A coffee roaster in California is handing out bags of coffee for a $10 donation to the Red Cross. In Virginia Beach, the owner of a tax assistance firm is making a donation for every tax return he prepares. Worshipers at a Buddhist temple in Houston collected thousands of dollars in cash to send to their sister temple in Sri Lanka. Some people are selling personal items on the Internet and donating the cash to the charities. Many corporations are matching contributions by their employees. And several have shown exceptional generosity by donating large amounts of cash and products to the relief efforts.

Presidents Clinton and Bush will be speaking about the countless ways individuals and businesses can support this urgent cause. I ask every American to contribute as they are able to do so. For more information about how to make a donation, you can visit the USA Freedom Corps website at www.usafreedomcorps.gov.

Americans have suffered sudden catastrophe many times in our own history, from massive earthquakes in Anchorage and San Francisco, to destructive wildfires in the West, to the series of hurricanes that struck Florida last year. From our own experiences, we know that nothing can take away the grief of those affected by tragedy. We also know that Americans have a history of rising to meet great humanitarian challenges and of providing hope to suffering peoples. As men and women across the devastated region begin to rebuild, we offer our sustained compassion and our generosity, and our assurance that America will be there to help.

The Presidents and I will be going to the embassies of the countries affected to pay our nation's respects. I'm so grateful that both President Bush and President Clinton have taken time out of their busy schedules to not only serve as a catalyst for people to give money to help, but also to join me and Laura in paying our deepest respects to those nations that have been affected by the tsunamis. As well, the Presidents will return to the White House compound to talk to members of the press about how to better effect this great relief effort that is now going on in our nation.

Thank you all for coming. END 10:24 A.M. EST

For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary January 3, 2005

Punk Rockers 'Vandals' Perform for Troops in Iraq

Punk Rockers 'Vandals' Perform for Troops in Iraq
By Spc. Jan Critchfield 122nd Mobile Public Affairs Detachment

the Vandals

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Jan. 1, 2005 -- Punk rock and military discipline -- not exactly like shampoo and conditioner. More like fire and ice. But for some soldiers able to see the Vandals kick out the jams here Dec. 28, it almost seemed like they were back on the block, stomping like there's no tomorrow.

"I think it was an outstanding show -- I mean, a major relief on the tension out here," said Spc. Robert Skidmore of Company C, 115th Forward Support Battalion, while waiting in line to score an autograph. "I've been (following) these guys for some time. I had a bunch of blank tapes with Vandals written on it. You know, I didn't really know the names of the songs but just listened to them a lot when I was driving around in my car."

Skidmore said the performance provided a welcome respite for the soldiers. "We forgot we were in Iraq for a while," he said, indicating two buddies of his standing in the autograph line.

"We're having actually a great time in Iraq," bass player Joe Escalante said after the autograph session. "Everyone's nice. Everyone has a better attitude than we thought they'd have when we first got here. Everyone's a lot smarter than most people think the military is."

The Vandals' regular drummer was busy with other projects and didn't make the trip. Byron McMackin from the group Pennywise sat in for him.

The energy of the crowd at Al-Amal, the band said, far surpassed anywhere they had played during their tour of Iraq and Kuwait. "The show went very well," front man David Quackenbush said. "I know there's lot of people here that haven't heard of us, but it seemed like they were having a good time, and there were a lot of smiles. I think it was an awesome opportunity to come here and do this."

(Army Spc. Jan Critchfield is assigned to the 122nd Mobile Public Affairs Detachment.)

Abraham Lincoln Carrier Battle Group

Navy 'Angels' Delivering Relief Supplies to Indonesia
By Jim Garamone American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Jan. 1, 2005 – U.S. Navy helicopters "appeared like angels" as they delivered supplies to Aceh province, Indonesia, according to the provincial governor.

Navy Capt. Rodger Welch told reporters during a teleconference that provincial officials appreciate the Abraham Lincoln Carrier Battle Group now afloat off the island of Sumatra.

