Tuesday, January 09, 2007

Press Briefing Tony Snow 01/09/07 (VIDEO)

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, Tuesday, May 16, 2006, fields questions during his first briefing after replacing Scott McClellan. White House photo by Paul Morse.Press Briefing by Tony Snow, FULL STREAMING VIDEO. file is real media format, running time is 39:16. White House Conference Center Briefing Room.
White House Press Secretary Tony Snow briefs the press and answers questions. 01/09/2007: WASHINGTON, DC: 12:14 EST.

MR. SNOW: Good afternoon. A couple notes, and then I'll be happy to take questions. The President's schedule today: Normal morning briefings; he's consulting with members of Congress, and continuing to work on the speech for tomorrow night. That is the schedule.

Also, the President has selected Fred Fielding to serve as Counsel to the President, replacing Harriet Miers. We have a statement out to that effect. Rather than my reading it out, you can read the statement.

Let's see what else we have. The Domestic Policy Council later today is going to release a report that highlights some new alternative research studies that advance stem cell science without destroying human life; exciting work being done in the area, including an alternative approach to using embryonic stem cells that was reported just this week. The President's policy strikes a balance of supporting funding -- federal funding for research into stem cells, while avoiding federal funding that would encourage the destruction of embryos. And we encourage you to review the report.

And I'll take questions. Terry.

Q Did the President consult with the Hill before the military operation in Somalia?

MR. SNOW: Number one -- let me put it this way: We know that there was a military -- we can confirm that there was a military operation overnight on Sunday in Somalia. We refer you to the Department of Defense for all other details. I don't believe there was a consultation on that. I'm aware of none.

Q Okay. And on Iraq, switching topics, can you say why the -- what the President's rationale is for sending in more troops to Iraq when --

MR. SNOW: I will be happy to talk about rationales and everything else once we have released publicly what the President intends to do.

Q Can you give us an idea of how the President will try to persuade the public that his plan in whatever form we hear tomorrow night is the right course when so many Americans, according to polling, are very concerned about more troops in Iraq?

MR. SNOW: Well, Americans I think are concerned about making sure that we succeed in Iraq, as are members of Congress. What the President is going to do is to talk about the situation in Iraq, how it has evolved, how the challenges have evolved, and he will also talk about the importance of developing capacity so that the Iraqis have the ability to handle their security needs and will continue to have a democracy that grows and flourishes, protecting the rights of all, creating economic opportunities and the like.

So I think it's important to allow Americans to see not only that, but also how this fits into the broader war on terror. Iraq is the central front in the war on terror. Why is it important? What does it mean? What can success breed? What does failure mean? A lot of those questions I think Americans want to hear answered, and they will be answered in the President's address.

Q Those things we have heard before from the President. Is there something specific now that you will try to do or say or demonstrate that would be more persuasive?

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Bret.

Q Tony, is that all you're going to have on Somalia, as far as pointing us back to the Pentagon and the ongoing operation?

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q You don't have any other details?

MR. SNOW: No.

Q How about how the President found out, et cetera?

MR. SNOW: You know what, stupid me, I forgot to do the process stuff. We'll try to find out.

Q Okay. Let me change gears then. Senator Kennedy today is going to propose legislation denying billions needed to send more troops to the war unless Congress agrees first. This is even before the President lays out his plan. Can you respond preemptively?

MR. SNOW: No, I really can't. I'll take a look -- we'll take a look at it. I'm sure that later in the week we'll have an opportunity to respond more specifically. And I have not -- I haven't looked at it; I don't know if the President has looked at it; I haven't talked to our Leg Affairs people about it. Give us a little time to take a look.

Q What about this overall premise that Democrats and some are considering holding back money to troops --

MR. SNOW: Well, look, Democrats are going to have to make a choice here and they're going to have to decide where they stand in terms of two issues: Number one, do you want Iraq to succeed, and, if so, what does that mean? And, number two, do you believe in supporting the troops as you say, and how do you express that support? Those are questions that will be answered in the process of public debate and also -- and a lot of other considerations. So we'll just have to see how it plays out.

As you've seen, Bret, there is disagreement within both parties about how to proceed. But I think one of the unifying elements can be, when the President does lay out the way forward, it offers an opportunity for everybody to have a full and thoughtful debate about this. Right now many of the debates continue to be conducted in a vacuum -- anticipation that the President is going to say something. And it makes more sense to wait until the President lays out not only military, but also diplomatic, economic, and other actions that he intends to take, and to put them in the broader context of the war on terror and also the context of the security of Americans right here on our own soil.

Q Last one for me. Yesterday you hinted that the President is going to essentially lay out specifics of why Iraq is important to the U.S. as far as our safety. Is that accurate?

MR. SNOW: Well, specifics -- no, we've often described what happens if you have a failed state in Iraq, and we'll continue to make the point, which is, if you've got a failed state in Iraq -- let's draw the image for the American people again -- got Iraq; on one side to its east is Iran, to the west is Syria, two primary terror states who have made it clear that they're going to go after democracies throughout the region. That would include Lebanon, that would include the Palestinian areas. They're trying to send a message that democracy cannot succeed in that part of the world. They're trying to intimidate their neighbors.

If you have an Iraq, with the world's second largest oil reserves, capable of generating incredible amounts of revenue that terrorists can use both to blackmail the West and also to purchase weapons that can be used against anybody else, that creates a situation that's a direct threat to us. So that's really what I was talking about. There is not going to be sort of a roster of specifics, but it is worth reminding the American people of what the stakes are and how they do fit in to the larger war on terror.

Yes, Martha.

Q Back to Kelly's question. The President, beginning in November of '05, I believe, gave a series of speeches on the strategy for victory in Iraq. The American people didn't seem to buy that, the situation in Iraq went downhill. Do you worry about the President's credibility? And is there anything in this speech, or in this plan, that is really, truly new, or is it trying things that have already been tried before?

MR. SNOW: Martha, I will let you judge it, and I will let you ask questions once we've laid it all out. The President understands, and I think you understand, that a war is not a fixed thing that proceeds along a predetermined or straight path, and as situations change, you must adjust. One of the key changes in Iraq last year was the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samara and the subsequent flaring up of sectarian violence within Iraq. A year ago a lot of people were feeling optimistic, including members of both parties on Capitol Hill, including people within the military, because here you had the prospects -- you had free elections in Iraq, things seemed to be moving along a pretty good path.

So it's interesting, you can pick whichever wedge of time you want, but there has also been some change in public opinion since late 2005, and in early 2006 there was a sense of optimism. But guess what. The terrorists did succeed in unleashing sectarian violence, and now that has created a new set of realities that one must contend with. The President will talk about that.

I'm simply not going to try to give you a general characterization of how it will be received. My sense is that the American people want to hear what the President has to say. And we're going to spend a lot of time talking about it, because it's not a simple, you know, one-bullet-point plan. There's a lot in it, and as a result, we are going to have an opportunity to take a look at each and all of the aspects.

Q On sectarian violence, is that something the United States should have been prepared for? Or, like the insurgency, you can argue that, who knew? Should they have been prepared for sectarian violence, because we had a letter from Zarqawi, who basically laid out his plan to foment sectarian violence?

MR. SNOW: Well, I don't know, Martha. Apparently, people in Iraq were not quite prepared for it either. The fact is, it happened. And whatever backseat generalship one might wish to practice, the fact is we have important business in Iraq with very high stakes, and the focus now is to figure out a way forward that is going to lead to success.

Jim.

Q Tony, as you said, a public debate will probably ensue here after the President's speech --

MR. SNOW: You think? (Laughter.)

Q Yes.

MR. SNOW: Good chance.

Q And so often in debate, obviously, language is very important. To your mind, is there a difference between an increase in troops, an escalation in troops, a surge in troops? Because in the last 24, 48 hours these words have all started to become weighted.

MR. SNOW: It just started to become weighted? I think a lot of times people are going to try to find a one-word characterization that allows them to make a political point without perhaps diving into the details in trying to give a proper --

Q Well, what's the difference between an escalation and a surge?

MR. SNOW: Well, why don't we talk about characterizations once we have a plan?

Q Because I think it's part of a conversation that's going on right now.

MR. SNOW: I understand that, and, guess what -- it's a conversation, as I've said before, that is a bit in a vacuum and I'm not going to get into the business of preemptively characterizing something that we have not released in full detail.

Q But, somehow, "escalation" has become this Democratic word -- the Democratic Party language.

MR. SNOW: Well, ask the guys who do their focus groups. They're going to have an answer for it. Look, the President is talking about a way forward, and rather than getting involved in trying to assess a description of a plan that has yet to be released publicly and, therefore, about which I am not in a position to characterize publicly, it seems a little silly for me to start quibbling about adjectives without discussing what they purportedly describe, don't you think?

