Saturday, December 23, 2006

Discurso Radial del Presidente a la Nación 12/23/06

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 12/23/06 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. Al juntarse familias en toda nuestra nación para celebrar la Navidad, Laura y yo les enviamos nuestros mejores deseos para las fiestas. Esperamos que su Navidad sea bendecida con familia y compañerismo.

En esta época especial del año, damos gracias por el mensaje de Cristo de amor y esperanza. La Navidad nos recuerda que tenemos un deber hacia los demás - y vemos ese sentido del deber cumplirse en los hombres y mujeres que llevan el uniforme de nuestra Nación. Los Estados Unidos tiene la bendición de tener excelentes ciudadanos que se ofrecen como voluntarios para defendernos en tierras lejanas. Muchos de ellos pasarán Navidad lejos de sus hogares - y en Navidad nuestra Nación honra su sacrificio y les agradece por todo lo que hacen para defender nuestra libertad.

En Navidad también reconocemos el sacrificio de nuestras familias militares. Quedarse atrás cuando un miembro de la familia se va a la guerra es una carga pesada - y es particularmente duro durante las fiestas.

A todas nuestras familias militares que estén escuchando hoy, Laura y yo les agradecemos y pedimos al Todopoderoso que conceda Su protección y Su cuidado a sus seres queridos mientras ellos protegen a nuestra Nación.

Esta temporada navideña llega en un momento de cambio aquí en la capital de nuestra Nación - con un nuevo Congreso listo a llegar, una revisión de nuestra estrategia en Irak en curso y un nuevo Secretario de Defensa asumiendo su cargo. Si usted está sirviendo en las líneas del frente al otro lado del mundo, es natural que se pregunte qué significa todo esto para usted. Quiero que nuestras tropas sepan que mientras que el año venidero traerá cambios, una cosa que no cambiará es el apoyo de nuestra Nación para ustedes y la labor vital que llevan a cabo para lograr una victoria en Irak. El pueblo estadounidense los mantiene en su pensamiento y en sus oraciones - y nos aseguraremos que ustedes tengan los recursos que necesiten para cumplir con su misión.

Esta Navidad, millones de estadounidenses se están juntando para mostrar amor y apoyo a nuestras fuerzas destacadas y a nuestros guerreros heridos. Grupos patrióticos y caritativos a lo largo de Estados Unidos están enviando regalos y paquetes con donativos a nuestros hombres y mujeres en las fuerzas armadas, visitando a nuestras tropas que se recuperan en hospitales militares, extendiendo ayuda a niños cuyos padres y madres están sirviendo en el extranjero y yendo a aeropuertos para dar la bienvenida a casa a nuestras tropas y dejándoles saber que una Nación agradecida los aprecia.

Un hombre que está haciendo una diferencia en esta temporada de fiestas es Jim Wareing. Jim es fundador de New England Caring for Our Military. Este año Jim ayudó a organizar una campaña para juntar regalos llevada a cabo por miles de estudiantes de Massachussets y New Hampshire. Estudiantes desde kindergarten hasta la secundaria juntaron más de 20,000 regalos para nuestras tropas en el extranjero. Los regalos están siendo enviados a tropas estacionadas en Irak, Afganistán, Kosovo, Corea, Japón y África. Los paquetes de donativos incluyen libros y rompecabezas, juegos de mesa, tarjetas telefónicas, calcetines nuevos y camisetas - así como unas 7,000 tarjetas de Navidad y carteles hechos a mano. Jim dice, y cito, "Probablemente siempre sea duro para las tropas estar lejos de casa, pero particularmente duro en las fiestas. Uso esto como una oportunidad de recompensarlos por mi libertad".

Ciudadanos como Jim Wareing representan la verdadera fuerza de nuestro país - y enorgullecen a Estados Unidos. Les pido a todos y cada uno de los estadounidenses que encuentren alguna manera de agradecer a nuestras fuerzas armadas en esta temporada navideña. Si usted ve a un soldado, marino, aviador, Infante de Marina o miembro de las Guardacostas - tome un momento para detenerse y decir, "Gracias por su servicio". Y si quiere alcanzar a nuestras tropas, o ayudar a la familia militar que vive a la vuelta de su casa, el Departamento de Defensa ha establecido un sitio Internet para ayudar. Es: AmericaSupportsYou.Mil. Este sitio Internet indica a más de 150 organizaciones compasivas que podrían aprovechar su ayuda. En esta temporada de entrega, apoyemos a los hombres y mujeres que se entregan para apoyar a Estados Unidos.

En esta época especial del año, meditamos sobre la vida milagrosa que comenzó en un humilde pesebre hace dos mil años. Esa vida única cambió al mundo - y sigue cambiando a los corazones hoy en día. A todos los que celebran la Navidad, Laura y yo les deseamos un día de buenas nuevas.

Gracias por escuchar y Feliz Navidad.

Para su publicación inmediata, Oficina del Secretario de Prensa, 23 de diciembre de 2006

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

Friday, December 22, 2006

Turkmenistan: Assets of Late President Niyazov

Map Turkmenistan, CIA Factbook
Turkmenistan: Assets of Late President Niyazov (Taken Question)

Question: Has the U.S. frozen the assets of late Turkmenistan President Saparmurat Niyazov?

Answer: Such matters fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Treasury and the Office of Foreign Asset Control. President Niyazov was never designated under an Executive Order, which is required for the freezing of assets under U.S. law.

2006/1137, Released on December 22, 2006

Taken Question, Office of the Spokesman, Washington, DC, December 22, 2006

Annexed by Russia between 1865 and 1885, Turkmenistan became a Soviet republic in 1924. It achieved its independence upon the dissolution of the USSR in 1991. President Saparmurat NIYAZOV retains absolute control over the country and opposition is not tolerated.

Extensive hydrocarbon/natural gas reserves could prove a boon to this underdeveloped country if extraction and delivery projects were to be expanded. The Turkmenistan Government is actively seeking to develop alternative petroleum transportation routes in order to break Russia's pipeline monopoly. CIA FACTBOOK

Technorati Tags: and or and , or

Kazakhstan: Arrest Of Journalist (Taken Question)

Map of Kazakhstan, CIA Factbook
Kazakhstan: Arrest Of Journalist (Taken Question)

Question: Does the United States have any comment on the arrest of the Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty journalist in Kazakhstan?

Answer: Azamat Zhetpisbayev, a correspondent for the Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty Kazakhstan affiliate Radio Azzatyk, was arrested December 15 by Almaty financial police, who declined to specify the reason for the arrest. He is being held in a temporary detention facility. There is no indication that the arrest is connected with Zhetpisbayev's employment at Radio Azzatyk. We will continue to follow this case closely.

2006/1138, Released on December 22, 2006, Taken Question, Office of the Spokesman, Washington, DC, December 22, 2006

Native Kazakhs, a mix of Turkic and Mongol nomadic tribes who migrated into the region in the 13th century, were rarely united as a single nation. The area was conquered by Russia in the 18th century, and Kazakhstan became a Soviet Republic in 1936. During the 1950s and 1960s agricultural "Virgin Lands" program, Soviet citizens were encouraged to help cultivate Kazakhstan's northern pastures.

This influx of immigrants (mostly Russians, but also some other deported nationalities) skewed the ethnic mixture and enabled non-Kazakhs to outnumber natives. Independence in 1991 caused many of these newcomers to emigrate. Current issues include: developing a cohesive national identity; expanding the development of the country's vast energy resources and exporting them to world markets; achieving a sustainable economic growth outside the oil, gas, and mining sectors; and strengthening relations with neighboring states and other foreign powers. CIA FACTBOOK

Technorati Tags: and or and , or and

Secretary Rice Remarks With Canadian Foreign Minister Peter MacKay (VIDEO)

ecretary Rice Remarks With Canadian Foreign Minister Peter MacKay (VIDEO)Remarks With Canadian Foreign Minister Peter MacKay, FULL STREAMING VIDEO, Secretary Condoleezza Rice, Benjamin Franklin Room, Washington, DC, December 21, 2006, (1:50 p.m. EST)
SECRETARY RICE: Good afternoon. I'm pleased to welcome my colleague, the Foreign Minister of Canada, Peter MacKay. Peter, welcome. We've had an extensive discussion this afternoon of a number of issues on the bilateral agenda. Of course, because Canada and the United States share a long border, share extensive trade, share extensive movement of people and indeed share a friendship and a border that's quite unlike any other in the world, we have a lot of issues but they are, of course, issues of neighbors and we've been talking about those.

We, of course, also share a global agenda and we are just delighted to have -- and very grateful to have a friend like Canada, a friend with which we, of course, share values, but with which we are also now sharing many of the duties and responsibilities of the global struggle in the war on terrorism. I particularly want to note the sacrifice of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan, a sacrifice that has been noted for its bravery and for its courage, because the Canadian forces have been stalwart fighters in the war to defeat those who would try and undo the progress that has been made by the young democratic government of Afghanistan.

Peter, I know that for the people of Canada these sacrifices are mourned one by one. I want you to know, too, that in the United States these soldiers are remembered.

We had an extensive discussion of Afghanistan, of NATO's responsibilities there, as well as a number of other issues around the world. But I'm very glad, Peter, that you took the time to come down just here before the holidays so that we could spend some time on this very broad agenda. Thanks very much.