Carrier Air Wing 2 helicopters are delivering supplies to the most badly damaged area following the earthquake and subsequent tsunami that hit on Christmas. Officials in the region said the death toll is approaching 150,000. Millions more across the Indian Ocean are homeless.

News reports said the death toll in Indonesia alone may exceed 100,000. Thailand, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, the Maldives, India and Somalia were hit by the tsunamis spawned by the earthquake.

Welch said U.S. military assessment teams report that Thailand is handling the unprecedented situation well. Sri Lanka is making progress with supplies backing up at the main airport in the capital of Colombo. India has a well-developed infrastructure and is dong well. Indonesia, however, was the hardest hit, and the infrastructure in Aceh province effectively was destroyed. "There is like one road in Aceh," Welch said.

American helicopters are delivering relief supplies to the tens of thousands of people who need them. The helicopters are also transporting those in need of medical care. The sailors are working with the Indonesian military, relief organizations and other governmental groups to get the supplies to those most in need, Welch said.

The sailors aboard the ships in the battle group are readying relief supplies for delivery. "They are baking and freezing bread, for example," Welch said. He said the carrier group also can provide medical support, water desalination capabilities, bedding and other capabilities the Indonesians need.

Other assets are moving into the region. The Air Force has sent 10 C-130 Hercules transport aircraft to lift supplies around the nations. Two to four Air Force C-17 Globemaster III cargo jets are available for heavy lift capabilities.

In addition to the Lincoln Group, the Bonhomme Richard Expeditionary Strike Group will move into the area as soon as Jan. 2, Welch said. The sailors and Marines bring a lot of capabilities to the region. Originally, the group was due to sail to Sri Lanka, but that may change, Welch said.

The Navy also is sending Environmental and Preventive Medicine Unit 6 from Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, to Indonesia, Welch said. The unit – with a full laboratory – will help the Indonesian medical establishment monitor water quality and check for the presence of disease.

Joint Task Force 536 at Utapao, Thailand, now has about 350 personnel and is coordinating the U.S. military effort in the region. Welch said the speed of the build-up is encouraging. "Remember, this disaster struck just a week ago," he said.

Pre-positioned ships have left Japan, Guam and Diego Garcia to deliver water, food, medical supplies, trucks and heavy equipment. Those ships should arrive in a week, Welch said.

The Indonesians in Aceh are grateful for the U.S. help, Welch said. Aceh province has a long, festering Muslim revolt against the government in Djakarta, and news reports in the past said al Qaeda terrorists had found a welcome there. Welch said U.S. forces will take whatever precautions they need to operate in the area. But, in the aftermath of the disaster, U.S. personnel are not seeing any hostility, he added.

Welch said this is the largest U.S. military effort of this type he can remember. The scope of the disaster -- it is 1,500 miles from the base at Utapao to Sri Lanka, for instance -- and the devastation requires a worldwide response. The U.S. military has the unique lift capabilities to deliver relief supplies quickly. U.S. personnel also have experience working with allies. The effort in the region now has forces from Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Germany, India, South Korea and Canada, among others.

Related Sites:

• U.S. Pacific Command
• USS Abraham Lincoln
• USS Bonhomme Richard
• C-17 Globemaster III
• C-130 Hercules

Progress for America bush ad of the year

It's also the most expensive TV ad campaign of the presidential election. The commercial, unveiled by the Progress for America Voter Fund, ran on cable stations and in nine states - Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Missouri - at a cost of $14.2 million. Among the group's major contributors are Reds owner Carl H. Lindner and Cintas chairman Richard T. Farmer.

It centers on Ashley, whose mother, Wendy Faulkner, was killed in the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. The ad details the events of May 6, when Ashley, her father, Lynn Faulkner, and neighbor Linda Prince waited eagerly to shake the president's hand during a campaign stop at the Golden Lamb Inn in Lebanon.

As the president approached, Prince said to him, "Mr. President, this young lady lost her mother in the World Trade Center."

Bush stopped in his tracks. "The smile on his face went away, and the festive mood changed instantly," Prince said.

"You could see those words hit him so hard - so suddenly."