Q Well, the President apparently told Gordon Smith and others yesterday that the 20,000 troop increase/surge/escalation is part of the deal. So that's why I'm asking specifically about -- we are going to see some kind of increase.

MR. SNOW: Rather than looking for a one-word handle, look at the policy. And, actually, this is your challenge -- you guys do words for a living; figure out -- rather than trying to ask Democratic or even Republican lawmakers what the proper descriptive term is, you figure it out. I mean, you're going to have an opportunity --

Q I'm trying to, but that's what --

MR. SNOW: Yes, but what you're doing is you're listening to what other people are saying and saying, is that the right one? Well, I can't help you on that.

Q Yes, that's exactly what I'm doing --

MR. SNOW: Can't help you on that one.

Q -- I'm listening to other people describe it, and I'm asking the administration, what's the proper word?

MR. SNOW: I understand. But what we will say is, look at it, then we'll talk.

Q Do you have a problem with the word "escalation"?

MR. SNOW: As I said, look at it, we'll talk.

Q Could you take us behind the scenes a little bit of these meetings that the President is having with the lawmakers? Is he now giving final details of his plan, or is he still listening to advice? Just a little bit of the atmosphere.

MR. SNOW: Well, no, because as we've been saying, these are meetings where the ground rules are, we don't tell who is in them and we don't tell what's going on behind the scenes, but they're free to go out and give whatever characterization they may. The important thing to do is to wait until you've got a chance to see the full thing. Look, there are going to be opportunities for members of Congress, Democratic and Republican, to characterize their conversations with the President. It's a good and healthy thing that they're happening.

And furthermore, the President has made it clear that conversations are going to continue to take place. The address the President is going to give to the nation is not the end of the debate, it is the beginning of an important consideration of how we move forward in Iraq in a way that we send a message to the world that the United States is here to finish the important work of securing liberty, and issuing the definitive refutation of terrorist tactics and strategies. And that is the basis on which I think both parties can fruitfully work together.

Q Can you talk about where the address is at this point? You said the President was looking at preliminary drafts. Is it pretty much done? Is he just --

MR. SNOW: We're getting pretty close.

Q Because he still has consultations going on?

MR. SNOW: There are some, but also just -- now it's the point of going through and looking at language and saying, you know, I want this point, or, let's emphasize this one, or, what about this issue? It is more now at the sort of fine-tuning point. But on the other hand, anybody who has ever done a term paper knows you keep working until the very end. And my guess is that there will continue to be tweaks and practices into tomorrow.

Q Is it fair to say, though, even as he still continues to meet with these lawmakers, his mind is essentially made up?

MR. SNOW: What I would direct you to do -- there are two things. I have noted before that when you're talking about a war, the idea that you have your mind made up, that you have absolute -- this is in stone, this is it -- what you have is a framework for moving forward. And within that framework, there are going to be plenty of opportunities for people to talk and to share their opinions. And the President has made it clear from the very first consultations with Democrats and Republicans that he intends to have more talks. So, to that extent, I think we are going to be open-minded and always looking for good ideas and good, constructive advice.

Q After yesterday's session, and yesterday's were just Republican senators who came, correct?

MR. SNOW: Right.

Q Thad Cochran came out and said, well, I told the President I'd be able to support him, but I was alone, I didn't hear anybody else saying that. Is that an accurate reflection of what happened?

MR. SNOW: You know, as I said, we permit people to come to the sticks and say what they wish. Our ground rules are, we don't talk about it, so I don't talk about it.

Q I'll try and make you talk about it.

MR. SNOW: You'll fail.

Q Is this real consultation, Tony? Senators went in yesterday and came out saying that the President had, effectively, told them what he was going to do, that he was clear about his intentions. Some of these senators had not been in before to talk to the President about his plans for Iraq. So how can you characterize this as consultation?

MR. SNOW: Thank you. As you said, what you're trying to do is to get me to characterize the conversations they've had, and I can't do it, Sheryl.

Q No, I'm asking you to say -- do you believe this is genuine consultation?

MR. SNOW: As I said, Sheryl, it's one of these things that the President has made it clear that he's going to have exchanges of views, but I'm not taking you in the room with them.

(Cell phone rings.) (Laughter.) Does Martha have a hip-hop ring tone? (Laughter.) Play that funky music, white girl. (Laughter.)

Q A nice musical interlude from Martha, but, seriously --can we talk about this issue of consultation? Is the President really soliciting views, and do these lawmakers -- are they having an input into his thinking?

MR. SNOW: Yes, of course. And as I've said before, Sheryl, look, the President still has to make choices and he still has to make decisions, and he still has to lay out a proposal with a way forward. On the other hand, he has made it very clear to one and all that he's interested in hearing from people, he's interested in ideas, and that will continue.

Q But the speech is 30 hours away. That's not that much more time for --

MR. SNOW: I'm not saying that the President is going to go back in and shred it and start over. Again, what I'm saying is the President still continues to have an open mind because this is a way forward. This is not, wave a wand and it's all going to happen. This is a way of talking about the important business of building capacity on the part of the Iraqis to take care of their own security, and to build a strong, independent democracy that really does, as I said, stand as the definitive refutation of terror; and also the example to other countries in the region that hope freedom and democracy are possible and are things that they all ought to pursue.

Go ahead, April.

Q Tony, how far does the President go into the issue of public opinion in weighing this out and in making this new way forward? And, also, what singular group or person has the most influence on the President in his thinking on the way forward?

MR. SNOW: The second question is unanswerable. The President has received a great deal of input from a lot of people, and to try to single one out is probably futile.

As far as public opinion, the President will not shape policy according to public opinion, but he does understand that it's important to bring the public back to this war and restore public confidence and support for the mission.

Q But the public doesn't want to go back to the war. They want to go away, they --

MR. SNOW: No, April, you --

Q -- the midterm elections, did people -- did they or did they not vote for leaders who basically said they wanted to --

MR. SNOW: April, let me ask you a simple question: Do opinions change?

Q Yes, they do.

MR. SNOW: Do they change on the basis of arguments?

Q They change on the basis of results.

MR. SNOW: Exactly, they change on the basis of results. That is absolutely right. So that's what --

Q The results have been more deaths. We went in supposedly to stop the war on terror -- I mean, to stop terrorism around the world, as a result which stemmed from the 9/11 issue. And everyone is saying now, look, you have more people dying than they did in 9/11, and you have more U.S. soldiers dying and the world is not as safe.

MR. SNOW: I'm not sure the world is less safe. The world is -- I guarantee you the world is less safe if the United States withdraws and leaves a vacuum in Iraq. I guarantee it. And I guarantee everybody in this room is going to be less safe, and everybody in this country is going to be less safe. And that is the challenge the President faces, and it is worth explaining that to the American people.

You see, I think Americans believe in liberty, believe in this nation's destiny as a country that does advance the boundaries of liberty not simply because it is a good and noble thing, but because it is good for us and it is good for future generations. And the President will talk about how this advances that not only noble goal, but one that is of great interest to everybody who worried about their kids on September 11th, as you and I did, and who worries about how our families are going to be secure in the future.

Q And on Somalia. What is the administration's thought about the containment of al Qaeda in Somalia, since you're not getting into other issues?

MR. SNOW: I think that, again, without talking about military issues, it is pretty clear that this administration continues to go after al Qaeda. We are interested in going after those who have perpetrated acts of violence against Americans, including bombings of embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and we will continue to conduct whatever operations we can to go after that. We've made it clear that this is a global war on terror, and this is a reiteration of the fact that people who think that they're going to try to establish safe haven for al Qaeda anyplace need to realize that we're going to fight them.

John.

Q Thank you, Tony. Two questions on the budget, if I might. First, given the published reports that Karl Rove is betting people that there's no way the administration is going to raise taxes, can we now say --

MR. SNOW: Taxes on Social Security.

Q Taxes on Social Security -- can we now say that taxes are off the table in the negotiations?

MR. SNOW: We never said that they are on the table. What's happening is that there's -- here's what's been going on. Hank Paulson, the Treasury Secretary, has been asked by the President to find out a way to work with members of Congress to deal with something everybody knows needs to be addressed, which is the Social Security system is unsustainable in the long run and, ultimately, unless somebody fixes it, it's going to betray old people and it's going to bankrupt young people. You've got to fix it.

The President has made it clear he doesn't want to raise taxes on Social Security, but he's also said, you got a better idea, let's hear it. The people have interpreted that as a way of saying, oh, there they are, they're going to go ahead and permit a back-door tax increase. So far we haven't heard of anybody proposing tax increases. We'll let the debate proceed. But you know what the President's bright lines are; he believes that it's important to have an investment component that allows people to take advantage of the far superior rates of return that one gets investing in the marketplace rather than any system like Social Security where, if the fund doesn't have the money you were promised to have, you don't get it. You've got no recourse. So it's important to deal with those problems.

