December 8, 1953, Eisenhower administration Asst. Attorney General Lee Rankin argues for plaintiffs in Brown v. Board of Education; 1924 Democratic presidential candidate John W. Davis argues in favor of “separate but equal”.
December 9, 1872, Republican Pinckney Pinchback (R-LA) becomes nation’s first African-American governor.
December 10, 1869, Republican Gov. John Campbell of Wyoming Territory signs first-in-nation law granting women right to vote and to hold public office.
December 11, 1895, African-American Republican and former U.S. Rep. Thomas Miller (R-SC) denounces new state constitution written to disenfranchise African-Americans.
December 12, 2003, President George W. Bush nominates African-American Alphonso Jackson as U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
December 13, 2001, “No Child Left Behind” Act to improve public education for all children passes House; signed into law by President George W. Bush.
December 14, 1829, Birth of African-American Republican John Langston; served as
diplomat in four Republican administrations, and in U.S. House (R-VA).
December 15, 2000, President-elect George W. Bush nominates Colin Powell as first African-American Secretary of State.
“Our commitment to fairness means that we must assure legal and economic equity for women, and eliminate, once and for all, all traces of unjust discrimination against women from the United States Code.”
Ronald Reagan, 40th President of the United States
Technorati Tags: President Bush and Freedom Calendar or Booker T. Washington and Republicans or African-Americans and Brown v. Board of Education or Ronald Reagan and Michael Steele or Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass or 40 acres and a mule or Martin Luther King and Voting Rights Act of 1965 or Dred Scott or White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 12/07/07 VIDEO PODCAST and One Times Square and 3-D photonic crystals will revolutionize telecommunications
Saturday, December 08, 2007
Freedom Calendar 12/08/07 - 12/15/07
0
comments
||
||
Presidential Podcast 12/08/07
 |
. 
Subscribe to Our Podcast feed or online 
podnova Podcast Channel and receive the weekly Presidential Radio Address in English and Spanish with select State Department Briefings. Featuring full audio and text transcripts, More content Sources added often so stay tuned. Fact Sheet: Helping American Families Keep Their Homes and In Focus: HomeownershipTechnorati Tags: President Bush and White House radio address or Congress and alternative minimum tax or White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 12/07/07 VIDEO PODCAST and One Times Square and 3-D photonic crystals will revolutionize telecommunications
0
comments
||
||
Bush radio address 12/08/07 full audio, text transcript
 | bush radio address 12/08/07 full audio, text transcript. President's Radio Address . Fact Sheet: Helping American Families Keep Their Homes and In Focus: Homeownership |
Subscribe to Our Podcast feed or online podnova Podcast Channel and receive the weekly Presidential Radio Address in English and Spanish with select State Department Briefings. Featuring real audio and full text transcripts, More content Sources added often so stay tuned.THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Today I want to talk to you about some important policies affecting taxpayers and homeowners this holiday season. On Thursday, the United States Senate passed a bill to fix the alternative minimum tax, or AMT. The AMT was designed to ensure that the wealthy paid their fair share of taxes. But when Congress passed the AMT decades ago, it was not indexed for inflation. As a result, the AMT's higher tax burden is creeping up on more and more middle-class families, and as many as 25 million Americans would be subject to the AMT. On average, these taxpayers would have to send an extra $2,000 to the IRS next year. This is a huge tax increase that taxpayers do not deserve and that Congress must stop.
I congratulate the United States Senate for acting to do so. Now it's up to the House of Representatives to move the bill. They've already delayed the bill so long that $75 billion in tax refund checks could be delayed next year.
I urge the House of Representatives to get the Senate-passed AMT relief bill to my desk before they adjourn so I can sign it and protect millions of families from higher taxes and avert any further delay in the tax refund checks next year.
I also know many Americans are concerned about meeting their mortgage obligations. The private sector and the government both have a role to play. More than three months ago, I announced a series of targeted actions to help responsible homeowners avoid foreclosure. And on Thursday I met with Treasury Secretary Paulson and Housing Secretary Jackson, who updated me on the progress.
The first step we took was to launch a new initiative at the Federal Housing Administration called "FHA Secure." This program gives the FHA greater flexibility to offer refinancing to homeowners who have good credit histories but cannot afford their current payments. In just three months, the FHA has helped more than 35,000 people refinance their homes. And in the coming year, the FHA expects this program to help more than 300,000 families.
Second, we helped assemble the HOPE NOW Alliance, which includes lenders, loan servicers, investors, and mortgage counselors. HOPE NOW is an example of the government bringing together members of the private sector to voluntarily address a national challenge -- without taxpayer subsidies or government mandates. This group has agreed on a set of industry-wide standards to help struggling homeowners by refinancing an existing loan into a new private mortgage, or by moving them into an FHA Secure loan, or by freezing their current interest rates for five years.