The president drew the girl to his chest and held her. "Ashley's Story" FULL STREAMING VIDEO

Progress for America Voter Fund ("PFA-VF") is a conservative issue advocacy organization PO Box 57167Washington, DC 20037 Progress for America, Inc. (PFA), organization dedicated to promoting the conservative issue agenda and rebutting liberal , announced the establishment of a 527 political committee - Progress for America Voter Fund (PFA Voter Fund). Progress for America, Inc, a 501(c)(4) organization, was formed in 2001. The Progress for America Voter Fund was established May 27, 2004.

Follow the money trail with silent partners "In determining a committee's major donors and recipients, the Center grouped individual contributors together with the organizations they reported as employers. Where no employer and occupation information was provided, or where an individual reported being self-employed, the Center identified donors through their affiliations with organizations. For example, a donor listed as "XYZ Company" could include contributions directly from the company and from individuals who list XYZ as an employer, along with those individuals' spouses. The figures on this page represent contributions and expenditures since disclosure began in August 2000, or since the establishment of the particular 527 committee, if later than August 2000." Progress For America Voter Fund

NOAA AND THE INDIAN OCEAN TSUNAMI

The U.S. has demonstrated the effectiveness of its warning system within the Pacific region. It has also demonstrated that the warning system can provide initial earthquake information to other nations and is most willing to share that information with all concerned. With national dissemination and water level networks in place, NOAA’s information can be used to mitigate future disasters.

tsunami buoy

It is also important to recognize that tsunamis can come ashore within minutes of nearby earthquakes. In those instances, people must know what to do in the event of a "felt" earthquake in low lying coastal areas.

The need for a tsunami warning program outside the Pacific region has been raised since 1985 with little result. It now appears that there is new interest in this issue within the international ICG/ITSU community. The U.S. strongly supports such an effort.

Furthermore, the development of the Global Earth Observing System of Systems (GEOSS) led by the United States, Japan, South Africa and the European Commission—with 53 nations currently participating at the ministerial level—should help fill the sensor gap for other regions of the world. Two key focus areas of the GEOSS initiative are addressing "reducing loss of life and property due to disasters" and "monitoring our oceans."

NOAA is dedicated to enhancing economic security and national safety through the prediction and research of weather and climate-related events and providing environmental stewardship of the nation’s coastal and marine resources. NOAA is part of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

RELATED

• NOAA Pacific Tsunami Warning Center Bulletins and Map
• NOAA Tsunami Page
• Deep-ocean Assessment and Reporting of Tsunamis (DART)
• NOAA Water Level Observation Network
• NOAA and Tsunamis
• NOAA Tsunami Research Program
• NOAA TsunamiReady Communities are Prepared
• NOAA Tsunami Warning System Receives High Marks
• NOAA Leading the Way in Tsunami Research and Education

Leslie Moonves Issues Statement

Leslie Moonves Issues Statement In Response To Panel Report

NEW YORK, Jan. 10 /PRNewswire/ -- The Independent Review Panel assigned to examine CBS News' "60 Minutes Wednesday" Broadcast of Sept. 8, 2004 has issued its report. The panel was comprised of the Honorable Dick Thornburgh, former US Attorney General, and Louis D. Boccardi, retired President and Chief Executive Officer of the Associated Press. The 224 page document can be viewed in its entirety at http://www.cbsnews.com.

Following is the statement from Leslie Moonves, Co-President and Co-Chief Operating Officer of Viacom and Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of CBS:

Statement from Leslie Moonves

On September 22, 2004, we asked an Independent Panel to find out what went wrong in the development, preparation and aftermath of the September 8th broadcast, on 60 Minutes Wednesday, concerning President George W. Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard. I would now like to offer CBS's thoughts on the comprehensive report issued today by that Panel and to announce what we at CBS intend to do in response to its findings and recommendations.

The Panel's report outlines the errors committed during the preparation of the September 8th broadcast and mistakes made in its aftermath. Through the commissioning and publication of the Panel's report, and the subsequent actions taken today, we hope to address those failures fairly, fully and responsibly, and to set CBS News back on its rightful path as a news organization of great depth, integrity and purpose, stronger than it was before.