FOREIGN MINISTER MACKAY: Thank you very much, Secretary Rice. And as you've stated, we share not only a common border but we share a common cause in the promotion of democracy and human rights not only in our own countries but around the globe. And we've been very fortunate to have been able to forge a very close working relationship over the years. Our two countries have worked very closely on so many important matters.

The discussions today and the bilateral issues that we touched upon are of importance and significance and by your willingness to greet us here today, and your officials have been very gracious and you yourself always have been very inviting when it came to these discussions, so I appreciate that a great deal. I know the Prime Minister and the President of the United States have also had important discussions of late on these matters of common interest.

And when it comes to the ongoing challenges in Afghanistan, again, I appreciate how forthright you've been and how respectful you've been in expressing the appreciation of the United States of America to Canada. We continue to hope that we will see greater progress in the stability and elevation of the people of Afghanistan to the point where they will be able to walk on their own with our assistance.

And so again, the progress that was made today I know will only continue, and I would take this opportunity to express again our season's greetings and our great thanks. I know we'll continue to work into the new year on these important bilateral and international matters as well.

SECRETARY RICE: Thank you.

MR. MCCORMACK: We have time for a few questions. NBC.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, thank you. On Iran, do you support the latest UN draft resolution that drops the mandatory travel ban? And will there be a vote at the UN tomorrow with Russian support?

SECRETARY RICE: We are very supportive of the European Union draft. There are some changes that are still to be made to that draft, even though it is in so-called blue, and we're working on that draft. We are going to support a resolution that is a Chapter 7 resolution and that is strong in showing Iran that the international community is not going to tolerate its defiance of the international community's desires and the international community's demands which were stated some time ago.

I think it's been no secret that we would have preferred to have had this happen earlier. Had we been the lone drafters of the resolution, of course, there might have been other things in it. But I am quite satisfied and quite certain that the resolution that will be adopted will be one that both says to Iran, you cannot defy the international community, and imposes penalties on Iran for that defiance.

I just want to underscore a Chapter 7 resolution puts Iran in some very unwelcome company in terms of the international community, in terms of the decisions that people will make about Iran as a partner in the international economy. And that, more than anything, is the importance of this resolution.

QUESTION: Do you have the Russians' support, Madame Secretary?

SECRETARY RICE: I will -- am not following the moment to moment discussions in New York, but since I believe and have heard from the Russians that they want to stop the Iranians from acquiring technologies that could lead to a nuclear weapon and I've heard from the Russians that they're concerned about Iran's continued defiance of the Security Council, continued defiance of the International Atomic Energy Agency, that Russia will support a resolution that says to Iran that defiance is not acceptable.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.) Sorry for the confusion.

SECRETARY RICE: That's all right.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary and Minister, the Canadian Government, as you know, Madame Secretary, has cleared Maher Arar of any wrongdoing, any charges. It made representations to your Department to have his name cleaned from the files. Your Department, however, has said that it was a very deliberate decision taken on behalf of the State Department to keep him on a watch list and as a person non grata to enter the United States.

What information do you have that Canada doesn't have about Maher Arar and have you shared that information with Minister MacKay?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, Minister MacKay brought this question up of Mr. Arar. We obviously value our counterterrorism cooperation with Canada and our information sharing and we value the accuracy of anything that we do. This is a case that we have discussed. And what is more, I've said to Peter that I have asked Mike Chertoff, the Department of Homeland Security Secretary and the Justice Department to examine this and to get back to me so that we can share anything further. I think our Interior, our Homeland Security secretaries are also in touch. But I talked with Mike Chertoff about this just this morning and he said that he would examine this and he will be back to us.

FOREIGN MINISTER MACKAY: On the subject as Secretary Rice has said, we discussed Canada's position on this where there has been a finding by a judicial inquiry. Justice O'Connor's report exonerated Maher Arar. As a result of that information, we acted upon all 23 recommendations. But most importantly with respect to the watch list in Canada, Mr. Arar, his family members, certainly removed from that list; there are no restrictions on his travel in Canada. We've made that very clear to our colleagues.

Secretary Chertoff has also had communications with our Public Security Minister Stockwell Day on the subject. I've spoken about it today, raised the issue, in fact wrote to Secretary Rice and also had our Ambassador deliver a copy of the report. So there's clarity as to Canada's position and the findings with respect to Mr. Arar. We've removed him from our watch list. We've urged the United States to take the same steps. And I was grateful to hear today that the subject will be re-examined by the State Department and Homeland Security.

(In French.)

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, on North Korea, have the financial issues and the BDA designation proven to be an insurmountable stumbling block to making progress in the six-party talks this week?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, we've been very clear that these are two separate issues. The BDA issue arises out of investigation of illicit North Korean activities. The North Koreans asked for and have -- we have granted a working group that will examine these issues. The working group, I think, met twice in Beijing. It's likely to meet again in January. And that's the appropriate track for the examination of issues that are related to Banco Delta Asia.

In terms of the six-party talks, those talks, of course, are related to the agreement that the parties signed in September of 2005 which lays out a very clear set of responsibilities and obligations that should be undertaken, and that is what is being negotiated by Ambassador Hill in Beijing. I have said before that it will undoubtedly -- these are difficult issues -- it will take some time. But I understand -- I see fully that the other countries are very devoted to getting an outcome that is concrete for the six-party talks. No one wants to simply have talks for the sake of talks again. As a matter of fact, when Peter and I were last together in Hanoi, we had a breakfast with all of the ministers there for APEC, and around the table there was a very clear message to those of us who were engaged in the six-party talks to have six-party talks that produced results. Now, diplomacy sometimes takes time, but we should not be diverted somehow by an issue that is clearly in another lane and is clearly being dealt with in a way that the North Koreans themselves asked that it be dealt with. We cannot be diverted from what we need to do in the six-party talks, which is to have the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, the Prime Minister of Canada said quite flatly this week that you're wrong about Maher Arar, that this is no way to treat a Canadian citizen, especially a neighbor where the ties and the antiterrorism struggle is so close. What do you say to him and what do you say to Maher Arar himself? How do you explain how he's been treated?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I would say what I've said to Foreign Minister MacKay, which is that the United States values its counterterrorism cooperation and we value accuracy in cases. But we do have our own processes as well. Canada has its processes. The United States has its processes. That is in the nature of these things.

Our process includes a consultation between the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security about who is listed on what lists. I think it needs to be understood that in the post-September 11th circumstances, we are determined to protect our borders. We're determined to protect the American people on all our borders. We are -- we've been very pleased to receive the information that the Canadian Government has provided. It will, of course, be looked at.

And as I said, just this morning I talked with Secretary Chertoff, who said that he would personally review the information that we have as well as the information that Canada has given us. But I think you do have to understand that the United States has to follow its own processes and has to come to its own conclusion and to its own satisfaction about the nature of these cases.

Thank you.

FOREIGN MINISTER MACKAY: Thanks very much.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, happy holidays.

SECRETARY RICE: Happy holidays, everybody.

2006/1134, Released on December 21, 2006

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

Thursday, December 21, 2006

State Department Daily Press Briefing, 12/21/06 (VIDEO)

Daily Press Briefing, Spokesman Sean McCormack, FULL STREAMING VIDEO, file is windows media format, running time is 29:16.

Department Spokesman Sean McCormack (shown during the  Daily Press Briefing) was sworn in as Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs and Department Spokesman on June 2, 2005. Immediately prior to returning to the State Department, Mr. McCormack served as Special Assistant to the President, Spokesman for the National Security Council, and Deputy White House Press Secretary for Foreign Policy. State Department Photo by Michael Gross.Department Spokesman Sean McCormack (shown during the Daily Press Briefing) was sworn in as Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs and Department Spokesman on June 2, 2005.
Immediately prior to returning to the State Department, Mr. McCormack served as Special Assistant to the President, Spokesman for the National Security Council, and Deputy White House Press Secretary for Foreign Policy. State Department Photo by Michael Gross. TRANSCRIPT:, 12:30 p.m. EST.

MR. MCCORMACK: Good afternoon, everybody. No opening statements, so we can get right into your questions. Who wants to start?

Mr. Gedda.

QUESTION: Do you want to tell us all that you can about the six-party talks?

MR. MCCORMACK: Six-party talks. Chris talked a little bit with the press there in Beijing. After his meetings, he had a number of bilateral meetings: North Koreans, Chinese, Japanese. He characterized them as good, useful discussions, starting to talk to about practical things, how can we move this process forward. He talked about how -- there is a consensus to keep the discussions going until Friday at the least, take an assessment at that point, how much longer, if at all, they want to continue with this particular round. So bottom line, useful talks, good exchange of information, have extended the time for the talks until Friday. So positive, but we can't yet conclude whether or not or what this round of talks is going to produce.

QUESTION: The chief Japanese negotiator came away saying that there was still a wide gap at the very basic level. Do you have any idea what that's supposed to mean?

MR. MCCORMACK: Talk to the Japanese Delegation about their assessment of the talks. I'm not trying to tell you that we're near to an agreement at this point. I think we're still at this stage of exchanging information, working through the issues, trying to -- I think all the delegations are trying to assess what all the other delegations' bottom lines are in terms of this round what we can get to, what is possible -- not to say that they're still aren't differences.