Q Understood, but why don't you simply say, instead of, I'm not ruling it in or I'm not ruling it out, that it's being ruled out?

MR. SNOW: Well, think through it, John. It's interesting to see what people may have to propose and to listen to everybody's proposals. The President has already made his.

Q A follow-up question on it. The Financial Times reports today that the administration is more than considering raising the contributions that richer Americans -- and I'm quoting from the FT -- make to sustain Medicare. True or false?

MR. SNOW: I'm not aware of that. But -- I'm not aware of that.

Q Venezuela President Hugo Chavez said today he's going to nationalize the country's utilities -- utilities that have a significant American stake in them. Any response from the White House?

MR. SNOW: Well, nationalization has a long and inglorious history of failure around the world. We support the Venezuelan people and think this is an unhappy day for them.

Q Tony, this goes to your previous acknowledgment that the President is aware of public anxiety about the situation in Iraq. What would your guidance be to a public that has seen the President stand under a "Mission Accomplished" banner, proclaim an end to major combat operations, the Vice President talking about the "last throes" -- how should the public go into viewing this speech tomorrow?

MR. SNOW: I think the public ought to just listen to what the President has to say. You know that the "Mission Accomplished" banner was put up by members of the USS Abraham Lincoln. And the President, on that very speech, said just the opposite, didn't he? He said it was the end of major combat operations, but he did not say it was the end of operations. Instead, he cautioned people at the time that there would be considerable continued violence in Iraq, and that there would be continued operations for a long period of time. That single episode has been more widely mischaracterized than just about any aspect of the war.

Q We can debate whether the sign should have been there, whether the White House should have not had it there, but the fact is he stood under it and made the speech.

MR. SNOW: You're right, after people had been on a 17-month deployment, and had said "Mission Accomplished" when they're finally able to get back to their loved ones, the President didn't say, take down the sign, it will be bad. Instead what he did is he talked about the mission. And I would direct you back to the speech he gave then, Peter, because the President --

Q No, I know --

MR. SNOW: Well, then, you know that the President has made it clear that in a time of war you are going to have different phases and you're going to have different responsibilities. I think what the American people will ask themselves is, do we want to win this war? Do we understand what the costs and dangers of not succeeding in Iraq are? And do we think that this is a sensible way forward, given what we know?

The American people now know a lot more about Iraq and about the realities of the region than they did before. This is a serious plan that's got a lot in it. And I think the idea of sitting around and trying to sort of play polling questions or whatever is inviting, but it's a lot less interesting than asking yourself the simple, basic, important question: Do you think it's going to work?

Q I guess another way to ask the question, Tony, would be, why does the President find himself in a position right now to, as you put it, to have to bring the people back to the war?

MR. SNOW: Because what happened last year was the -- how should I put this -- the ignition of sectarian tensions, primarily in the Baghdad area, the vast majority of it a 35-mile radius around Baghdad. But it's the sort that has shaken the confidence of people within Baghdad and people around Iraq, because suddenly you have these groups engaged in a sectarian violence that they had not been engaged in before. And there had been great hopes just months before that, in fact, we would be in a position to be recalling people. So what happened is that there was a development that people had not fully anticipated. And I will allow the President to give his own analysis of the situation tomorrow, and you can judge it.

Q Tony, could you tell us how much it will cost a month to fight a war in Iraq under the President's new plan? Because I understand there's going to be a lot of initiatives to put Iraqis to work, to try to shore up --

MR. SNOW: It's a great way of trying to get me to divulge details before their time, so, no. But we'll get back to you.

Q Is this something that will impact the street? Is this is a significant increase in cost?

MR. SNOW: Okay, you want me, without details, to answer a question, will this move the street. You've got to be kidding me.

Q -- go into details.

MR. SNOW: Well, I know, and you know what, when we're ready to share the details, we'll share the details. I can't do it right now.

Q Tony, at least twice in this briefing you've said that the President would lay out how Iraq could become the definitive refutation of terrorism. What would make a democracy in Iraq more definitive than democracy in the United States, Britain, France, Israel, India, other places that are open societies that have been the subject of terrorism? What's the difference?

MR. SNOW: I think what's happening is that you have seen a deliberate attempt on the part of al Qaeda, and also on the part of players within the region, to try to use everything within their power to destroy that government in its infancy. That's different. The United States now has a long history of democracy. A number of other countries have long histories where they didn't have to work through these kinds of problems. This is one where it is clear that members of the terror network have decided that this is where they want to make an example, this is where they want to make a stand. And for that reason, success there would serve as, I won't say "the" definitive, but "a" definitive refutation of their tactics and aims.

Q I'd like to ask you a question -- we've danced around this a little bit -- the question here about "mission accomplished." Does the President worry at all about his own personal credibility as the messenger, as the person carrying this message? He has given a number of speeches, all of which were designed to tell the American people, I have a plan for victory. And I think that hasn't worked out the way he had hoped, and you're asking them to, again -- almost hear him again to say much the same thing.

MR. SNOW: Well, let me ask you -- I'll turn it at a different angle. If you had asked any other President in American history during a time of war whether they had a credibility problem because they had not foreseen changes on the battlefield, you probably would have had plenty of cause. I mean, Abraham Lincoln constantly guessed from Manassas straight through until the final months of the war. You had George Washington going from defeat to defeat to defeat to defeat to victory, and there was considerable consternation.

So there's the notion here that it is incumbent upon a President to have perfect knowledge of what the conditions on the battlefield are going to be. It's important for a President to have the determination to succeed. Winston Churchill -- was Winston Churchill responsible for the Blitz? What Winston Churchill did was talk about the conditions for victory. And the President, adjusting to constant changes on the battlefield, is adjusting and talking about conditions for victory, and that's the most important thing to do.

Q Tony, I apologize if this has been asked at some point before, but the President has clearly consulted with a wide variety of people on troop levels in Iraq. What happened to the statements that he had made for years that the people who decided troop levels in Iraq were the generals on the ground?

MR. SNOW: Well, he's talked to them, too. And as you probably know, generals are not of one mind. Generals are independent individuals, as well, and there are a number of opinions within the ranks of the military about this.

Q That "he's talked to them, too" is not good enough, because really what he had said previously was that those were the people who make the decisions, and those were the people that he was listening to. And now, very clearly, he's talking to people outside of the military, people on Capitol Hill, generals not in Iraq -- he's talking to a wide variety of people on the issue. What happened to this rule, a real hard and fast rule that he --

MR. SNOW: No, no, it wasn't a hard and fast rule. What he was trying to do was, again, talk about his confidence in generals, and he still has it and he still consults with --

Q Well, he --

MR. SNOW: Let me continue. There also, though, is -- every day I get questions, what about the polls, what about Congress? Well, guess what. When you're trying to build consensus -- now when what the President is trying to do here is lay the foundation for consensus, moving forward in Iraq, it is important to consult people and to take into account a wide variety of ideas so that you have taken advantage of every possible insight you can. It is obvious that the two Baghdad security plans didn't work. And, therefore, you have to ask yourself why, and, how do we move forward.

The other part is that you have to ask yourself, how can we work better with the Iraqis and how can we work better at making them effective? And that also entails a series of conversations with them.

So, in broadening -- and, furthermore, let me add, even before we got to this point, there were still regular invitations of people who had differing views on the region to come in, because the President, whether it is apparent to one and all, constantly takes a look at the situation and tries to assess and reassess and to figure out not merely how it impacts what's going on in Iraq, but within the neighborhood and within the broader diplomatic and economic community.

Q Was it a mistake in earlier years, then, to rely so strongly on the advice of generals in Iraq on troop levels?

MR. SNOW: The President asks for the advice of generals and others in the military on troop levels to enact policy recommendations that he himself has set. And he will continue to do so.

Q Tony, you were saying earlier that the President wants the American people and members of Congress to ask themselves the question, do we want to win in Iraq. Does the President want the Iraqi people to understand that his policy is also stating to them that their country is lost if this --

MR. SNOW: I think there are more positive ways of doing it. The Iraqis understand that it is important for them to step up and succeed. Again, the end point of this -- when we talk about the President's policy, what you're aiming at is an Iraqi government that's fully capable of handling all the responsibilities, from the rule of law to security to economic rules, and so on.

Q What message does he want them to take away --

MR. SNOW: Again, wait until tomorrow night, and you'll have an answer.

Q Is he going to address the Iraqi people directly?

MR. SNOW: As I said, just wait.

Q You may have already addressed this, but have you guys decided how you proceed after the speech? You have the Georgia event. Is that the start of a series of speeches out in the country? And also, do you continue consultations with members of Congress on how to implement what he's talking about?

MR. SNOW: As I said, on the procedural matters, I will allow you to wait and see what the President says tomorrow. We need a sock puppet for this now. (Laughter.) But the fact is that -- make it more interesting, at least briefly -- but let me -- he will be speaking to troops. And we're going to talk about this a lot. This is not, give one speech, dust your hands off and walk away. This is the beginning of an important process for the American people and for the political community to think seriously about it. So you're going to be hearing more about it, absolutely.