To begin, I would like to offer my deepest thanks and appreciation to the Independent Review Panel -- Lou Boccardi and Dick Thornburgh. Assisted by their counsel, Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham LLP, these extremely diligent independent reviewers produced a document that addresses a wide range of issues and concerns, reaching conclusions where that was possible, and refraining from doing so when it was not. In both regards, their wisdom is appreciated.

I think it's important to note, in the Panel's own words, that "CBS News did not have any input or influence with respect to the findings of the Panel, other than to commit itself at the outset to make this Report public." This Panel was truly independent, and remains so. That is what makes its findings so compelling and, ultimately, so valuable to those who seek to set things right.

Throughout the process, the Panel found that CBS News was totally cooperative, providing unfettered access to all the individuals involved and any other information or documentation it required.

The Boccardi-Thornburgh Panel worked for more than three months to get to the bottom of what happened in the reporting of the 60 Minutes Wednesday segment on President Bush's National Guard Service. It spoke with more than 66 people, some more than once, including 32 from CBS News -- people who were involved with the story, as well as some who were not. The Panel also talked with interviewees featured in the segment, handwriting experts, former Texas Air National Guardsmen and others. The independent reviewers let their investigation take them where they believed they needed to go to ascertain the truth. We believe they achieved their goal. We accept the report at face value and today are taking a variety of actions to put this crisis behind us.

The Panel traces the path from days leading to the September 8th broadcast through September 20th, the day that Dan Rather and CBS News President Andrew Heyward acknowledged that the memos upon which the story was based could not be authenticated and therefore should not have been used to buttress the report that President Bush had received special treatment in the Texas Air
National Guard.

The Panel finds that the report was "crashed" -- rushed onto the air -- to beat the perceived competition, and it further says "the fact is that basic journalistic steps were not carried out in a manner consistent with accurate and fair reporting, leading to countless misstatements and omissions." Indeed, there were lapses every step of the way -- in the reporting and the vetting of
the segment and in the reaction of CBS News in the aftermath of the report.

As far as the question of reporting is concerned, the bottom line is that much of the September 8th broadcast was wrong, incomplete or unfair. The Panel found that the producer of the segment, Mary Mapes, ignored information that cast doubt on the story she had set out to report -- that President Bush had received special treatment more than 30 years ago, getting into the Guard
ahead of many other applicants, and had done so to avoid service in Vietnam. As the Panel found, statements made by sources were ignored, as were notes in Mapes' own files.

Most troubling, however, are the Panel's findings regarding Mapes' ongoing contention, later proven to be false, that the documents used in the story were authenticated and had been obtained from a "rock-solid" source who had established, in retrospect, a questionable chain of custody for them. The Panel also found that Mapes presented half-truths as facts to those with whom she worked. And they trusted her, relied on her impressive reputation and proven track record, and did not hold her to the high standards of accountability that have always been the backbone of CBS News reporting.

There are, of course, supposed to be institutional safeguards against over-eager reporters. In this case, the vetting process failed. On many occasions, Mapes and her team referred to the source of the now-discredited documents as unimpeachable and as someone "without an ax to grind" against President Bush. However, there was little or no attempt along the way to ascertain from the producers who that confidential source was. In the end, it turned out that this individual had a history on this story that should have been disclosed.

Just as bad was the process of authenticating the documents, as described in the Panel's report. Assured by Mapes that she had ample expert authentication of the documents, 60 Minutes Wednesday and CBS News management did little to seek affidavits from the handwriting experts. In fact, the people in charge of vetting the piece were never told that while four people were given some documents to authenticate the handwriting and the typography, two experts were discounted when they raised objections, and all four experts warned that documents could not be authenticated from Xeroxed copies.

Actually, as the report shows, only one expert had tentatively authenticated only one signature which seemed to match a known sample. Thus three documents were put on the air without any sort of handwriting authentication and, in the end, none of the experts consulted by CBS News was willing to authenticate the documents.

There was, in short, no effective vetting of these critical documents by those at CBS News required to do so, or of many other statements in the September 8th report, or of the reports that followed on the CBS Evening News. Once again, the system broke down, relying on trust rather than the
implementation of existing standards.