QUESTION: Sean, Chris Hill said that they were discussing actual developments on the ground. Can you shed any light on what kinds of things that might involve?

MR. MCCORMACK: This gets into what the various proposals are, how do you start the denuclearization process. We have consistently said that we're not going to talk about what the proposals are. I'm not going to jump into that right now.

QUESTION: Any update on the financial aspects?

MR. MCCORMACK: The Treasury delegation led by Deputy Assistant Secretary from Treasury is a state treasury team that talked to the North Koreans. I think they had their second meeting today. I think everybody -- they agreed the discussions were held in a positive atmosphere. It was a useful discussion. No more discussions planned in Beijing. I think the Treasury -- the folks that were -- that flew in from the United States are going to be flying back to Washington probably tomorrow. The idea is that there will be perhaps some follow-up conversations in the month of January likely to take place in New York. But at the root of this and I think this is a message that were able to convey to the North Koreans at those discussions where the root cause needs to be dealt with and the root cause of this are the illicit activities. That's what triggered the actions on the part of the United States as well as a reaction from the Banco Delta Asia.

QUESTION: Did you hear anything? Did U.S. negotiators hear anything that suggested that the North Koreans are willing to deal with the root cause of this?

MR. MCCORMACK: I think this was a first. This is a first get together. It was really starting at the most basic level of exchange of information. I think that our delegation thought that that was useful, thought it was a good exchange of information, but I couldn't tell you at this point that there is a commitment to deal with the roots of the activity. I'm not sure that the North Korean side would actually use that term to describe their activities. But again, it was a good first initial discussion.

Yes, ma'am.

QUESTION: Just to follow up, the Chinese have said that they might prefer for the financial issue to be separate from the six-party talks. Would the U.S. prefer to separate those two?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we have already -- you know, we have always said that the two issues are separate. There is a certain relationship therein that the root causes of it get back to North Korea's illicit behavior. This initial round of discussions took place within the context of the six-party round, but the next round of discussions, I imagine, could take place in New York as well. So again, we view it as somewhat separate.

QUESTION: Was the decision to limit those discussions just today, I think, a U.S. decision or was that something -- that it was planned, that they were only supposed to have this initial --

MR. MCCORMACK: I think this was going to be a short round of discussions.

QUESTION: Why do you keep (inaudible) this idea these that are initial talks? The U.S. and North Korean officials have had lengthy discussions on this very topic months ago, so it's not as though we're going back to square one.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we've briefed them on U.S. laws and regulations.

QUESTION: So this is more extensive than --

MR. MCCORMACK: I think it's more detailed, getting into a more detailed discussion of what the root causes of the problem were from our perspective.

Yes.

QUESTION: Just to follow up, so the U.S. would prefer to deal with this outside the context of the six-party talks as a separate issue in New York rather than dealing with it in the framework --

MR. MCCORMACK: No, I'm not saying that you won't have discussions of this matter related to the six-party talks. The origin of this discussion between North Korea and the United States is in the six-party talks. I'm not going to try to draw any hard lines at this point.

QUESTION: Let me turn to that one. As far as I can tell and how -- there's not much you can tell from being in Washington because it's going on there, the North Koreans consider the issue central. And when you -- and when this was announced there would be talks, they were carefully arranged so that they'd be parallel in the same city. Treasury; fair enough, they're experts. But it looked like you were meeting them halfway and making it part of the six-party process, although it's a somewhat separate discussion.

But now, if they're going to meet in New York maybe, it looks like you're -- the U.S. is widening the gap between this issue and the other issues involved. Is it that -- is that unfair to say?

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm not sure --

QUESTION: Aren't you making them separate?

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm not sure I get the point here.

QUESTION: Well, North Korea put a lot of weight on the fiscal dispute, on the draft dispute.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right, right, right.

QUESTION: And then you guys said, "We'll talk about it."

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: "And we'll talk in the same city at the same time."

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: But that's over, there's no agreement? And now you'll talk about it maybe not in the same city, maybe not at the same time as the six-party, so it strikes me you're separating it.

MR. MCCORMACK: Like I said --

QUESTION: Or is that too much?

MR. MCCORMACK: I think you're reading way too much into this, Barry. The -- we said in the context of the six-party talks that we would address the financial issue, it's an issue that's important to the North Koreans.

QUESTION: Right.

MR. MCCORMACK: How and when we continue those efforts, I think it's going to be up to the United States and the North Korean delegation. They decided that they would -- it would be useful to continue discussions, perhaps, in New York in January. We don't know when the next round of discussions of the six-party talks will be once this round comes to a conclusion. So if they're -- again, any progress made on the financial issue, then that would be good. If we can get to addressing the root causes of the behavior, the illicit behavior by the North Koreans then that certainly would be positive. But I'm certainly not saying that we're at that stage right now.

Lambros.

QUESTION: On Kosovo.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.

QUESTION: Under Secretary Nicholas Burns stated, "We have long taken the position that now being seven years since the war ended in Kosovo in 1999 and it's time to give the people of Kosovo a certain sense of their future." I'm wondering, Mr. McCormack, like what sense since the Albanian minority in Serbia is enjoying excellent life like so many other minorities, (inaudible) including the United States.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, this is -- Lambros you know all the history here. This is wrapped up --

QUESTION: The sense --

MR. MCCORMACK: This is wrapped up in Security Council resolutions so there's a long history here. Let's not go through it all. We have in place a process now that is agreed upon. Mr. Ahtisaari is working with all the parties concerned coming up with a recommendation. We'll hear that recommendation in the near future, within the next few months. And then it will be up to the Security Council to act. It will be up to the parties in the region to react to that proposal. So let's wait until he comes through with his proposal. We'll see what it is. You'll hear from us what we think about it and regardless of what the proposal is you can be assured it will give the people of the region a better idea of what the future is, the political future and how the various groups within that region might relate to one another.

QUESTION: One more question on this issue, Mr. McCormack. Your government is arguing, according to those in this building, that Kosovo is a unique case and that any solution imposed by the UN where it cannot be replicated elsewhere such as for the Greek minority in Northern Epirus and the Albania occupation, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Kurdish minority southeast Turkey, et cetera, et cetera. I'm wondering why don't U.S., UN, England and NATO are creating such a bad precedent in Kosovo.

MR. MCCORMACK: Each of these -- each of the circumstances that you -- the particular cases that you walked through there have unique circumstances and they should be dealt with based on all of those unique circumstances: the historical, social and everything else. So we don't draw a linkage among any of these.

QUESTION: Have you considered any case by case separately or -- if you're going to create a precedent and then what's going to happen to --

MR. MCCORMACK: You know, that's very -- we don't think, for example, Kosovo is creating a precedent for any of those other cases; that's the exact point.

QUESTION: How you regard this to (inaudible) community?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.

QUESTION: On Somalia. It seems that the offenses that had been, you know, pre-announced by the Islamists has started and a lot of heavy fighting around Baidoa. I don't know if you have any information on that and if you have any comment on the presence of a senior European Commission official in Mogadishu for talks with Hassan Aweys.

MR. MCCORMACK: In terms of the offensive and the fighting, I've seen the press report. We don't have independent confirmation of that. I can't tell you exactly what the situation is on the ground there. We, of course, are interested in what is happening and trying to get the best information that we can to determine what's happening on the ground. Can't tell you right now.

In terms of the EU and their efforts, you'll talk to the EU. I can't tell you what the travel schedule is for the commissioners. But we are working very closely with the Europeans to try to forestall any more violence from going on in Somalia than we have seen over the past couple of decades. Unfortunately, the situation is very tense. We're doing what we can to work with partners in the region as well as with the Europeans to see what we can do, but it's a tense situation right now.

QUESTION: Are you in touch with the Ethiopians about what's happening from their side?

MR. MCCORMACK: Certainly, at the working level of diplomacy, but in terms of high-level contact, I'm not aware of any recent contacts that we've had.

QUESTION: What are you telling the Ethiopians?

MR. MCCORMACK: We're telling the Ethiopians that -- the same thing that we're telling everybody else in the region, and that is that we don't want to see the conflict in Somalia spread to the region. We don't want it to be seen -- to be used cynically as a way to get at differences that exist elsewhere in the region. We don't want to see a proxy fight in Somalia.

So basically, what we're trying to do is calm down the situation. We want to see all the parties in the region try to work together to bring a better future to Somalia. And so it's the same message. The message that we're sending to the Ethiopians is the same one we're sending everybody else.

QUESTION: I don't know where -- can I go to another subject?

MR. MCCORMACK: Sure.

QUESTION: I don't know if this caught your eye, but there is a statement being -- on al-Jazeera, the deputy leader of al-Qaida. It's kind of one of these enigmatic statements on the face of it, saying, the U.S., if it's trying to withdraw from Iraq, is negotiating with the wrong parties. The inference seems to be you ought to be talking to us. Have you seen that statement? Do you make any sense out of it? Do you know what they're trying to say and what do you think of it?