Q Will there be a military tour, though --

MR. SNOW: As I said, we'll release the schedule when the schedule is ready to be released.

Paula.

Q Does the White House have any comment on the universal health care plan that has been announced by the California Governor?

MR. SNOW: No. We tend to let states go ahead and make their own policies.

Q And Social Security -- a moment ago, you talked about how the President feels very strongly about the opportunity to have personal savings accounts, and that when you have these talks, that there's no preconditions set. So one of the ideas is to allow for these, but rather than have it carved out, to have it as an add on. So is this among the --

MR. SNOW: As I said, I'm not going to get into characterizing, A, because Hank Paulson is driving it, and, B, we're allowing anybody to say whatever they want. And we're not going to assess the President's conditions -- the President's proposals have been pretty clear, and now we want to see what other people have to put on the table.

Q Isn't there a difference between saying, we'll allow anyone to say what they want, or, the President is listening to your ideas, and actually incorporating any of those ideas?

MR. SNOW: Well, what's interesting is the President has made his proffer. If somebody else wants to put another proposal on the table --

Q Two related questions. One, the global war on terrorism started from Afghanistan, and now there is a war going on, global war between the two Presidents, President Karzai and President Musharraf, as far as border crossings are concerned, because Pakistan is saying that they want to build these land mines along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, and President Karzai is objecting to it --

MR. SNOW: Goyal, I'm not going to get into disputes between states, both of whom are allies. It is clear that the issue of border crossings is one of shared interest and concern, and it is important to make sure that terrorists are unable to -- that at least there's a greater capability of intercepting terrorists who try to make their way from the border regions into Pakistan.

Q And second, there are allied forces or NATO forces in Afghanistan that are angry at the British forces because British made a deal with the Taliban, and Assistant Secretary of State Mr. Richard Boucher also said that there is no need, there was no need for any negotiations with Taliban.

MR. SNOW: The Taliban is clearly trying to reorganize. Is has also been getting smashed in engagements with NATO forces in the southern parts of Afghanistan.

Les.

Q Tony, thank you. Two questions. Tomorrow Congressman Ted Poe, who, as you know, is a Republican --

MR. SNOW: No, I didn't, but thank you.

Q -- and from Texas -- he's also from Texas, -- will hold a news conference about the 250,000 petitions asking presidential pardon for U.S. Border Patrolmen facing 10 year prison sentences because they shot a fleeing Mexican drug-pusher in his buttocks. Does the White House believe that the White House believe that the President's fellow Texan and fellow Republican was wrong to do this?

MR. SNOW: I think -- you know Les, I thought I brought my points on that -- why don't you ask that -- because that will be entertaining to do tomorrow, and I want to get back to you on it. I thought I had packed that with my materials today, but I didn't.

Q The AP reports that the U.S. Army sent letters to 75 officers who were killed in action encouraging them to reconsider -- to consider returning to active duty. And while General Richard Cody has apologized for this computer error, there's no report of anyone being disciplined for this. And my question: What does the Commander-in-Chief of the Army have to say about this horrendous error, and about what else such computer errors could do?

MR. SNOW: I'd refer that to the Pentagon, Les.

Q Tony, how much did the Fielding appointment have to do with the expectation that there will be a number of congressional investigations?

MR. SNOW: No, everybody keeps trying to -- look, members of Congress are going to have to decide whether they want -- how they want to respond to the President's open and repeated offers to cooperate on key and important issues. We've also said that if people want to try to mount a series of investigations, we're going to be prepared. But Fred Fielding is a guy of enormous experience and competence. It is gratifying to have a guy of his quality coming into the White House. And he wants to come in because he sees this as a place where there's a lot of constructive work to be done over the next two years in the war on terror, on domestic policy, on judges and a number of other things. And as White House Legal Counsel, he's going to have a real hand in all of those things. That's the reason he expressed.

Q Tony, we haven't talked about Jack Abramoff in a long time, and there's a new photo showing him with the President.

MR. SNOW: The President said he didn't know Abramoff, wasn't buds, and my guess is there are plenty of photos around town with Jack Abramoff and Democrats and Republicans.

Q What about the change in interpreting entrance records to the White House as being the property of the White House and not of the Secret Service?

MR. SNOW: That is a fairly abstruse issue, and I will see if I can get you guidance from the Office of Legal Counsel. I don't want to tap dance around that. I'll try and get you a straight answer.

Thank you.

END 12:52 P.M. EST

For Immediate Release, Office of the Press Secretary, January 9, 2007

Technorati Tags: and or and , or and , or , and , or and or and or and or and or , or , or ,

Monday, January 08, 2007

Fred F. Fielding new White House counsel

A Commissioner on the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. Fred Fisher Fielding [DOB March 21, 1939] is senior partner and head of Wiley, Rein, & Fielding's Government Affairs, Business & Finance, Litigation and Crisis Management/White Collar Crime Practices. Fred F. Fielding, 202.719.7320 ffielding@wrf.com
From 1981-1986, he served as Counsel to the President of the United States, as deputy counsel from 1972-1974 and as Associate Counsel from 1970-1972. He also served as clearance counsel during the Bush-Cheney Presidential Transition. In addition to his public service as White House counsel, Fielding has served as the U.S.-designated arbitrator at the Tribunal on the U.S.-U.K. Air Treaty Dispute (1989-1994), as a member of the president's Commission on Federal Ethics Law Reform (1989) and as a member of the secretary of transportation's Task Force on Aviation Disasters, (1997-1998), as well as numerous other commissions.

He is a member of the District of Columbia and Pennsylvania Bars, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania; the District of Columbia Court of Appeals; U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia; U.S. Courts of Appeals for the D.C., Federal, First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Circuits; the U.S. Court of Military Appeals; and the U.S. Supreme Court. He holds an A.B., with honors, from Gettysburg College and a J.D. from the University of Virginia School of Law, where he served on the Editorial Board of the Virginia Law Review.

REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE
  • Counsel to the President of the United States, The White House (1981-1986); Deputy Counsel (1972-1974); Associate Counsel (1970-1972).
  • Commissioner, National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Against the United States (9/11 Commission) (2002-2004).
  • Member, Panel of Arbitrators of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (1987-1995, 2002-2007).
  • Member, President’s Commission on Federal Ethics Law Reform (1989).
  • U.S. Designated Arbitrator, Arbitration Tribunal on U.S.-U.K. Air Treaty Dispute (1989-1994).
  • Clearance Counsel, Bush-Cheney Presidential Transition (2000-2001).
  • Member, Secretary of Transportation’s Task Force on Aviation Disasters (1997-1998).
  • Member, National Panel of Distinguished Neutrals, CPR Institute for Dispute Resolution (2000-Present).
  • Chairman, Board of Directors, National Legal Center for the Public Interest (2002-Present).
  • Vice-Chairman, Board of Directors, Ethics Resource Center (1993-Present).
  • Trustee, Gettysburg College (1998-Present).
  • Chairman, Compliance Committee and Member, Board of Directors, Virginia Hospital Center (1994-Present).
  • Chair, Board of Directors, Eisenhower Institute (1999-Present).
ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIPS
  • Director, American Bar Association, Central and East European Law Initiative (2002-Present).
  • Member, American Bar Association, Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary (1996-2002).
  • Former Director, Bar Association of the District of Columbia.
AFFILIATIONS
  • Member, Barristers Club.
  • Member, Lawyers Club.
  • Member, Judicial Conference of the District of Columbia.
HONORS & AWARDS
  • Awarded Medal of Honor, Gettysburg College (2005).
  • Recognized as a “Top Criminal Defense Lawyer” and “Top Appointments Lawyer” by Washingtonian magazine (2004).
  • Named “Lawyer of the Year” by the Bar Association of the District of Columbia (2004).
  • Selected by the District of Columbia Bar as a “Legend in the Law” for professional prominence and individual impact on the law and legal profession in Washington, DC (January 2001).
  • Recognized as one of "The Best Lawyers in America” for commercial litigation and government relations law (1996-2007).
Technorati Tags: and or and or and or and or and

Lieutenant General David H. Petraeus (Biography)

04/08/08 - Petraeus & Crocker Testify - Windows Media. FULL STREAMING VIDEO

Lieutenant General David H. Petraeus. U.S. Army Training and Doctrine CommandLieutenant General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, U.S. Army, Combined Arms Center and Fort Leavenworth.