Once the report aired, as the Panel makes quite clear, CBS News continued to support the segment and the documents for 12 days, despite rising criticism that the documents were not authentic. Instead of asserting its role of independent oversight, CBS News management circled the wagons and encouraged a campaign of support for the report, going so far as to allow the very personnel who were being challenged in the matter to produce follow-up reports in support of the segment.

There are errors here of both commission and omission, but each and every such failure must be met with an appropriate action that will demonstrate CBS's intolerance of such performance. The first such actions pertain to people who were involved in the production, vetting and overall decision- making process of the September 8th broadcast. Next, we will discuss other steps that we will be taking to respond to the various recommendations of the Panel and our own sense of what needs to be done.

Therefore, based on the Panel's findings, we today implement the following actions in regard to the individuals involved in the broadcast:

Mary Mapes. Mapes was the producer of the segment. An Emmy Award-winning producer, one of the most highly regarded professionals in the business, she recently had broken the story on the Abu Ghraib prison abuses. The Panel shows that it was that record and level of trust that led those around Mapes to defer to her to a far greater extent than was warranted.

In this case, as described by the Panel, her basic reporting was faulty and her responses when questioned led others who trusted her down the wrong road. Her confidential source was controversial and her authenticators were unable to authenticate the documents, and yet she maintained the opposite. In addition, the Panel cites a number of instances where Mapes' accounts radically differ from those of her colleagues and sources. This is truly disquieting. For these reasons and many others outlined in the Panel's work, Mary Mapes is terminated, effective immediately.

Josh Howard. Howard, too, has enjoyed a long and impressive career at CBS News, most recently rising to the position of Don Hewitt's deputy on the original 60 Minutes. He has been the Executive Producer of 60 Minutes Wednesday since June of 2004, and this was his first big story.

The Panel concluded he participated in rushing this key investigative report onto the air without questioning the producer, Mary Mapes, thoroughly about sources and documentation, and did little to assert his role as the producer ultimately responsible for the broadcast and everything in it. This mistake dealt a tremendous blow to the credibility of 60 Minutes Wednesday and to CBS News in general, one which it was his duty to avert. For his role in the production of the segment, Howard has been relieved of his duties at 60 Minutes Wednesday and asked to resign from CBS News.

Mary Murphy. As Senior Broadcast Producer, Murphy was Howard's right hand. She has been a broadcast journalist at CBS News for more than 17 years, an experienced producer and senior producer who most recently had served as the head of the political desk covering the 2004 campaign.

It was Murphy's job to ride herd over the production of the segment at every stage and to make sure that it conformed to CBS News standards. Yet the Panel found little evidence of in-depth questioning by Murphy about the sources and the documents. Instead, the Panel found that, like the other vetters, Murphy deferred to Mapes and her production team and did not perform her important supervisory function. Mary Murphy has therefore been relieved of her duties at 60 Minutes Wednesday and asked to resign from CBS News.


Esther Kartiganer served as a Senior Producer in charge of reading scripts and unedited transcripts to determine whether an interview segment was used in context. She has been in that position, or others like it, for more than 40 years at CBS and heretofore performed with great distinction. It is difficult to understand how a person of Kartiganer's toughness and experience abnegated her assigned function, but the fact is that she did, and CBS News is the worse for it. For that reason, she has been relieved of her duties at 60 Minutes Wednesday and, in recognition of her years of service, has been offered another assignment at CBS News.

Yvonne Miller was the New York-based associate producer assigned to Mary Mapes only six days before the story aired. Miller had never worked with Mapes, who arrived in New York to complete her work on the story along with three freelance associate producers, one from Virginia and two from Texas. Miller voiced her uncertainty to Mapes about the validity of the story and the veracity of the documents but, as is made clear in the Panel's report, her questions and concerns were not given proper consideration. She did not, by her own admission, do a good job at authenticating the documents because she did not have the experience and the time to do so. She did, however, show good instincts in this matter, and if she had received even the smallest encouragement from her bosses, she might have made the difference. For that reason, Miller will remain in her position as an Associate Producer at 60 Minutes Wednesday.