MR. MCCORMACK: There's no negotiating with al-Qaida and terrorists. We've seen the kind of acts that they are capable of. We've seen that they really don't have a political agenda for the region, a vision for the region that means greater freedom, greater prosperity for the region. It's an interesting statement. I've seen parts of it and basically, what Zawahiri admits is that elections and democracy are the biggest threat to violent jihadism, whether it's in Iraq or whether it's in the Palestinian areas.

And it's a quite interesting statement. It is confirmation, in essence, of what we have been saying for quite some time, that the terrorists, the violent jihadists, view the spread of freedom and democracy, freedom of expression, freedom of worship, freedom to choose who will lead governments throughout the region as the single greatest threat to their existence, to their activities. So from that standpoint, I find it an interesting statement.

Some of the reaction from Hamas has actually been kind of interesting as well. Some of the various spokesmen from Hamas have really twisted themselves in knots over this particular statement because they, on one hand, want to say that, no, we are in favor of armed struggle, the use of violence. And then on the other hand, they're saying, yes, we did participate in elections. But they say that they only participated in elections so that they could continue in the armed struggle.

Well, that's not, in fact, what they told the Palestinian people during the elections. They ran on a platform during the elections of providing goods and services and better, less corrupt leadership for the Palestinian people. But now, what they're saying in response to Ayman al-Zawahiri is, no, in fact, we are committed to armed struggle. It gets to the central contradiction that we've been talking about within the Palestinian political system. They can't have one foot in the camp of terror and one foot in the camp of politics. You need to choose.

QUESTION: Hamas apart, doesn't this statement seem to verify the longstanding Bush Administration position that al-Qaida is the problem or at least one of the main problems in Iraq? Because they're saying you got to talk to us to find a way out of this problem.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, they're -- in terms of the security situation, there are multiple problems in Iraq. You have the sectarian violence which the Iraqi Government really needs to deal with. They are the ones that need to resolve those sectarian tensions. You have to get to the root political causes of those sectarian differences. You also have the insurgents, these people -- former Baathists, others of criminal elements, who are just irreconcilable to a political process, need to be dealt with militarily or through the use of security forces. Then you also have the terrorist al-Qaida, then again, another group that is completely irreconcilable to a political process and they need to be dealt with as they're being dealt with now through the security forces, on the multinational security forces, the Iraqi security forces and addressed on a variety of fronts. There's no negotiating with terrorists.

Yeah, Kirit.

QUESTION: A Time magazine report out that says that the Bush Administration is supporting anti-Asad groups both in Washington and in Europe and in Syria. I was just wondering how much of it that you can comment on that report and answer, just quite frankly, is the U.S. trying to destabilize the Asad government in Syria?

MR. MCCORMACK: We're doing with those interested in greater freedom, freedom of expression, freedom to choose leaders in Syria that we're dealing with -- that we're doing elsewhere in the region. It's no different from any other programs that we have all throughout the rest of the world and especially in the Middle East promoting those civil society groups who have an interest in greater freedom and democracy in the Middle East.

QUESTION: There's a legal question too, just -- if you can respond to that. I don't know how much you can say about -- that some believe on the Hill and within the Administration that this is a covert action and it should be briefing congressmen about it. I don't know if you have any comment on that.

MR. MCCORMACK: No, no. Any activities the State Department are involved in are overt. They are funded through our Middle East initiatives and they're for all to see. There are public reports on these things. We talk to the Congress about them. That's the State Department's role.

QUESTION: If I could just -- one last one, Syria?

MR. MCCORMACK: Okay.

QUESTION: If you had any update on the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Damascus, still continue to receive the support from the Syrians about this and if we've had any intelligence passed onto us?

MR. MCCORMACK: Not aware. I'll -- aware of any updates to that. I'll look into it for you.

QUESTION: Staying in the Middle East. There's -- we have a report saying that Israel is considering handing over some of the Palestinian tax revenues that the Israeli Government collects to President Abbas, but they would want a guarantee is that it would not, however, get to Hamas. One, do you have any reason to believe that they are considering doing this? And two, do you think this would be a good thing?

MR. MCCORMACK: We have in the past had discussions with the Israeli Government as have others on the outside talking to the Israelis about seeing what they can do to release some of these tax revenues in such a way that they met the Quartet principles of not providing assistance to a Hamas-led government, if it doesn't agree with the conditions laid out by the international community. The decision to do that or not to do that rests with the Israeli Government. We have talked to them about possibly doing that. We have talked about the possibility of supporting President Abbas in terms of his efforts to exercise some control over the Palestinian areas as -- in his role as President in terms of supporting the security services and in the confines of his powers providing humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people. I don't have any further information of where the Israeli Government stands on doing that or not doing that.

QUESTION: But you've talked about -- over a long period of time --

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, we have.

QUESTION: Has there been any particular recent conversation about this or --

MR. MCCORMACK: There could be at lower levels. I'm not aware of anything the Secretary has done recently on that.

Joel.

QUESTION: Sean, today both Senator Kerry and Dodd have met in Damascus with President Asad. Now are you happy with that? Are you sending a message to both senators or possibly a White House message?

MR. MCCORMACK: No.

QUESTION: And a week ago, of course, Secretary Rice said you won't talk to either the Syrians and/or to the Iranians.

MR. MCCORMACK: As we've said before, Joel, I've gotten this question about various visitors to Damascus, whether they're foreign visitors or U.S. senators or U.S. congressmen, it is their decision to take. In terms of Senators Kerry and Dodd, we of course, extend the courtesy that you might expect we would to senior members of the Senate, helping them out and set up meetings that they want to have. It doesn't mean that we support the fact that they are there or having these discussions. That's their decision. They are not passing any messages or serving envoys for the -- or serving as envoys for the Administration.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: I wonder what would you comment on the former Secretary of State General Powell about what he said last weekend, that the United States should open a dialogue with Syria, that Syria has established with Iraq a diplomatic relationship and if they both -- if Iraq established that relationship, why -- he can't see how the United States shouldn't -- why shouldn't the United States have better dialogue with Syria.

Also, what would your response be to people who see that the United States is actually isolating itself from the dialogue that has been taking place with the Syrian Government? President Bashar al-Asad just came back to Damascus from his meeting with President -- the Russian President Putin. Many European leaders have visited Syria. What would you respond to these people who say that the United States might be shooting itself in the foot by excluding itself from the dialogue?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, what you're doing is you're leaving off the second half of the sentence there and that is that all those leaders who are going to Syria from your -- they're all telling them the same thing: Engage in constructive positive behavior in the region; stop trying to manipulate the political process in Lebanon; stop trying to interfere with the UN tribunal investigating the murder of former Prime Minister Hariri; play a positive role in Iraq; stop supporting those rejectionist -- Palestinian rejectionist groups which stand in the way of the Palestinian people realizing a better future for themselves.

That's the message that they're being sent. Not that all is well, not that we support what you're doing. I know that this is a typical tactic of the Syrian regime to say whenever a visitor appears on their doorstep, to say, "See, everything's fine. We have visitors coming into Syria. All is well. We have a normal relationship with the outside world." Well, let me tell you, nothing can be further from the truth. I don't think that you've seen any recent visitors from the Arab world going to Damascus and if you have, what -- they have been sending that same message to the Syrian Government: Stop being -- stop your complicity with the Iranian Government in trying to destabilize other countries in the region, whether it's Lebanon or Iraq.

Now certainly, it is -- I will say that it was positive that the Syrian Government has acted to establish diplomatic relations with Iraq. That is positive. But again, that is merely a half-step forward. They need to engage -- they need to establish good, transparent, neighborly relations not only with Iraq, but with all the rest of the countries in the region. They need to open up an embassy in Lebanon. Why is it that Syria hasn't opened up an embassy in Lebanon? The Lebanese Government and the Lebanese people have asked them to do that.

Well, I think the answer to that really gets to the heart of the matter, is that the Syrian Government has not given up its aspirations to control Lebanon, whether that's overtly or covertly. So I would take issue with the characterization that it is, in fact, anybody else but the Syrian Government that finds itself isolated.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: I'd like to go back to Darfur.

MR. MCCORMACK: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: I think there was a meeting between the Secretary and Mr. Hadley and the U.S. envoy to Darfur. Is there anything, you know, came out from this meeting?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, there was -- the Secretary talked a little bit about the meeting upstairs with Andrew Natsios. Mr. Hadley was not over here. There were some other policymakers from the State Department. Mr. Natsios gave a trip report, what he was able to accomplish on this trip. It was designed as an in-house meeting to talk about what is the way forward, how do we make the current diplomatic efforts that are on the table right now work, Resolution 1706, how to implement the Addis Ababa accords and then also to do a little bit of thinking about if those diplomatic efforts aren't able to succeed and we are not able to achieve the objectives that globally we share and that is to end the violence and the suffering in Darfur. Then you have to think about how -- what further actions that as an international community we might take. And so there was a little bit of brainstorming about that as well.

Yes.

QUESTION: Any updates on the Iran resolution?

MR. MCCORMACK: Updates on the Iran resolution. The permanent representatives or their designated representatives are meeting up I think right now in New York. We are, we believe, getting much closer to a resolution. There's no reason why we can't have a vote tomorrow. We don't think that there's anything that should stand in the way of having a vote tomorrow, so we'll see.

QUESTION: Why?