Commandant, U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, Deputy Commanding General for Combined Arms, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command. Director, Joint Center for International Security Force Assistance.
Lieutenant General David H. Petraeus assumed command of the U.S. Army Combined Arms Center and Fort Leavenworth on October 20th, 2005 following deployment in Iraq as the first commander of the Multi-National Security Transition Command – Iraq, which he led from June 2004 to September 2005, and the NATO Training Mission – Iraq, which he commanded from October 2004 to September 2005. Prior to that deployment, he commanded the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), leading the “Screaming Eagles” in combat during the first year of Operation Iraqi Freedom. His command of the 101st followed a year deployed on Operation Joint Forge in Bosnia, where he was the Assistant Chief of Staff for Operations of the NATO Stabilization Force and the Deputy Commander of the US Joint Interagency Counter-Terrorism Task Force – Bosnia. Prior to his tour in Bosnia, he spent two years at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, serving first as the Assistant Division Commander for Operations of the 82nd Airborne Division and then as the Chief of Staff of XVIII Airborne Corps.

Lieutenant General Petraeus was commissioned in the Infantry upon graduation from the United States Military Academy in 1974. He has held leadership positions in airborne, mechanized, and air assault infantry units in Europe, the Middle East, and the United States, including command of a battalion in the 101st Airborne Division and a brigade in the 82nd Airborne Division. In addition, he has held a number of staff assignments: Aide to the Chief of Staff of the Army; service as a battalion, brigade, and division operations officer; Military Assistant to the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe; Chief of Operations of the United Nations Force in Haiti; and Executive Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Lieutenant General Petraeus was the General George C. Marshall Award winner as the top graduate of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College Class of 1983. He subsequently earned MPA and Ph.D. degrees in international relations from Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, and later served as an Assistant Professor of International Relations at the US Military Academy. He also completed a fellowship at Georgetown University.

Awards and decorations earned by General Petraeus include the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, the Distinguished Service Medal, two awards of the Defense Superior Service Medal, four awards of the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star Medal for valor, the State Department Superior Honor Award, the NATO Meritorious Service Medal, and the Gold Award of the Iraqi Order of the Date Palm. He is a Master Parachutist and is Air Assault and Ranger qualified. He has also earned the Combat Action Badge and French, British, and German Jump Wings. In the fall of 2005, he was recognized by the U.S. News and World Report as one of America’s 25 Best Leaders.

LTG Petraeus and his wife have two children, a son and a daughter.

Last Reviewed: September 25, 2006

RELATED:
Technorati Tags: and or and , or and

Condoleezza Rice, South Korean Minister, Song Min-Soon (VIDEO)

Secretary Rice welcomes His Excellency Song Min-Soon,  Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade of the Republic of Korea.  State Department photo by Michael GrossCondoleezza Rice, South Korean Minister, Song Min-Soon - FULL STREAMING VIDEO, Meeting With South Korean Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Song Min-Soon, Secretary Condoleezza Rice, Remarks to the press following meeting, Washington, DC. January 5, 2007, (1:35 p.m. EST)
SECRETARY RICE: Good afternoon. I would like to welcome Foreign Minister Song. Min-Soon, it's very good to have you here. We have had a very good and extensive discussion of many global and regional issues. I think it is fair to say that we have few better friends and stronger relations around the world than with the Republic of Korea where we maintain a strong political relationship, a strong economic relationship and a strong defense relationship which contributes greatly I think to peace and security in the Asia Pacific region.

We have also had an opportunity to talk about the shared values that really are the pillar on which this relationship is built. And in particular I would like to thank Minister Song and the Korean people for the commitment that South Korea is making to democracy and to the forward march of freedom of the Iraqi people with the deployment of South Korean forces there. And we of course, talked about events in Iraq. We've also, of course, had a discussion of regional issues, our own defense relationship. We've talked about the six-party talks and about the importance of a favorable North Korean response to proposals that were made during that talk. It is obviously very important for the North Koreans to live up to the obligations that they undertook in the September 19, 2005 agreement for the verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

We've talked also about our economic relationships, our desire to move forward with an FTA. So all in all, we've had a very good talk and thank you very much for coming. I want to -- I should say that I'm welcoming you for the first time as foreign minister, although we have talked many times when you were national security advisor. So congratulations also on your appointment to your new post.

FOREIGN MINISTER SONG: Well, thank you, Secretary Rice, for a warm welcome. As Secretary mentioned, we discussed a variety of issues, our common interests, starting from Korean Peninsula and over to Middle East and the trade issues and others. We just assessed that the ROK-U.S. alliance is developing into a form suitable for our future common needs and desire and this security relation is developed, transforming itself into a more robust and resilient shape. We have been talking about restructuring the forces, relocation of U.S. forces, moving as planned with some adjustments. And we talked about this North Korean nuclear issue. We assess that the last six round -- last six-party talks in Beijing laid the groundwork for our next round of talks in which we see, we hope, some progress as Secretary mentioned. It is North Korea's turn to come back to us with a positive and realistic response to the proposals tabled in Beijing at the last rounds, which it was made in close coordination between Seoul and Washington.

We -- Secretary Rice and I agreed that we are prepared to take proactive and forthcoming measures in case North Korea comes to us with some realistic response to the proposals made last month. And we also agreed to encourage the others of the parties in the six-party talks to take a further constructive role in drawing an implementation plan of September 19th joint statement of six-party talks through which we can denuclearize Korean Peninsula and establish a peaceful regime on the Korean Peninsula. As well, we can move ahead for a regional security cooperation. With that shared vision, we -- Secretary Rice agreed to work further harder to achieve the goal.

And so we also talked about this free trade agreement in the negotiation now should reach a high-level goal, a sort of high-level of FTA so that we can have good, comprehensive trade instruments for our two countries. We also talked about the Visa Waiver Program and we have agreed on the roadmap how to reach Visa agreement in working level. And according to this roadmap, we hope we can reach the goal we are aiming at.

Well, once again, Secretary Rice, thank you very much for your warm welcome in our first meeting in this year and then I would like to extend my blessing for a Happy New Year for all of you. Thank you.

QUESTION: Foreign Minister, if I may, is North Korea making preparations for another nuclear test? When do you suppose the six-party talks will begin? Will they begin, whatever North Korea does, and how might a test affect the outcome of those talks?

FOREIGN MINISTER SONG: Well, first of all, we do not have any indication that that kind of test is imminent. Republic of Korea and the United States are in good cooperation to closely watch what's going on in these kind of activities in the North Korea.

SECRETARY RICE: And I would just say that obviously, we're in very close coordination. We don't see -- I'm not going to speak about intelligence information, but we don't see any change in the circumstances that we currently face. Obviously, there's a political issue here and I think the most important -- really, the most important assessment is the political assessment and the North Koreans would have to know that any such test would obviously further deepen their isolation. The last test, of course, got them a Chapter 7 resolution which was a 15-0 vote and fairly extensive sanctions. So I don't think that from the North Koreans' point of view this would seem to be a reasonable course, and obviously the reasonable course is to return to the six-party talks. And I think the answer, Barry, to when the six-party talks should reconvene is we'll continue to assess that among the participants and assess it with the Chinese. And when we think that there is some prospect of success, I think we'll be prepared to return and return quickly.

QUESTION: Thank you. My question is to both Secretary Rice and Minister Song. Obviously, the Banco Delta Asia issue seems to be the major stumbling block in the progress of the six-party talks. To your understanding, what is it exactly that North Korea wants the U.S. to do, being that it's a financial measure, a legal measure? What is it exactly that the U.S. can do to resolve this issue? What is your understanding that you can do to resolve that?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, thank you. I would not -- I don't think that the Banco Delta Asia is the major stumbling block in the six-party talks. The major stumbling block is the question of whether or not the North Koreans are, in fact, committed to denuclearization, as they signed onto on September 19th of 2005. That's the issue. The Banco Delta Asia issue, the financial measures, relates to a legal issue for the United States of illicit activities that the North has been engaged in, including the counterfeiting of our currency. And that just can't be accepted by any government.

And so we made an offer and the North Koreans have, in fact, taken up that offer to have on the parallel, on the margins of the six-party talks, to have a working group that the Treasury Department heads in which these issues can be addressed, in which information can be made known and in which, if there is to be a resolution, that could be pursued. But that is the proper channel in which to look at what is, from our point of view, a very serious legal matter. The denuclearization agreement is an agreement among six parties dating back to 2005, and that should be resolved on its own merits. But of course, as I said, there is a channel in which to address the Banco Delta Asia and we are fully prepared to address it within the context that it is a legal matter for the United States.

FOREIGN MINISTER SONG: Well, we welcome that the working level people, the experts on these banking matters, met in the margin of the six-party talks and also they are ready to continue the talks sometime late this month. We think that this BDA issue should be handled in parallel with the denuclearization talks. We had better not mix them. But in case North Korea is really poised to go ahead in this denuclearization process, not putting this BDA issue in front of the process, then they have to solve the problem within the context of the banking matters itself, not linked to the implementation of the joint statements in September 19, 2005. But in this regard we still encourage the North Koreans come along with some ideas how to convince the others that the suspected illicit activities will not be repeated or not continue in the years.