Betsy West. As Senior Vice President, Prime Time, West was the representative of CBS News management in this matter, with direct supervisory responsibility for the entire 60 Minutes Wednesday broadcast. She was well qualified for this position, after a distinguished 23-year career at ABC News and more than six years at CBS News, where she has been responsible for the
supervision of all primetime news magazines.

Before the broadcast, it was West's job to make sure that the vetting of the documents and sources used in this investigation was complete and that the final segment was fair and unbiased. As noted above, the Independent Panel found that the vetting process was not only incomplete but, in the end, utterly ineffectual. After the broadcast, the Panel found that West continued to defend the segment even when it was becoming increasingly apparent that it was flawed, and even when Howard suggested that the time had come to back away from the authenticity of the documents.

Further, prior to the broadcast, West and Howard received express directions from Andrew Heyward, President of CBS News, to make sure that the 60 Minutes Wednesday team did not "stampede us in any way." Afterwards, he directed that the authentication of the documents and their source be thoroughly re-examined to answer the growing concerns about the segment. The
Panel, while it "does not underestimate the storm that hit CBS News," finds that these instructions were not carried out. As the senior executive in charge of the entire broadcast, West must accept her share of the responsibility. She has therefore been relieved of her duties and asked to resign from CBS News.

This brings us to two senior figures at CBS News whose performance is discussed in some depth in the Panel's report. Based on the findings of that report, we believe the following is appropriate:


The Panel found that Dan Rather was pushed to the limit in the week before the September 8th broadcast. He was finishing up the anchoring job at the 2004 Republican Convention and was covering Hurricane Frances in Florida. He asked the right questions initially, but then made the same errors of credulity and over-enthusiasm that beset many of his colleagues in regard to this segment. He was convinced that the documents were authenticated because he was told in no uncertain terms that this was so. He defended the story over-zealously afterwards; again, he believed in a star associate with whom he had worked often, and to award-winning result. The Panel has found that his unwillingness to consider that CBS News and his colleague were in the wrong was a mistake, and that the broadcast would have benefited from a more direct involvement on Rather's part.

Dan Rather has already apologized for the segment and taken personal responsibility for his part in the broadcast. He voluntarily moved to set a date to step down from the CBS Evening News anchor chair in March of 2005, which will give him more time to concentrate on his reporting for CBS NEWS. After examining the report and thinking about its implications, we believe any
further action would not be appropriate.

This brings us to CBS NEWS President Andrew Heyward. The Panel's report shows that before the segment was broadcast, Heyward explicitly warned West and Howard that "we will have to defend 'every syllable' of the segment and, as we mentioned earlier, specifically urged them not to allow the production team to 'stampede us.'" In the aftermath of the report, he issued direct
instructions to investigate the sourcing of the story and the authentication of the documents and pressed for his staff to come up with new and substantive information rather than merely standing by the story in a "stubborn repetition of what we've already said." However, the Panel concluded that Heyward's directives were not implemented in a prompt or systematic way.

This raises questions about accountability at CBS News -- questions that will have to be addressed both by Andrew Heyward and me. We intend to do so. But Heyward is an executive of integrity and talent, and the right person to be leading CBS NEWS during this challenging time.

* * *

Acting on the Panel's recommendations, I would like to announce the following further steps that will be implemented immediately, not just for 60 Minutes Wednesday, but for all of CBS News.

Responding to perhaps the most important recommendation of the Panel, we will immediately create a position of Senior Vice President of Standards and Special Projects, reporting to the President of CBS News. This executive will be assigned expanded new duties as part of upholding and enforcing CBS News Standards. Before an investigative report proceeds, the Standards Executive will review the use of confidential sources; will determine the completeness of the authentication and/or chain of custody of materials received from outside sources, ranging from documents to video to photos; and will approve all hidden-camera investigations.