MR. MCCORMACK: We'll see. We believe there's no reason there shouldn't be a vote tomorrow. Secretary Rice had a conversation with Foreign Secretary Beckett this morning to talk about ways to close some of the remaining gaps. So we'll see. I'm not making any firm predictions, but there's no reason why we can't have a vote. But there's no reason why we can't put a resolution in the blue today and have a vote tomorrow.

QUESTION: We asked you on Monday about the Rice-Lavrov call. Do you hesitate to say there had been any progress and has that since moved forward? Is that the progress we've seen or (inaudible?)

MR. MCCORMACK: There was -- certainly during that phone call, they didn't close all the gaps. It's an iterative process I think those sort of contacts to really make clear at that political level of what our concerns are, what the concerns of the other members of the P-5+1 are to hear back from the Russians where they stand. Those are useful. Those conversations start to filter down into the working level. So in a sense, yes, it contributed I think to the narrowing of differences. I would caution that we're not there yet. We don't have final agreement on a resolution. So we think it's -- we think that is within reach. We hope that everybody can work together to get this resolution done and get a vote we would hope as early as tomorrow.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:00 p.m.) , DPB #206

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

Secretary Rice, Andrew S. Natsios, Sudan (VIDEO

Remarks With President's Special Envoy for Sudan Andrew S. Natsios After Their Meeting, FULL STREAMING VIDEO, Secretary Condoleezza Rice, Washington, DC, December 20, 2006.

Secretary Rice meets with the President's Special Envoy for Sudan Andrew S. Natsios.   State Department photo by Michael Gross.SECRETARY RICE: Good morning. I have just had an opportunity to meet with the President's Special Envoy for Sudan Andrew Natsios who has just returned from a trip to Sudan.
I've met with Andrew and with members of our Africa team and our team on the Middle East because this is an issue of deep concern to the United States and deep concern to the President of the United States.

We've reviewed the situation. Andrew moved, I think, the ball forward when he was in Sudan principally by taking on a request that there be a new presidential statement in the United Nations that would affirm our commitment to the agreement that Kofi Annan worked out in Addis that was a request of the Government of Khartoum. That Presidential Statement was delivered in record time by the Security Council and is now in place. And now we expect the Government of Khartoum to respond positively to that action in the UN because it is extremely important that a robust security force, a robust peacekeeping force that can actually help to end the violence and to bring relief to the many innocent men, women and children who are suffering in Sudan, that these steps be taken.

Andrew, thank you very much for the work that you're doing. We are -- we have put a new chapter ahead of us and I hope now that the Government of Khartoum is going to deliver. Do you want to say a few words?

MR. NATSIOS: We also did get a two-year extension of the accelerated procedure for NGOs and aid workers from the UN to get into Darfur. They had not been extending this procedure. It's up in January. I asked President Bashir to do that and they announced yesterday that they were going to extend the procedure for two years, which was a -- good news for the humanitarian effort.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, you said that you expect them to respond. Do you have a reason to believe that they actually will, given their intransigence, so far?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, we will see. But I think the international community has spoken. It has spoken repeatedly, but it has spoken again and it has spoken in response to a desire from the Government of Khartoum, President Bashir to have a reaffirmation by the Security Council of the agreements that Kofi Annan was able to work out. And that reaffirmation has taken place and so I would hope that there'd be a positive response and we will see.

Thank you.

Released on December 20, 2006

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

Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Press Conference by the President 12/20/06 (VIDEO)

Press Conference by the President, FULL STREAMING VIDEO, Indian Treaty Room 10:00 A.M. EST

President George W. Bush addresses reporters during his news conference Wednesday, Dec. 20, 2006, in the Indian Treaty Room at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building in Washington, D.C. White House photo by Eric Draper.President George W. Bush addresses reporters during his news conference Wednesday, Dec. 20, 2006, in the Indian Treaty Room at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building in Washington, D.C. White House photo by Eric Draper.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Good morning. This week I went to the Pentagon for the swearing-in of our nation's new Secretary of Defense, Bob Gates. Secretary Gates is going to bring a fresh perspective to the Pentagon, and America is fortunate that he has agreed to serve our country once again. I'm looking forward to working with him.

Secretary Gates is going to be an important voice in the Iraq strategy review that's underway. As you know, I've been consulting closely with our commanders and the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the strategy in Iraq, and on the broader war on terror. One of my top priorities during this war is to ensure that our men and women wearing the uniform have everything they need to do their job.

This war on terror is the calling of a new generation; it is the calling of our generation. Success is essential to securing a future of peace for our children and grandchildren. And securing this peace for the future is going to require a sustained commitment from the American people and our military.

We have an obligation to ensure our military is capable of sustaining this war over the long haul, and in performing the many tasks that we ask of them. I'm inclined to believe that we need to increase in the permanent size of both the United States Army and the United States Marines. I've asked Secretary Gates to determine how such an increase could take place and report back to me as quickly as possible.

I know many members of Congress are interested in this issue, and I appreciate their input. As we develop the specifics of the proposals over the coming weeks, I will not only listen to their views, we will work with them to see that this becomes a reality.

Two thousand and six was a difficult year for our troops and the Iraqi people. We began the year with optimism after watching nearly 12 million Iraqis go to the polls to vote for a unity government and a free future. The enemies of liberty responded fiercely to this advance of freedom. They carried out a deliberate strategy to foment sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shia. And over the course of the year, they had success. Their success hurt our efforts to help the Iraqis rebuild their country. It set back reconciliation; it kept Iraq's unity government and our coalition from establishing security and stability throughout the country.

We enter this new year clear-eyed about the challenges in Iraq, and equally clear about our purpose. Our goal remains a free and democratic Iraq that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself, and is an ally in this war on terror.

I'm not going to make predictions about what 2007 will look like in Iraq, except that it's going to require difficult choices and additional sacrifices, because the enemy is merciless and violent. I'm going to make you this promise: My administration will work with Republicans and Democrats to fashion a new way forward that can succeed in Iraq. We'll listen to ideas from every quarter; we'll change our strategy and tactics to meet the realities on the ground. We'll never lose sight that on the receiving end of the decisions I make is a private, a sergeant, a young lieutenant or a diplomat who risks his or her life to help the Iraqis realize a dream of a stable country that can defend, govern and sustain itself.

The advance of liberty has never been easy, and Iraq is proving how tough it can be. Yet, the safety and security of our citizens requires that we do not let up. We can be smarter about how we deploy our manpower and resources; we can ask more of our Iraqi partners, and we will -- one thing we cannot do is give up on the hundreds of millions of ordinary moms and dads across the Middle East who want the hope and opportunity for their children that the terrorists and extremists seek to deny them, and that's a peaceful existence.

As we work with Congress in the coming year to chart a new course in Iraq and strengthen our military to meet the challenges of the 21st century, we must also work together to achieve important goals for the American people here at home. This work begins with keeping our economy growing. As we approach the end of 2006, the American economy continues to post strong gains. The most recent jobs report shows that our economy created 132,000 more jobs in November alone, and we've now added more than 7 million new jobs since August of 2003.

The unemployment rate has remained low, at 4.5 percent. A recent report on retail sales shows a strong beginning to the holiday shopping season across the country -- and I encourage you all to go shopping more.

Next year marks a new start with a new Congress. In recent weeks I've had good meetings with the incoming leaders of Congress, including Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader-elect Harry Reid. We agreed that we've got important business to do on behalf of the American people and that we've got to work together to achieve results. The American people expect us to be good stewards of their tax dollars here in Washington. So we must work together to reduce the number of earmarks inserted into large spending bills, and reform the earmark process to make it more transparent and more accountable.

The American people expect us to keep America competitive in the world. So we must work to ensure our citizens have the skills they need for the jobs of the future, and encourage American businesses to invest in technology and innovation. The American people expect us to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and increase our use of alternative energy sources. So we must step up our research and investment in hydrogen fuel cells, hybrid plug-in and battery-powered cars, renewable fuels like ethanol and cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel, clean coal technology and clean sources of electricity like nuclear, solar and wind power.

Another area where we can work together is the minimum wage. I support the proposed $2.10 increase in the minimum wage over a two-year period. I believe we should do it in a way that does not punish the millions of small businesses that are creating most of the new jobs in our country. So I support pairing it with targeted tax and regulatory relief to help these small businesses stay competitive and to help keep our economy growing. I look forward to working with Republicans and Democrats to help both small business owners and workers when Congress convenes in January.

To achieve these and other key goals we need to put aside our partisan differences, and work constructively to address the vital issues confronting our nation. As the new Congress takes office, I don't expect Democratic leaders to compromise on their principles, and they don't expect me to compromise on mine. But the American people do expect us to compromise on legislation that will benefit the country. The message of the fall election was clear: Americans want us to work together to make progress for our country. And that's what we're going to do in the coming year.

And now I'll be glad to answer some questions. Terry.

Q Mr. President, less than two months ago at the end of one of the bloodiest months in the war, you said, "Absolutely we're winning." Yesterday you said, "We're not winning, we're not losing." Why did you drop your confident assertion about winning?

THE PRESIDENT: My comments -- the first comment was done in this spirit: I believe that we're going to win; I believe that -- and by the way, if I didn't think that, I wouldn't have our troops there. That's what you got to know. We're going to succeed.