Well, on balance, we hope quick results of the talks between the experts on the banking matters.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, we were told this morning that if North Korea were to conduct another test there would be severe consequences to the six-party process. What would those severe consequences be? Would you look for another resolution with tougher sanctions? And we were also told that there were some signs that the talks, the six-party talks, could resume even this month. Do you see any such signs?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, on the second matter, there is intensive discussion among the parties about the resumption of the six-party talks, because I don't want to leave the wrong impression about the last round. We did not make the progress that I think we would have liked and we believe that the North Koreans need to come in a more constructive spirit. But that does not mean that there were not very productive discussions that went on during that round that concluded in Beijing on the 22nd of December. I think that because of some of the groundwork that was laid there, if the North Koreans are prepared to demonstrate that they are, indeed, now prepared to come with a constructive response we could be back at six-party talks fairly soon. So I want to be clear that while we didn't achieve an outcome there that I think we all wanted, I don't think that by any means the round was without some productive effort and some productive discussions among the parties.

I am not going to speculate on what might happen if the North Koreans tested a nuclear weapon again. I think it doesn't -- it really doesn't help to speculate on such matters. I would just note that I don't think there's any doubt that it would deepen their isolation because the first test clearly deepened their isolation with a 15-0 vote on a very tough Chapter 7 resolution in the Security Council.

FOREIGN MINISTER SONG: Well, if I can add one more point on that. The North Korea has to know that nuclear weapon does not guarantee its security nor help in resolving its economic problems. They have to come back to the talks and denuclearize the Peninsula and get a wide opening for their country in the future.

QUESTION: My question is to Secretary Rice. Since last six-party talks in Beijing, have there been any responses from North Korea as long as you know? Just this morning the State Department announced that it expects that next round of six-party talks will resume some time this month. So on what grounds can you say that? Thank you.

SECRETARY RICE: Well, thank you. Look, I think it's very important that the parties be able to discuss matters without airing them in public. And I will say that we have been in very intensive discussions with our partners in the six-party talks. I know of no substantive response from the North Koreans but there are parties in the six-party talks who are talking to them and discussing it. And obviously what we want to do is to find a way to assess when it is time to go back to the six-party talks. And I think that one of the reasons that you're hearing some sense that we might be able to return sooner than later is that when you look at what happened in the last round of the talks, there actually was significant groundwork laid for potential outcomes that could be useful. I don't mean that we're going to resolve the North Korean nuclear problem in the next round, but there were some productive discussions among parties.

And because of those productive discussions, I think if there are signals that, in fact, the North is now ready to come back in a more constructive way, as Minister Song put it, recognizing that there's a BDA issue that is being addressed in a channel that is appropriate to discussing a banking issue, the North Koreans can understand that and are ready to come back in a constructive way, I do think that we could be back in talks fairly soon.

But I think we don't want to sign onto a specific date until we have properly prepared the ground for the next round of talks. Thank you very much. Thank you.

FOREIGN MINISTER SONG: Thank you.

SECRETARY RICE: Happy New Year, everyone.

# # # Released on January 5, 2007

Technorati Tags: and or and , or and or , or and ,, or

Sunday, January 07, 2007

New source of stem cells

Mouse embryonic stem cells, This image is a work of a National Science Foundation employee, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain.Scientists discover new, readily available source of stem cells.

WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. -- Scientists have discovered a new source of stems cells and have used them to create muscle, bone, fat, blood vessel, nerve and liver cells in the laboratory.
The first report showing the isolation of broad potential stem cells from the amniotic fluid that surrounds developing embryos was published today in Nature Biotechnology.

"Our hope is that these cells will provide a valuable resource for tissue repair and for engineered organs as well," said Anthony Atala, M.D., senior researcher and director of the Institute for Regenerative Medicine at Wake Forest University School of Medicine.

Atala announced the breakthrough with colleagues from Wake Forest University School of Medicine and Harvard Medical School.

"It has been known for decades that both the placenta and amniotic fluid contain multiple progenitor cell types from the developing embryo, including fat, bone, and muscle," said Atala. "We asked the question, 'Is there a possibility that within this cell population we can capture true stem cells?' The answer is yes."

Atala and colleagues discovered a small number of stem cells in amniotic fluid – estimated at 1 percent – that can give rise to many of the specialized cell types found in the human body. The scientists believe the newly discovered stem cells, which they have named amniotic fluid-derived stem (AFS) cells, may represent an intermediate stage between embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells. They have markers consistent with both cell types.

"It took this long to verify that we had a true stem cell," said Atala, who began the work seven years ago. "These cells are capable of extensive self-renewal, a defining property of stem cells. They also can be used to produce a broad range of cells that may be valuable for therapy."

An advantage of the AFS cells for potential medical applications is their ready availability. The report describes how the cells were harvested from backup amniotic fluid specimens obtained for amniocentesis, a procedure that examines cells in this fluid for prenatal diagnosis of certain genetic disorders. Similar stem cells were isolated from "afterbirth," the placenta and other membranes that are expelled after delivery.

Atala said a bank with 100,000 specimens theoretically could supply 99 percent of the U.S. population with perfect genetic matches for transplantation. There are more than 4 million live births each year in the United States.

In addition to being easily obtainable, the AFS cells can be grown in large quantities because they typically double every 36 hours. They also do not require guidance from other cells (termed "feeders") and they do not produce tumors, which can occur with certain other types of stem cells. The scientists noted that specialized cells generated from the AFS cells included all three classes of cells found in the developing embryo - termed ectoderm, mesoderm, and endoderm. In their high degree of flexibility and growth potential, the AFS cells resemble human embryonic stem cells, which are believed capable of generating every type of adult cell.

"The full range of cells that AFS cells can give rise to remains to be determined," said Atala. "So far, we've been successful with every cell type we've attempted to produce from these stem cells. The AFS cells can also produce mature cells that meet tests of function, which suggests their therapeutic value."

The functional tests included implanting neural cells created from AFS cells into mice with a degenerative brain disease. The cells grew and "re-populated" the diseased areas. In addition, bone cells produced from the stem cells were successfully used to grow bony tissue in mice, and liver cells were able to secrete urea, which the liver produces from ammonia.

The potential to generate a broad range of mature cell types is why many scientists believe stem cells have promise to replace damaged cells and tissue in conditions such as spinal cord injuries, diabetes, Alzheimer's disease and stroke. ###

Embargoed for Release at 1 p.m. ET on Sunday, Jan. 7, 2007

Co-researchers were Paolo De Coppi, M.D., Georg Bartsch Jr., M.D., M. Minhaj Siddiqui, M.D., Tao Xu, Ph.D., Cesar C. Santos, M.D., Laura Perin, Ph.D., James J. Yoo, M.D., Ph.D., Mark E. Furth, Ph.D., and Shay Soker, Ph.D., all with Wake Forest University, and Gustavo Mostoslavsky, Ph.D., Evan Y. Snyder M.D., and Angéline C. Serre, all with Harvard Medical School.

Media Contact: Shannon Koontz, shkoontz@wfubmc.edu, at 336-716-4587.

Interviews: Requests for individual interviews are welcome. In addition, a one-hour teleconference will be held from 2:30 to 3:30 p.m. EST on Friday, Jan. 5. To join the conference, dial (800) 230-1951 (USA), or (612) 332-1213 (International calls.) Ask for the "Dr. Atala Briefing." Digitized replay of the conference will be available at 6 p.m. EST by dialing (800) 475-6701 (USA) or (320) 365-3844 (International) and using Access Code: 857490.

TV News Editors: Broadcast-quality SOTs and B-roll are available for overnight delivery. To request a BetaSP or MiniDV copy, contact Diane Stephens, dsstephe@wfubmc.edu, (336) 716-6906. Please give your name, shipping address, phone number, and videotape format preference. We have an on-campus studio with a fiber-to-satellite uplink for live interviews. Page us at 336-716-4434 for more information.

Photos (high-resolution) are also available. Please contact us for details.

Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center is an academic health system comprised of North Carolina Baptist Hospital and Wake Forest University Health Sciences, which operates the university's School of Medicine. Wake Forest University School of Medicine ranks 35th in research funding by the National Institutes of Health. Almost 150 members of the medical school faculty are listed in Best Doctors in America.

Contact: Karen Richardson krchrdsn@wfubmc.edu 336-716-4453 Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center

Technorati Tags: and or and and or and or and

Saturday, January 06, 2007

Freedom Calendar 01/06/07 - 01/13/07

January 6, 1874, African-American U.S. Rep. Robert B. Elliott (R-SC) delivers eloquent hour-long speech supporting Republicans’ civil rights bill.

January 7, 1922, Death of Republican Jonah Kalanianaole, native Hawaiian who served as Delegate in U.S. Congress for 19 years.

January 8, 1867, Republicans override Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of law granting voting rights to African-Americans in D.C.