The Standards Executive will be identified throughout CBS News as someone with whom employees can communicate on a confidential basis, without fear of retaliation, if they have concerns that a planned segment may not meet CBS News standards of accuracy and fairness. This executive will also undertake a comprehensive review of the CBS News Standards Manual and will institute a program for regular review of the standards.

Assuming this important new role will be Linda Mason, who has been named Senior Vice President, Standards and Special Projects, reporting directly to the President of CBS News.

Linda has a long and distinguished career at CBS News, which she joined in 1966. She was the first woman in many of the positions she has filled at CBS News: from desk assistant in radio to writer in Newsfilm syndication, to writer/associate producer at WCBS-TV News to writer then producer at the CBS Morning News, to producer, investigative producer, senior producer at the CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite and then Dan Rather, to executive producer of The CBS Weekend News and then executive producer of CBS News Sunday Morning as well, to vice president of Public Affairs and executive producer of CBS Reports. She has won 13 Emmys, two Peabodies, a Dupont and various other awards.

Linda has acted as the liaison between CBS NEWS and the Independent Panel during the preparation of the Panel's report. She has been a calm, steadying influence within CBS News throughout that difficult process, and she was recognized for her contributions by the Panel. I know she will be invaluable in this new and crucial role, and I consider her appointment to be an integral part of the re-vitalization of CBS News after this difficult time.

Further, in the midst of this ordeal, the original 60 Minutes has continued to shine as a beacon of light. The broadcast has continued to blaze a trail of outstanding journalism and competitive success as the #1 news magazine program under the leadership of Executive Producer Jeff Fager, who launched 60 Minutes Wednesday in 1999. We have therefore asked Jeff to oversee both 60 Minutes broadcasts -- 60 Minutes Wednesday as well as 60 Minutes -- at least until the end of the season.

Other steps that will be implemented immediately include, but will not be limited to, the following:

1. If the validity of information presented in a segment comes under a significant challenge, such as occurred with the 60 Minutes Wednesday segment, reporting on the challenge will not be left entirely in the hands of those who created the segment at issue. Instead, an additional team, led by someone not involved in the original segment, will be assigned to take the lead in the coverage.

2. In sensitive stories relying on sources who cannot be identified on the air, senior management must, when appropriate, know not just the name of the source, but all relevant background that would assist in editorial news decisions. Difficulties in this regard should be reviewed with the Standards Executive.

3. CBS News management must make it clear to all personnel that competitive pressure alone cannot be allowed to prompt the airing of a story. As the Panel points out, it would have been better to "lose" the story on the disputed memos to a competitor than to air it short of vetting to the highest standards of fairness and accuracy.

4. Correspondents, producers and associate producers must disclose to the executive producer and senior producers all relevant information unearthed in reporting the story, both supporting and challenging the segment's findings.

5. On primetime broadcasts, all on-camera interviews done for a segment, whether or not aired, should be reviewed by the person assigned script review responsibility to ensure that the segment presents fairly and accurately what was said in the interviews and is not contradicted by interviews which do not appear in the finished segment.

6. CBS NEWS producers and management will work closely with the CBS Communications area to ensure that all information provided to the department and then disseminated to the public is fair and accurate.

7. CBS NEWS management should require correspondents to regularly and fully participate to the maximum extent possible in the preparation, vetting and pre-broadcast screening of stories. Management should review instances where the press of other responsibilities does not permit this and make any appropriate changes to the production and vetting structure to take account of reality.

In addition to these steps, in the future we will pursue any other reforms we feel are needed to help CBS News uphold its decades-long tradition of reporting with integrity and without fear or favor.

We deeply regret the disservice this flawed 60 Minutes Wednesday report did to the American public, which has a right to count on CBS News for fairness and accuracy in all it does.

We are pleased that the panel recognized the importance of CBS News' mission and noted that "it was impressed with the professionalism, dedication, commitment and intelligence of the individuals it interviewed from CBS News.... Many of these individuals have been associated with CBS News for many years and they expressed great pride and respect for the organization and its
mission.... some expressed disbelief that CBS News would find itself in the situation created by this segment."