Lenders are already refinancing and modifying mortgages on a case-by-case basis. By taking a systemic approach, HOPE NOW will be able to help large groups of homeowners all at once. HOPE NOW estimates that up to 1.2 million homeowners could be eligible for assistance. And HOPE NOW has set up a counseling hotline that Americans can call 24 hours a day. I urge homeowners who are worried about rising mortgage payments to call 1-888-995-HOPE to get help.
Third, the federal government is working to reduce the likelihood of similar problems in the future. Regulators are taking action to make the mortgage industry more transparent, reliable, and fair. Our goal is to ensure that homeowners receive complete, accurate, and understandable information about their mortgages.
These measures will help many struggling homeowners -- and Congress has the potential to help even more. Yet in the three months since I made my proposals, Congress has not sent me a single bill to help homeowners. If Members are serious about responding to the challenges in the housing market, they can start by taking several important steps.
Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the FHA. This bill could allow the FHA to help 250,000 families by the end of 2008. Congress needs to temporarily reform the tax code to help homeowners refinance during this time of housing market stress. And Congress needs to pass funding to support mortgage counseling. With this funding, we could help more homeowners choose the mortgage that is right for them.
As well, Congress needs to pass legislation to reform Government Sponsored Enterprises like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. By strengthening the independent regulation of these institutions, we can ensure they focus on their mission to expand homeownership in a fiscally responsible way.
These common-sense measures have been before Congress for months. Congress needs to pass these measures quickly -- and send them to my desk, so we can help homeowners in need and protect the American Dream for all our citizens.
Thank you for listening.
END For Immediate Release December 7, 2007
Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House radio address or Congress and alternative minimum tax or White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 12/07/07 VIDEO PODCAST and One Times Square and 3-D photonic crystals will revolutionize telecommunications
0
comments
||
||
Discurso Radial del Presidente a la Nación 12/08/07
| forre el audio de la dirección de radio 12/08/07 por completo, transcripción del texto. (nota de los redactores: ninguna lengua española mp3 lanzó esta semana, apesadumbrada) PODCAST |
Suscribir a nuestro canal de Podcast de Odeo o del podnova y recibir la dirección de radio presidencial semanal en inglés y español con informes selectos del departamento del estado. Ofreciendo transcripciones audio y con texto completo verdaderas, más fuentes contentas agregaron a menudo así que la estancia templó.Buenos Días.
Hoy quisiera hablarles sobre algunas políticas importantes que afectan a los contribuyentes y dueños de casa en esta temporada de fiesta. El jueves el Senado de los Estados Unidos aprobó un proyecto de ley para arreglar el Impuesto Mínimo Alternativo, o AMT por sus siglas en inglés. El AMT fue diseñado para asegurar que los ricos pagaran su parte justa en impuestos. Pero cuando el Congreso aprobó el AMT hace décadas, no llevaba un índice para inflación. Como resultado, la carga tributaria más elevada del AMT está incidiendo en un número cada vez mayor de familias de media clase, y hasta 25 millones de estadounidenses estarían sujetos al AMT. Como promedio, estos contribuyentes tendrían que enviar unos 2,000 dólares adicionales al Servicio de Impuestos Internos el año próximo. Este es un enorme aumento en los impuestos que los contribuyentes no merecen - y que el Congreso tiene que detener.
Felicito al Senado de los Estados Unidos por actuar en este sentido. Ahora le incumbe a la Cámara de Representantes llevar adelante el proyecto de ley. Ya han demorado tanto el proyecto de ley que el próximo año podrán demorarse cheques de reembolso de impuestos hasta por 75 mil millones de dólares.
Le ruego a la Cámara de Representantes que haga llegar a mi escritorio el proyecto de ley sobre alivio al AMT aprobado por el Senado, antes de terminar su sesión, a fin de que yo lo pueda firmar y proteger a millones de familias contra impuestos más elevados, y evitar cualquier demora adicional en los cheques de reembolso de impuestos el año próximo.
También sé que muchos estadounidenses están preocupados por cumplir con sus obligaciones hipotecarias. El sector privado y el gobierno ambos tienen un papel a desempeñar. Hace más de tres meses, anuncié una serie de acciones enfocadas hacia ayudar a que dueños de casa responsables evitaran la ejecución hipotecaria. Y el jueves me reuní con el Secretario del Tesoro Paulson y el Secretario de Vivienda Jackson quienes me dieron un informe actualizado del progreso logrado.