January 9, 1890, Death of abolitionist and U.S. Rep. William Kelley (R-PA), outspoken advocate of equality for African-Americans.

January 10, 1878, U.S. Senator Aaron Sargent (R-CA) introduces Susan B. Anthony amendment for women’s suffrage; Democrat-controlled Senate defeated it 4 times before election of Republican House and Senate guaranteed its approval in 1919.

January 11, 2001, Republican Elaine Chao, first Asian-American woman to hold a cabinet position, nominated as U.S. Secretary of Labor.

January 12, 1956, Jewish Republican Simon Sobeloff, who as U.S. Solicitor General argued President Eisenhower’s position against segregation in Brown v. Board of Education, appointed to U.S. Court of Appeals 13

January 13, 2003, Jennette Bradley (R-OH) becomes first African-American woman to be Lt. Governor of a state.

"I joined for different reasons. I found a party that sees me as an individual, not as part of a group. I found a party that puts family first. I found a party that has love of liberty at its core. And I found a party that believes that peace begins with strength.”

“It’s that expression of the individual and a willingness to put the educational opportunities before me that led to who I am. Who you are is who you are as an individual.”


Condoleezza Rice Secretary of State

Technorati Tags: and or and or and or and or and or or and or

Presidential Podcast 01/06/07

Presidential Podcast 01/06/07 en Español
Click here to Subscribe to Our Republican National Convention Blog Podcast Channel with Odeo Subscribe to Our Odeo or Click here to Subscribe to Our Republican National Convention Blog Podcast Channel with Podnova podnova Podcast Channel and receive the weekly Presidential Radio Address in English and Spanish with select State Department Briefings. Featuring real audio and full text transcripts, More content Sources added often so stay tuned.

Technorati Tags: and or and or and or and or and

Bush radio address 01/06/07 full audio, text transcript

President George W. Bush calls troops from his ranch in Crawford, Texas, Thanksgiving Day, Thursday, Nov. 24, 2005. White House photo by Eric Draper.bush radio address 01/06/07 full audio, text transcript. PODCAST and, President's Radio Address en Español.
Click here to Subscribe to Our Republican National Convention Blog Podcast Channel with Odeo Subscribe to Our Odeo or Click here to Subscribe to Republican National Convention Blog's PODCAST with podnova podnova Podcast Channel and receive the weekly Presidential Radio Address in English and Spanish with select State Department Briefings. Featuring real audio and full text transcripts, More content Sources added often so stay tuned.

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Earlier this week, the newly elected members of the House and the Senate took their oaths of office and became part of the 110th Congress. I congratulate them all, and I look forward to working with them over the next two years.

Since the November elections, I've had a number of productive meetings with the new leaders in Congress, including Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Leader John Boehner, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. I was encouraged by our discussions, and I'm confident that we can find common ground in our efforts to serve our fellow citizens and to move our country forward.

One area where we are already finding agreement is in our effort to spend the people's money wisely. This week, I announced that I will submit a five-year budget proposal that will balance the federal budget by 2012, while making the tax relief we passed permanent. Some Democrats have indicated that balancing the budget is a top priority for them as well. By holding the line on spending and continuing our pro-growth policies, we can balance the budget and address the most urgent needs of our Nation, which are winning the war on terror and maintaining a strong national defense, keeping our economy growing, and creating jobs.

We also see bipartisan agreement emerging on reforming the earmark process in Congress. Earmarks are spending provisions that are often slipped into bills at the last minute -- so they rarely get debated or discussed. Many earmarks divert precious funds away from vital priorities like national defense and education to wasteful pork-barrel projects. I appreciate Democratic leaders who have pledged to maintain our current levels of spending without additional earmarks this year. And I support the temporary moratorium on all new earmarks announced by the Democrats.

This is a good start, but I believe we can do more. This week, I proposed my own earmark reforms, which would make the earmark process more transparent, end the practice of concealing earmarks in so-called report language never included in legislation, and cut the number and costs of earmarks by at least half. These common-sense reforms will help prevent billions of taxpayers' dollars from being spent on unnecessary earmarks.

Another area where Democrats and Republicans can work together is in the effort to improve our schools. We have done so before. In my first year as President, Democrats and Republicans saw that our schools were failing too many students, so we worked together to pass the No Child Left Behind Act. This good law gave our schools new resources -- and in return, we asked them to show results. By setting high standards and measuring student progress, we're holding schools accountable for teaching every student to read, write, add, and subtract.

Since No Child Left Behind was passed, we have seen major improvements in student achievement all across America. In reading, nine-year-olds have made larger gains in the last five years of the test than in the previous 28 years. In math, nine-year-olds and 13-year-olds earned the highest scores in the history of the test. And in both reading and math, African-American and Hispanic students are scoring higher and starting to close the achievement gap.

This year the No Child Left Behind Act is up for reauthorization. I'm confident that both parties can work together to help our Nation's students. By reauthorizing this important legislation, we can help make our schools a gateway to opportunity for every child.

With this new Congress and new year, Democrats and Republicans will have many opportunities to serve the American people. We must rise to meet those opportunities and build a stronger and more compassionate Nation for generations to come.

Thank you for listening.

END, For Immediate Release, January 6, 2007

Technorati Tags: and or and or and or and or and

Discurso Radial del Presidente a la Nación 01/06/07

Presidente George W. Bush llama a tropas de su rancho en Crawford, Tejas, día de Thanksgiving, jueves, de noviembre el 24 de 2005.  Foto blanca de la casa de Eric Draper.forre el audio de la dirección de radio 01/06/07 por completo, transcripción del texto. (nota de los redactores: ninguna lengua española mp3 lanzó esta semana, apesadumbrada) PODCAST

Discurso Radial del Presidente. en Español
Chascar aquí para suscribir a nuestro canal republicano de Blog Podcast de la convención nacional con Odeo Suscribir a nuestro canal de Podcast de Odeo o del podnova Chascar aquí para suscribir a nuestro canal republicano de Blog Podcast de la convención nacional con Podnova y recibir la dirección de radio presidencial semanal en inglés y español con informes selectos del departamento del estado. Ofreciendo transcripciones audio y con texto completo verdaderas, más fuentes contentas agregaron a menudo así que la estancia templó.

Buenos Días.

A principios de esta semana, los miembros recientemente elegidos a la Cámara de Representantes y al Senado juramentaron y pasaron a formar parte del 110° Congreso. Los felicito a todos y espero trabajar con ellos durante los próximos dos años.

Desde las elecciones en Noviembre, he tenido varias reuniones productivas con los nuevos líderes del Congreso – incluyendo a la Presidenta de la Cámara de Representantes Nancy Pelosi… el Líder Minoritario en la Cámara John Boehner… el Líder de la Mayoría del Senado Harry Reid… y el Líder Minoritario del Senado Mitch McConnell. Me sentí alentado por nuestras discusiones. Y confío en que podamos encontrar un terreno común en nuestros esfuerzos por servir a nuestros conciudadanos y hacer que nuestro país siga adelante.

Un área en la cual ya estamos encontrando acuerdo es nuestro esfuerzo por gastar sabiamente el dinero de nuestro pueblo. Esta semana anuncié que someteré una propuesta de presupuesto por cinco años para equilibrar el presupuesto federal para el año 2012, al mismo tiempo haciendo que el alivio tributario que aprobamos sea permanente. Algunos Demócratas han indicado que para ellos también es una alta prioridad el equilibrar el presupuesto. Al controlar los gastos y seguir con nuestras políticas pro-crecimiento, podemos equilibrar el presupuesto y responder a las necesidades más urgentes de nuestra Nación – que son ganar la guerra contra el terror y mantener una defensa nacional fuerte… mantener a nuestra economía en crecimiento y crear empleos.

También vemos surgir un acuerdo bipartito sobre la reforma del proceso de designar fondos en el Congreso. Los fondos designados son asignaciones para gastos que suelen incluirse en proyectos de ley al último momento – de modo que rara vez son debatidos o discutidos. Muchos fondos designados desvían valiosos fondos de prioridades vitales como la defensa nacional y la educación a proyectos llamados “pork barrel” o “barril de tocino” que son poco económicos. Aprecio a los líderes Demócratas que se han comprometido a mantener nuestros actuales niveles de gastos este año sin fondos designados adicionales. Y apoyo el moratorio temporal sobre nuevos fondos designados anunciado por los Demócratas.

Este es un buen comienzo, pero considero que podemos hacer más. Esta semana propuse mis propias reformas al proceso de los fondos designados que lo harían más transparente… terminarían con la práctica de ocultar los fondos designados en el llamado lenguaje de informes que nunca se incluye en la legislación… y cortarían el número y los costos de los fondos designados en por lo menos la mitad. Estas reformas de sentido común ayudarán a evitar que miles de millones de dólares de los contribuyentes sean gastados en fondos designados innecesarios.