We are also gratified that the Panel, after extensive analysis and consideration, has found that, while CBS News made numerous errors of judgment and execution in this story, these mistakes were not motivated by any political agenda. As the Report states, "The Panel does not find a basis to accuse those who investigated, produced, vetted or aired the Segment of having a political bias."

The panel also expresses its hope that this incident and this report will not have a "chilling" effect on the commitment of CBS News to continue the hard, important investigative reporting that has always been the hallmark of CBS News. That is my hope and my expectation as well. We can't stop either doing what we do, or the drive to be the best at that essential job. We have a responsibility to the public, to our profession, and to ourselves, to get it right -- not most of the time, but every time.

I am enormously proud of CBS News' decades-long tradition of excellence in journalism. The people of CBS News are conscientious professionals of the highest integrity, pride and ability. Nothing is more important to them or to me than the credibility and stature of this great news organization. It is for them and for the public we serve that we take these actions today. By doing
what needed to be done, as painful as some of these steps are, we hope to have moved decisively to set the record straight, and to turn this crisis into an opportunity to make CBS News stronger than it has ever been.

We are confident that the talented men and women of CBS News will help us achieve that goal.

CBSCompany News On Call: Company News On-Call: prnewswire.com/

bush radio address 01/01/05 full audio, text transcript

President's Radio Address

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. On this first day of a new year, we join the world in feeling enormous sadness over a great human tragedy. Last Sunday, an earthquake and violent tsunamis struck the nations that surround the Indian Ocean. The carnage is of a scale that defies comprehension, with over 100,000 deaths reported. I have signed a proclamation calling for our nation's flag to be flown at half-staff this coming week. As the people of this devastated region struggle to recover, we offer our love and compassion, and our assurance that America will be there to help.

Earlier this week, I spoke with the leaders of India, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Indonesia. I offered them the condolences of our nation and I praised their steadfast leadership. The task they face is difficult. Their relief resources are stretched nearly to the limit. Communications, roads and medical facilities have been badly damaged; disease has become a very real threat.

Americans are a compassionate people and we are already hard at work helping those nations meet these challenges. The United States has pledged $350 million in relief assistance, with $15 million already in the hands of relief organizations in the affected countries. To help coordinate this massive relief effort, disaster response officials are on the ground and have established a support center in Thailand that is manned and operational; more than 20 patrol and cargo aircraft have been made available to assess the disaster and deliver relief supplies -- many of those aircraft are already on the scene. We have dispatched the aircraft carrier, Abraham Lincoln, the Maritime pre-positioning squadron from Guam, and an amphibious ship carrying a Marine Expeditionary Unit -- they will soon be in position to support relief efforts, to include the generation of clean water.

Tomorrow, I will send a delegation to the area to meet with regional leaders and international organizations to assess what additional aid can be provided by the United States. The delegation will be led by Secretary of State Colin Powell and Governor Jeb Bush, who has extensive experience in the state of Florida with relief, rehabilitation and reconstruction efforts following natural disasters. Secretary Powell has already spoken with many of his counterparts in the region, and with officials from the United Nations, and other governments that are helping with the response. Together, we are leading an international coalition to help with immediate humanitarian relief, rehabilitation and long-term construction efforts. India, Japan and Australia have already pledged to help us coordinate these relief efforts, and I'm confident many more nations will join this core group in short order.

Here at home, Americans are translating the blessings of our own country into generosity to others. From charitable organizations to private individuals to companies, our fellow citizens, on their own initiative, are raising millions of dollars for relief efforts. These Americans, donor and fundraiser alike, represent the best of our country and offer an example to the world. Any American who desires to donate to these efforts can easily do so online, by accessing the USA FreedomCorps web site at www.usafreedomcorps.gov.

In this season when we gather with loved ones and count our many blessings, we hold the victims of this terrible tragedy in our hearts and prayers. And let us be mindful that even in this modern age, our world still requires compassion, tolerance and generosity from each of us.

Laura and I send our condolences to all whose hearts are filled with grief this New Year's Day; and to our fellow Americans, we wish you peace and happiness in the coming year.

Thank you for listening.

For Immediate Release January 1, 2005