My comments yesterday reflected the fact that we're not succeeding nearly as fast as I wanted when I said it at the time, and that conditions are tough in Iraq, particularly in Baghdad. And so we're conducting a review to make sure that our strategy helps us achieve that which I'm pretty confident we can do, and that is have a country which can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself.

You know, I -- when I speak, like right now, for example -- I'm speaking to the American people, of course, and I want them to know that I know how tough it is, but I also want them to know that I'm going to work with the military and the political leaders to develop a plan that will help us achieve the objective. I also want our troops to understand that -- that we support them; that I believe that tough mission I've asked them to do is going to be accomplished, and that they're doing good work and necessary work.

I want the Iraqis to understand that we believe that if they stand up, step up and lead, and with our help we can accomplish the objective. And I want the enemy to understand that this is a tough task, but they can't run us out of the Middle East, that they can't intimidate America. They think they can. They think it's just a matter of time before America grows weary and leaves, abandons the people of Iraq, for example. And that's not going to happen.

What is going to happen is we're going to develop a strategy that helps the Iraqis achieve the objective that the 12 million people want them to achieve, which is a government that can -- a country that can sustain itself, govern itself, defend itself, a free country that will serve as an ally in this war against extremists and radicals.

Caren.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. If you conclude that a surge in troop levels in Iraq is needed, would you overrule your military commanders if they felt it was not a good idea?

THE PRESIDENT: That's a dangerous hypothetical question. I'm not condemning you, you're allowed to ask anything you want. Let me wait and gather all the recommendations from Bob Gates, from our military, from diplomats on the ground; I'm interested in the Iraqis' point of view; and then I'll report back to you as to whether or not I support a surge or not. Nice try.

Q Would you overrule your commanders --

THE PRESIDENT: The opinion of my commanders is very important. They are bright, capable, smart people whose opinion matters to me a lot.

Bret.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. You have reached out to both Sunni and Shia political leaders in recent weeks, and now there's word that the Grand Ayatollah Ali al Sistani is supporting a moderate coalition in Iraq. Has the U.S. reached out to him? How important is he in the equation moving forward? And what do you say to people who say more troops in Iraq would increase the sectarian split and not calm things down?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I haven't made up my mind yet about more troops. I'm listening to our commanders; I'm listening to the Joint Chiefs, of course; I'm listening to people in and out of government; I'm listening to the folks on the Baker-Hamilton commission about coming up with a strategy that helps us achieve our objective. And so as I said to Caren -- probably a little more harshly than she would have liked -- hypothetical questions, I'm not going to answer them today. I'm not going to speculate out loud about what I'm going to tell the nation, when I'm prepared to do so, about the way forward.

I will tell you we're looking at all options. And one of those options, of course, is increasing more troops. But in order to do so, there must be a specific mission that can be accomplished with more troops. And that's precisely what our commanders have said, as well as people who know a lot about military operations. And I agree with them that there's got to be a specific mission that can be accomplished with the addition of more troops before I agree on that strategy.

Secondly, whatever we do is going to help the Iraqis step up. It's their responsibility to govern their country. It's their responsibility to do the hard work necessary to secure Baghdad. And we want to help them.

Thirdly, I appreciate the fact that the Prime Minister and members of the government are forming what you have called a moderate coalition, because it's becoming very apparent to the people of Iraq that there are extremists and radicals who are anxious to stop the advance of a free society. And therefore, a moderate coalition signals to the vast majority of the people of Iraq that we have a unity government, that we're willing to reconcile our differences and work together, and in so doing, will marginalize those who use violence to achieve political objectives.

And so we support the formation of the unity government and the moderate coalition. And it's important for the leader Sistani to understand that's our position. He is a -- he lives a secluded life, but he knows that we're interested in defeating extremism, and we're interested in helping advance a unity government.

Kelly.

Q Good morning, Mr. President. Your former Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, advocated for a lighter, more agile military force. Have you now concluded that that approach was wrong?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I strongly support a lighter, agile army that can move quickly to meet the threats of the 21st century. I also supported his force posture review and recommendations to move forces out of previous bases that were there for the Soviet threat, for example, in Europe. So he's introduced some substantive changes to the Pentagon, and I support them strongly.

However, that doesn't necessarily preclude increasing end strength for the army and the Marines. And the reason why I'm inclined to believe this is a good idea is because I understand that we're going to be in a long struggle against radicals and extremists, and we must make sure that our military has the capability to stay in the fight for a long period of time. I'm not predicting any particular theater, but I am predicting that it's going to take a while for the ideology of liberty to finally triumph over the ideology of hate.

I know you know I feel this strongly, but I see this -- we're in the beginning of a conflict between competing ideologies -- a conflict that will determine whether or not your children can live in peace. A failure in the Middle East, for example, or failure in Iraq, or isolationism, will condemn a generation of young Americans to permanent threat from overseas. And therefore, we will succeed in Iraq. And therefore, we will help young democracies when we find them -- democracies like Lebanon; hopefully a Palestinian state living side-by-side in peace with Israel; the young democracy of Iraq.

It is in our interest that we combine security with a political process that frees people, that liberates people, that gives people a chance to determine their own futures. I believe most people in the Middle East want just that. They want to be in a position where they can chart their own futures, and it's in our interest that we help them do so.

Jim.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. In the latest CBS News poll, 50 percent of Americans say they favor a beginning of an end to U.S. military involvement in Iraq; 43 percent said, keep fighting, but change tactics. By this and many other measures, there is no clear mandate to continue being in Iraq in a military form. I guess my question is, are you still willing to follow a path that seems to be in opposition to the will of the American people?

THE PRESIDENT: I am willing to follow a path that leads to victory, and that's exactly why we're conducting the review we are. Victory in Iraq is achievable. It hasn't happened nearly as quickly as I hoped it would have. I know it's -- the fact that there is still unspeakable sectarian violence in Iraq, I know that's troubling to the American people. But I also don't believe most Americans want us just to get out now. A lot of Americans understand the consequences of retreat. Retreat would embolden radicals. It would hurt the credibility of the United States. Retreat from Iraq would dash the hopes of millions who want to be free. Retreat from Iraq would enable the extremists and radicals to more likely be able to have safe haven from which to plot and plan further attacks.

And so it's been a tough period for the American people. They want to see success. And our objective is to put a plan in place that achieves that success. I'm often asked about public opinion. Of course, I want public opinion to support the efforts. I understand that. But, Jim, I also understand the consequences of failure. And, therefore, I'm going to work with the Iraqis and our military and politicians from both political parties to achieve success.

I thought the election said they want to see more bipartisan cooperation; they want to see us working together to achieve common objectives. And I'm going to continue to reach out to Democrats to do just that.

Sheryl.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, Lyndon Johnson famously didn't sleep during the Vietnam War, questioning his own decisions. You have always seemed very confident of your decisions, but I can't help but wonder if this has been a time of painful realization for you as you, yourself, have acknowledged that some of the policies you hoped would succeed have not. And I wonder if you can talk to us about that. Has it been a painful time?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, thanks. The most painful aspect of my presidency has been knowing that good men and women have died in combat. I read about it every night. My heart breaks for a mother or father, or husband or wife, or son and daughter; it just does. And so when you ask about pain, that's pain. I reach out to a lot of the families, I spend time with them. I am always inspired by their spirit. Most people have asked me to do one thing, and that is to make sure that their child didn't die in vain -- and I agree with that -- that the sacrifice has been worth it.

We'll accomplish our objective; we've got to constantly adjust our tactics to do so. We've got to insist that the Iraqis take more responsibility more quickly in order to do so.

But I -- look, my heart breaks for them, it just does, on a regular basis.

Q But beyond that, sir, do you question your own decisions?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I haven't questioned whether or not it was right to take Saddam Hussein out, nor have I questioned the necessity for the American people -- I mean, I've questioned it; I've come to the conclusion it's the right decision. But I also know it's the right decision for America to stay engaged, and to take the lead, and to deal with these radicals and extremists, and to help support young democracies. It's the calling of our time, Sheryl. And I firmly believe it is necessary.

And I believe the next President, whoever the person is, will have the same charge, the same obligations to deal with terrorists so they don't hurt us, and to help young democracies survive the threats of radicalism and extremism. It's in our nation's interest to do so. But the most painful aspect of the presidency is the fact that I know my decisions have caused young men and women to lose their lives.

McKinnon.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. You mentioned a need earlier to make sure that U.S. workers are skilled, that U.S. businesses keep investing in technology. You also mentioned that you want targeted tax and regulatory relief for small businesses in the coming year. Can you describe those ideas a little more? And also, can we really afford new tax breaks at this point, given the cost of the war on terror?

THE PRESIDENT: John, the first question all of us here in Washington ask is, how do we make sure this economy continues to grow. A vibrant economy is going to be necessary to fund not only war, but a lot of other aspects of our government. We have shown over the past six years that low taxes have helped this economy recover from some pretty significant shocks. After all, the unemployment rate is 4.5 percent and 7 million more Americans have been -- have found jobs since August of 2003. And we cut the deficit in half a couple of years in advance of what we thought would happen.

The question that Congress is going to have to face, and I'm going to have to continue to face is, how do we make sure we put policy in place to encourage economic growth in the short-term, and how do we keep America competitive in the long-term?