Otra área donde los Demócratas y los Republicanos pueden trabajar juntos es en el esfuerzo para mejorar nuestras escuelas. Lo hemos hecho en el pasado. En mi primer año como Presidente, los Demócratas y los Republicanos vieron que nuestras escuelas estaban reprobando a demasiados alumnos. Por lo cual colaboramos para aprobar la Ley Ningún Niño se Quede Atrás. Esta buena ley dio nuevos recursos a nuestras escuelas – y, a cambio, les pedimos que mostraran resultados. Al fijar normas elevadas y medir el progreso de los estudiantes, hacemos que las escuelas se responsabilicen por enseñarle a todo estudiante a leer, escribir, sumar y restar.

Desde que fue aprobada la ley Ningún Niño se Quede Atrás, hemos visto grandes mejoras en los logros estudiantiles en todo Estados Unidos. En lectura, los niños de nueve años han tenido mayores mejoras en los últimos cinco años de la prueba que en los últimos 28 años. En matemáticas los niños de nueve años y de trece años obtuvieron los puntajes más elevados en la historia de la prueba. Y en lectura como en matemáticas los estudiantes afro-americanos e hispanos están obteniendo resultados más altos – y comenzando a cerrar la brecha de logros.

Este año debe ser reautorizada la Ley Ningún Niño se Quede Atrás. Confío en que ambos partidos puedan colaborar para ayudar a los estudiantes de nuestra Nación. Reautorizando esta legislación importante, podemos ayudar a que nuestras escuelas sean para cada niño un portal hacia la oportunidad.

Con este nuevo Congreso y Nuevo Año, los Demócratas y Republicanos tendrán muchas oportunidades para servir al pueblo de Estados Unidos. Debemos estar a la altura para aprovechar esas oportunidades y crear una Nación más fuerte y más compasiva para las generaciones venideras.

Gracias por escuchar.

Para su publicación inmediata, Oficina del Secretario de Prensa, 6 de enero de 2007

Etiquetas De Technorati: , y , o y , o , o y o

Friday, January 05, 2007

President Nominates John Negroponte, Admiral Mike McConnell (VIDEO)

President Bush Nominates John Negroponte as Deputy Secretary of State and Vice Admiral Mike McConnell as Director of National Intelligence, FULL STREAMING VIDEO, The Roosevelt Room, 9:45 A.M. EST Fact Sheet: John Negroponte and Mike McConnell: The Right Choices for Deputy Secretary of State and Director of National Intelligence,

President George W. Bush nominates John Negroponte as Deputy Secretary of State, left, and Vice Admiral Mike McConnell as Director of National Intelligence during an announcement in the Roosevelt Room Friday, Jan. 5, 2007. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is pictured at left. White House photo by Paul Morse.THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Vice President, thank you. Madam Secretary, thank you for joining us. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the White House. I am pleased to announce that I intend to nominate Ambassador John Negroponte to be our next Deputy Secretary of State,
and Vice Admiral Mike McConnell to be America's next Director of National Intelligence

Under the leadership of Secretary Rice, the men and women of the State Department are working to expand freedom and defend America's interests around the world. The Deputy Secretary of State is a key role in shaping American foreign policy and in guiding our diplomats deployed around the globe. The Deputy Secretary also helps our nation's chief diplomat manage the State Department, and helps coordinate with other federal agencies so that America speaks to the world with one voice.

I have asked John Negroponte to serve in this vital position at this crucial moment. John Negroponte knows the State Department well. After all, he started there in 1960 as a Foreign Service Officer in the administration of President Eisenhower. In the four-and-a-half decades since, he has served our nation in eight Foreign Service posts, spanning three continents. He served as Deputy National Security Advisor to President Reagan. He represented America at the United Nations. He served as our first ambassador to a free Iraq. And for nearly two years, John has done a superb job as America's first Director of National Intelligence.

John Negroponte's broad experience, sound judgment and expertise on Iraq and in the war on terror make him a superb choice as Deputy Secretary of State, and I look forward to working with him in this new post.

Ambassador Negroponte leaves big shoes to fill as the Director of National Intelligence. The DNI has become a core part of our national security team. The DNI determines the national intelligence budget, overseas the collection and analysis of intelligence information, ensures that intelligence agencies share information with each other, and creates common standards for intelligence community personnel. The vigilance of the DNI helps keep the American people safe from harm.

Admiral Mike McConnell has the experience, the intellect, and the character to succeed in this position. He served as Director of the National Security Agency during the 1990s. He was the intelligence officer for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the liberation of Kuwait in Operation Desert Storm. Admiral McConnell has decades of experience, ensuring that our military forces had the intelligence they need to fight and win wars.

He's worked with the Congress and with the White House to strengthen our defenses against threats to our information systems. He has earned our nation's highest award for service in the intelligence community. As DNI, Mike will report directly to me, and I am confident he will give me the best information and analysis that America's intelligence community can provide.

I thank John and Mike for taking on these new challenges. I appreciate their service to our country. Each of them will do good work in their new positions. And it is vital they take up their new responsibilities promptly. I'm confident the United States Senate will also see the value of these two serving in crucial positions. And I would hope that they would be confirmed as quickly as possible.

Congratulations to you both. Thank you very much.

AMBASSADOR NEGROPONTE: Thank you very much, Mr. President, Mr. Vice President, Secretary Rice, Admiral McConnell. It's been a great honor, Mr. President, to serve as your first Director of National Intelligence. I will always be grateful to you for having given me the opportunity to help achieve the goals that you and the Congress set for intelligence reform.

During the past 20 months, I believe that our intelligence community has embraced the challenge of functioning as a single unified enterprise, and reaffirmed the fact that it is the best intelligence community in the world, second to none. That's to the credit of the hundreds -- the thousands of intelligence professionals who serve this nation around the globe, many in harm's way. They and their families make great sacrifices to keep America safe. It has been a privilege to lead them, and it is because of them that I leave the post of the Director of National Intelligence with regret.

But I am heartened to know that the intelligence community now will be led by Admiral Mike McConnell, a man whose exceptional accomplishments as an intelligence professional will ensure wise stewardship and success as the Director of National Intelligence. Admiral McConnell will continue to drive forward the reforms we have initiated, fully integrating the domestic, foreign and military dimensions of our national intelligence enterprise.

Now for someone who started his career as a junior foreign service officer in October of 1960, the position, Mr. President, to which you are now nominating me is a -- an opportunity of a lifetime. If confirmed by the Senate as Deputy Secretary of State, I look forward to supporting Secretary Rice in carrying out your foreign policy goals. I particularly welcome the opportunity to help her provide leadership to the thousands of Americans and foreign nationals who work in the Department of State here in the United States, and in the more than 270 embassies, consulates, and diplomatic missions the Department maintains overseas.

Whether in Baghdad, Kabul, Kosovo, or elsewhere, these dedicated professionals are on the front line of advancing America's commitment to freedom. It will be a great privilege for me to come home to the Department where I began my career and rejoin a community of colleagues whose work is so important and of whom the nation is so justly proud.

Thank you very much.

THE PRESIDENT: Good job. Thank you. Michael.

VICE ADMIRAL McCONNELL: Mr. President, Mr. Vice President, Secretary Rice, Ambassador. Thank you very much, sir, for your kind remarks and your vote of confidence in asking me to become your second Director of National Intelligence. If confirmed by the Senate, I look forward to serving you, Mr. President, the nation's senior leadership and all the great men and women of our national security and homeland security communities.

I understand these people rely on timely and useful intelligence every day. After spending most of my adult life in the intelligence community, focused on getting the right information to the right decision-maker in the right time and format, I'm excited about returning.

Fortunately, my work over the past 10 years after leaving government has allowed me to stay focused on the national security and intelligence communities as a strategist and as a consultant. Therefore, in many respects, I never left. I have followed the issues and the initiatives, and I hope to be quickly and directly relevant to build on the many accomplishments of Ambassador Negroponte and his team.

Unlike just a decade ago, the threats of today and the future are moving at increasing speeds and across organizational and geographic boundaries. This will require increased coordinated responsiveness by our community of intelligence professionals. I plan to continue the strong emphasis on integration of the community to better serve all of our customers. That will mean better sharing of information, increased focus on customer needs and service, improved security processes, and deeper penetration of our targets to provide the needed information for tactical, operational and strategic decision-making.

Public service has always been my passion. I look forward to serving this great nation as we continue to fight on the global war on terrorism and to face the many new challenges of the new century.

I want to thank my wife, Terry, and my wonderful family and our grandchildren for their support as I take on these new challenges.

Thank you again, Mr. President. All the best, Mr. Ambassador, for your new leadership role at the Department of State.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all.

END 9:55 A.M. EST, For Immediate Release, Office of the Press Secretary, January 5, 2007

Technorati Tags: and or and and and or and or and or