Part of the competitive initiative, which I have been working with Congress on, recognizes that education of young -- of the young is going to be crucial for remaining competitive. And that's why the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind is going to be an important part of the legislative agenda going forward in 2007.

I also spoke about energy in my opening remarks. In my judgment, we're going to have to get off oil as much as possible to remain a competitive economy. And I'm looking forward to working with Congress to do just that. I'm optimistic about some of the reports I've heard about new battery technologies that will be coming to the market that will enable people who -- people to drive the first 20 miles, for example, on electricity -- that will be the initial phase -- and then up to 40 miles on battery technologies. That will be positive, particularly if you live in a big city. A lot of people don't drive more than 20 miles, or 40 miles a day. And therefore, those urban dwellers who aren't driving that much won't be using any gasoline on a daily basis, and that will be helpful to the country.

I'm pleased with the fact that we've gone from about a billion gallons of ethanol to over 5 billion gallons of ethanol in a very quick period of time. It's mainly derived from corn here in the United States. But there's been great progress. And we need to continue to spend money on cellulosic ethanol. That means that new technologies that will enable us to use wood chips, for example, or switch grass as the fuel stocks for the development of new types of fuels that will enable American drivers to diversify away from gasoline.

I spent a lot of time talking about nuclear power, and I appreciate the Congress' support on the comprehensive energy bill that I signed. But nuclear power is going to be an essential source, in my judgement, of future electricity for the United States, and places like China and India. Nuclear power is renewable, and nuclear power does not emit one greenhouse gas. And it makes a lot of sense for us to share technologies that will enable people to feel confident that the nuclear power plants that are being built are safe, as well as technologies that will eventually come to fore that will enable us to reduce the wastes, the toxicity of the waste and the amount of the waste.

I'm going to continue to invest in clean coal technologies. We've got an abundance of coal here in America, and we need to be able to tell the American people we're going to be able to use that coal to generate electricity in environmentally friendly ways.

My only point to you is we've got a comprehensive plan to achieve the objective that most Americans support, which is less dependency upon oil.

I think it's going to be very important, John, to keep this economy growing -- short-term and long-term -- by promoting free trade. It's in our interest that nations treat our markets, our goods and services the way we treat theirs. And it's in our interest that administrations continue to promote more opening up markets. We've had a lot of discussions here in this administration on the Doha Round of WTO negotiations. And I'm very strongly in favor of seeing if we can't reach an accord with our trading partners and other countries around the world to promote -- to get this round completed so that free trade is universal in its application.

Free trade is going to be good for producers of U.S. product and services. But free trade is also going to be the most powerful engine for development around the world. It's going to help poor nations become wealthier nations. It's going to enable countries to be able to find markets for their goods and services so that they can better grow their economies and create prosperity for their people.

So we've got a robust agenda moving forward with the Congress, and I'm looking forward to working with them. And there are a lot of places where we can find common ground on these important issues.

Elaine.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. This week we learned that Scooter Libby --

THE PRESIDENT: A little louder, please. Excuse me -- getting old. (Laughter.)

Q I understand, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: No, you don't understand. (Laughter.)

Q You're right, I don't.

This week, sir, we learned that Scooter Libby's defense team plans to call Vice President Cheney to testify in the ongoing CIA leak case. I wonder, sir, what is your reaction to that? Is that something you'll resist?

THE PRESIDENT: I read it in the newspaper today, and it's an interesting piece of news. And that's all I'm going to comment about an ongoing case. I thought it was interesting.

Ann.

Q Thank you, sir. Mary is having a baby. And you have said that you think Mary Cheney will be a loving soul to a child. Are there any changes in the law that you would support that would give same-sex couples greater access to things such as legal rights, hospital visits, insurance, that would make a difference, even though you've said it's your preference -- you believe that it's preferable to have one man-one woman --

THE PRESIDENT: I've always said that we ought to review law to make sure that people are treated fairly.

On Mary Cheney, this is a personal matter for the Vice President and his family. I strongly support their privacy on the issue, although there's nothing private when you happen to be the President or the Vice President -- I recognize that. And I know Mary, and I like her, and I know she's going to be a fine, loving mother.

Baker, I'm not going to call on you again. You got too much coverage yesterday, you know? (Laughter.) Created a sense of anxiety amongst -- no, no, you handled yourself well, though.

Don.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. A question about the Iraq Study Group Report. One of the things that it recommends is greater dialogue, direct talks with Syria and Iran. James Baker himself, Secretary of State under your father, says that it's a lot like it was during the Cold War when we talked to the Soviet Union. He says it's important to talk to your adversaries. Is he wrong?

THE PRESIDENT: Let me start with Iran. We made it perfectly clear to them what it takes to come to the table, and that is a suspension of their enrichment program. If they verifiably suspend -- that they've stopped enrichment, we will come to the table with our EU3 partners and Russia, and discuss a way forward for them. Don, it should be evident to the Iranians, if this is what they want to do.

I heard the Foreign Minister -- I read the Foreign Minister say the other day that, yes, we'll sit down with America, after they leave Iraq. If they want to sit down with us, for the good of the Iranian people, they ought to verifiably suspend their program. We've made that clear to them. It is obvious to them how to move forward.

The Iranian people can do better than becoming -- than be an isolated nation. This is a proud nation with a fantastic history and tradition. And yet they've got a leader who constantly sends messages to the world that Iran is out of step with the majority of thinkers, that Iran is willing to become isolated -- to the detriment of the people.

I mean, I was amazed that, once again, there was this conference about the Holocaust that heralded a really backward view of the history of the world. And all that said to me was, is that the leader in Iran is willing to say things that really hurts his country and further isolates the Iranian people.

We're working hard to get a Security Council resolution. I spoke to Secretary Rice about the Iranian Security Council resolution this morning. And the message will be that you -- you, Iran -- are further isolated from the world.

My message to the Iranian people is you can do better than to have somebody try to rewrite history. You can do better than somebody who hasn't strengthened your economy. And you can do better than having somebody who's trying to develop a nuclear weapon that the world believes you shouldn't have. There's a better way forward.

Syria -- the message is the same. We have met with Syria since I have been the President of the United States. We have talked to them about what is necessary for them to have a better relationship with the United States. And they're not unreasonable requests. We've suggested to them that they no longer allow Saddamists to send money and arms across their border into Iraq to fuel the violence -- some of the violence that we see. We've talked to them about -- they've got to leave the democrat Lebanon alone.

I might say -- let me step back for a second -- I'm very proud of Prime Minister Siniora. He's shown a lot of tenacity and toughness in the face of enormous pressure from Syria, as well as Hezbollah, which is funded by Iran.

But we made it clear to them, Don, on how to move forward. We've had visits with the Syrians in the past. Congressmen and senators visit Syria. What I would suggest, that if they're interested in better relations with the United States, that they take some concrete, positive steps that promote peace, as opposed to instability.

Knoller.

Q Thank you, sir. Mr. President, did you or your Chief of Staff order an investigation of the leak of the Hadley memo before your meeting with Prime Minister al Maliki? And if the leak wasn't authorized, do you suspect someone in your administration is trying to undermine your Iraq policy or sabotage your meeting with Prime Minister al Maliki a few weeks back?

THE PRESIDENT: I'm trying to think back if I ordered an investigation. I don't recall ordering an investigation. I do recall expressing some angst about -- about ongoing leaks. You all work hard to find information and, of course, put it out for public consumption, and I understand that. But I don't appreciate those who leak classified documents. And it's an ongoing problem here, it really is -- not just for this administration, but it will be for any administration that is trying to put policy in place that affects the future of the country.

And we've had a lot of leaks, Mark, as you know, some of them out of the -- I don't know where they're from, and therefore I'm not going to speculate. It turns out you never can find the leaker. It's an advantage you have in doing your job. We can moan about it, but it's hard to find those inside the government that are willing to give, in this case, Hadley's document to newspapers.

You know, there may be an ongoing investigation of this, I just don't know. If there is -- if I knew about it, it's not fresh in my mind. But I do think that at some point in time it would be helpful if we can find somebody inside our government who is leaking materials, clearly against the law, that they be held to account. Perhaps the best way to make sure people don't leak classified documents is that there be a consequence for doing so.

Jim.

Q Mr. President, if we could return to the reflexive vein we were in a little while ago --

THE PRESIDENT: The what? Excuse me.

Q Reflexive -- reflective.

THE PRESIDENT: Reflective stage.

Q Part of the process of looking at the way forward could reasonably include considering how we got to where we are. Has that been part of your process? And what lessons -- after five years now of war, what lessons will you take into the final two years of your presidency?

THE PRESIDENT: Look, absolutely, Jim, that it is important for us to be successful going forward is to analyze that which went wrong. And clearly one aspect of this war that has not gone right is the sectarian violence inside Baghdad -- a violent reaction by both Sunni and Shia to each other that has caused a lot of loss of life, as well as some movements in neighborhoods inside of Baghdad. It is a troubling, very troubling, aspect of trying to help this Iraqi government succeed. And therefore, a major consideration of our planners is how to deal with that, and how to help -- more importantly, how to help the Iraqis deal with sectarian violence.

There are a couple of theaters inside of Iraq, war theaters. One, of course, is Baghdad, itself, where the sectarian violence is brutal. And we've got to help them -- we've got to help the Maliki government stop it and crack it and prevent it from spreading, in order to be successful.

I fully understand -- let me finish. Secondly, is the battle against the Sunnis -- Sunni extremists -- some of them Saddamists, some of there are al Qaeda, but all of them aiming to try to drive the United States out of Iraq before the job is done. And we're making good progress against them. It's hard fighting, it's been hard work, but our special ops teams, along with Iraqis, are on the hunt and bringing people to justice.

There's issues in the south of Iraq, mainly Shia-on-Shia tensions. But primarily, the toughest fight for this new government is inside of Baghdad. Most of the deaths, most of the violence is within a 30-mile radius of Baghdad, as well as in Anbar Province. In other words, a lot of the country is moving along positively. But it's this part of the fight that is getting our attention. And, frankly, we have -- it has been that aspect of the battle, toward a government which can defend and govern itself and be an ally in the war on terror, where we have not made as much progress as we'd have hoped to have made.

Listen, last year started off as an exciting year with the 12 million voters. And the attack on the Samarra mosque was Zarqawi's successful attempt to foment this sectarian violence. And it's mean, it is deadly. And we've got to help the Iraqis deal with it.

Success in Iraq will be success -- there will be a combination of military success, political success and reconstruction. And they've got to go hand-in-hand. That's why I think it's important that the moderate coalition is standing up. In other words, it's the beginning of a political process that I hope will marginalize the radicals and extremists who are trying to stop the advance of a free Iraq. That's why the oil law is going to be a very important piece of legislation.

In other words, when this government begins to send messages that we will put law in place that help unify the country, it's going to make the security situation easier to deal with. On the other hand, without better, stronger security measures, it's going to be hard to get the political process to move forward. And so it's - we've got a parallel strategy.

So when you hear me talking about the military -- I know there's a lot of discussion about troops, and there should be. But we've got to keep in mind we've also got to make sure we have a parallel political process and a reconstruction process going together concurrently with a new military strategy.

I thought it was an interesting statement that Prime Minister Maliki made the other day about generals, former generals in the Saddam army, that they could come back in, or receive a pension. In other words, he's beginning to reach out in terms of a reconciliation plan that I think is going to be important.

I had interesting discussions the other day with provincial reconstruction team members in Iraq. These are really brave souls who work for the State Department that are in these different provinces helping these provincial governments rebuild and to see a political way forward. And one of the things that -- most of these people were in the Sunni territory, that I had talked to, and most of them were very anxious for me to help them and help the Iraqi government put reconciliation plans in place. There's a lot of people trying to make a choice as to whether or not they want to support a government, or whether or not their interest may lay in extremism. And they understand that a political process that is positive, that sends a signal, we want to be a unified country, will help these folks make a rational choice.

And so it's a multifaceted plan. And absolutely, we're looking at where things went wrong, where expectations were dashed, and where things hadn't gone the way we wanted them to have gone.

Let's see here -- Julie.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. You said this week that your microphone has never been louder on some of the key domestic priorities you've talked about, particularly Social Security and immigration. Your use of the presidential microphone hasn't yielded the results that you wanted. So I'm wondering -- the Democratic Congress, at this point, Republicans no longer controlling things on Capitol Hill -- why you think your microphone is any louder, and how you plan to use it differently to get the results that you're looking for?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, microphone being loud means -- is that I'm able to help focus people's attentions on important issues. That's what I was referring to. In other words, the President is in a position to speak about priorities. Whether or not we can get those priorities done is going to take bipartisan cooperation, which I believe was one of the lessons of the campaigns.

I will tell you, I felt like we had a pretty successful couple of years when it comes to legislation. After all, we reformed Medicare; we put tax policy in place that encouraged economic growth and vitality; we passed trade initiatives; passed a comprehensive energy bill. I'm signing an important piece of legislation today that continues a comprehensive approach to energy exploration, plus extenders on R&D, for example, tax credits. It's been a pretty substantial legislative record if you carefully scrutinize it.

However, that doesn't mean necessarily that we are able to achieve the same kind of results without a different kind of approach. After all, you're right, the Democrats now control the House and the Senate. And, therefore, I will continue to work with their leadership -- and our own leaders, our own members -- to see if we can't find common ground on key issues like Social Security or immigration.

I strongly believe that we can, and must, get a comprehensive immigration plan on my desk this year. It's important for us because, in order to enforce our border, in order for those Border Patrol agents who we've increased down there and given them more equipment and better border security, they've got to have help and a plan that says, if you're coming into America to do a job, you can come legally for a temporary basis to do so.

I don't know if you've paid attention to the enforcement measures that were taken recently where in some of these packing plants they found people working that had been here illegally, but all of them had documents that said they were here legally -- they were using forged documents, which just reminded me that the system we have in place has caused people to rely upon smugglers and forgers in order to do work Americans aren't doing.

In other words, it is a system that is all aimed to bypass no matter what measures we take to protect this country. It is a system that, frankly, leads to inhumane treatment of people. And therefore, the best way to deal with an issue that Americans agree on -- that is, that we ought to enforce our borders in a humane way -- is we've got to have a comprehensive bill.

And I have made a proposal. I have spoken about this to the nation from the Oval Office. I continue to believe that the microphone is necessary to call people to action. And I want to work with both Republicans and Democrats to get a comprehensive bill to my desk. It's in our interest that we do this.

In terms of energy, there's another area where I know we can work together. There is a consensus that we need to move forward with continued research on alternative forms of energy. I've just described them in my opening comments, and be glad to go over them again if you'd like, because they're positive, it's a positive development. We're making progress. And there's more to be done.

So I'm looking forward to working with them. There's a lot of attitude here that says, well, you lost the Congress, therefore, you're not going to get anything done; quite the contrary. I have an interest to get things done. And the Democrat leaders have an interest to get something done to show that they're worthy of their leadership roles. And it is that common ground that I'm confident we can get -- we can make positive progress, without either of us compromising principle.

And I know they don't -- I know they're not going to change their principles, and I'm not going to change mine. But, nevertheless, that doesn't mean we can't find common ground to get good legislation done. That's what the American people want. The truth of the matter is, the American people are sick of the partisanship and name-calling.

I will do my part to elevate the tone. And I'm looking forward to working with them. It's going to be an interesting new challenge. I'm used to it, as Herman can testify. I was the governor of Texas with Democrat leadership in the House and the Senate, and we were able to get a lot of constructive things done for the state of Texas. And I believe it's going to be possible here -- to do so here in the country.

Michael.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Merry Christmas.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.

Q Yes. I've just two questions related to the amazing fact that a quarter of your presidency lies ahead. First, I keep reading that you'll be remembered only for Iraq, and I wonder what other areas you believe you're building a record of transformation you hope will last the ages. And second, a follow-up on Julie's question, what is your plan for either changing your role, or keeping control of the agenda, at a time when Democrats have both houses on the Hill, and when the '08 candidates are doing their thing?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, one is to set priorities. That's what I've just done, setting a priority. My message is, we can work together, and here are some key areas where we've got to work together: reauthorization of No Child Left Behind, minimum wage. I hope we're able to work together on free trade agreements. We can work together on Social Security reform and Medicare reform, entitlement reform. We need to work together on energy, immigration, earmarks.

The leadership has expressed their disdain for earmarks; I support their disdain for earmarks. I don't like a process where it's not transparent, where people are able to slip this into a bill without any hearing or without any recognition of who put it in there and why they put it in there. It's just not good for the system, and it's not good for building confidence of the American people in our process or in the Congress.

The first part of the -- oh, last two years. I'm going to work hard, Michael. I'm going to sprint to the finish, and we can get a lot done. And you're talking about legacy. Here -- I know, look, everybody is trying to write the history of this administration even before it's over. I'm reading about George Washington still. My attitude is, if they're still analyzing number 1, 43 ought not to worry about it and just do what he thinks is right, and make the tough choices necessary.

We're in the beginning stages of an ideological struggle, Michael, that's going to last a while. And I want to make sure this country is engaged in a positive and constructive way to secure the future for our children. And it's going to be a tough battle.

I also believe the Medicare reform -- the first meaningful, significant health care reform that's been passed in a while -- is making a huge difference for our seniors. No Child Left Behind has been a significant education accomplishment, and we've got to reauthorize it. We have proven that you can keep taxes low, achieve other objectives, and cut the deficit. The entrepreneurial spirit is high in this country, and one way to keep it high is to keep -- let people keep more of their own money.

So there's been a lot of accomplishment. But the true history of any administration is not going to be written until long after the person is gone. It's just impossible for short-term history to accurately reflect what has taken place. Most historians, you know, probably had a political preference, and so their view isn't exactly objective -- most short-term historians. And it's going to take a while for people to analyze mine or any other of my predecessors until down the road when they're able to take -- watch the long march of history and determine whether or not the decisions made during the eight years I was President have affected history in a positive way.

I wish you all a happy holiday. Thank you for your attendance. Have fun, enjoy yourself. For those lucky enough to go to Crawford, perhaps I'll see you down there.

Thank you.

END 10:52 A.M. EST

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