El primer paso que tomamos fue lanzar una nueva iniciativa en la Administración Federal de la Vivienda, o FHA por sus siglas en inglés, llamada "FHA Secure". Este programa le da a la FHA mayor flexibilidad para ofrecer re-financiamiento a los dueños de casa que tengan buenos historiales de crédito pero que no puedan cumplir con sus pagos actuales. En solo tres meses, la FHA ha ayudado a más de 35,000 personas a re- financiar sus casas. Y en el año venidero, la FHA espera que este programa ayude a más de 300,00 familias.
Segundo, ayudamos a formar la Alianza HOPE NOW que incluye prestamistas, administradores de préstamos, inversionistas y asesores hipotecarios. HOPE NOW es un ejemplo en que el gobierno reúne a miembros del sector privado para voluntariamente enfrentar un desafío nacional - sin subsidios a los contribuyentes ni mandatos gubernamentales. Este grupo ha acordado un conjunto de normas a nivel de la industria para ayudar a dueños de casa que estén con dificultades, refinanciando un préstamo existente en una nueva hipoteca privada, o dándoles un préstamo FHA Secure, o congelando sus tasas de interés actuales por cinco años.
Los prestamistas ya están refinanciando y modificando hipotecas sobre una base caso-por-caso. Tomando un enfoque sistemático, HOPE NOW podrá ayudar a grandes grupos de dueños de casa al mismo tiempo. HOPE NOW estima que hasta 1.2 millones de dueños de casa podrán ser elegibles para asistencia. Y HOPE NOW ha establecido una línea telefónica de asesoramiento, a la que los estadounidenses pueden llamar directamente las 24 horas del día. Les insto a los dueños de casa que estén preocupados por pagos hipotecarios crecientes que llamen al 1-888-995-HOPE para obtener ayuda.
Tercero, el gobierno federal está trabajando para disminuir la probabilidad de problemas similares en el futuro. Los reguladores están tomando acción para que la industria hipotecaria sea más transparente, confiable y equitativa. Nuestra meta es asegurar que los dueños de casa reciban información sobre sus hipotecas que sea completa, precisa y comprensible.
Estas medidas ayudarán a muchos dueños de casa con dificultades - y el Congreso tiene el potencial de ayudar aún más. Sin embargo, en los tres meses desde que hice mis propuestas, el Congreso no me ha enviado un solo proyecto de ley para ayudar a los dueños de casa. Si los miembros toman en serio responder a los desafíos del mercado de la vivienda, pueden comenzar por tomar varios pasos importantes.
El Congreso necesita aprobar legislación para modernizar la FHA. Este proyecto de ley podría permitirle a la FHA ayudar a 250,000 familias hasta fines del 2008. El Congreso necesita reformar provisionalmente el código tributario para ayudar a los dueños de casa a refinanciar durante este período de estrés en el mercado de la vivienda. Y el Congreso necesita aprobar financiamiento para apoyar el asesoramiento hipotecario. Con este financiamiento, podríamos ayudar a más dueños de casa a elegir la hipoteca que mejor les convenga.
Igualmente, el Congreso necesita aprobar legislación para reformar empresas patrocinadas por el gobierno tales como Freddie Mac y Fannie Mae. Al fortalecer la reglamentación independiente de estas instituciones, podemos asegurar que enfoquen su misión en expandir el ser dueño de casa de una manera fiscalmente responsable.
Estas medidas de sentido común han estado delante del Congreso desde hace meses. El Congreso necesita aprobar estas medidas sin demora - y enviarlas a mi escritorio para que podamos ayudar a los dueños de casa necesitados y proteger al Sueño Americano para todos nuestros ciudadanos.
Gracias por escuchar.
Para su publicación inmediata, Oficina del Secretario de Prensa, 7 de diciembre de 2007
Etiquetas De Technorati: Discurso Radial del Presidente a la Nación, y Presidente Bush or White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 12/07/07 VIDEO PODCAST and One Times Square and 3-D photonic crystals will revolutionize telecommunications
0
comments
||
||
Friday, December 07, 2007
White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 12/07/07 VIDEO PODCAST
 | Press Briefing by Dana Perino, FULL STREAMING VIDEO, White House Conference Center Briefing Room, PODCAST OF THIS ARTICLE MP3, Dana M. Perino Biography, 12:42 P.M. EDT. |
Q Thanks. On these CIA videotapes, did either the President or Vice President or Condoleezza Rice, when she was National Security Advisor, or Steve Hadley, see them before they were destroyed?
MS. PERINO: I spoke to the President, and so I will have to defer on the others. But I spoke to the President this morning about this. He has no recollection of being made aware of the tapes or their destruction before yesterday. He was briefed by General Hayden yesterday morning. And as to the others, I'll have to -- I'll refer you to the Vice President's office and I'll see if I can get the others.
Q Was there any White House involvement in approving or commenting upon their destruction?
MS. PERINO: As I said, the President has no recollection knowing about the tapes or about their destruction, and so I can't answer the follow-up.
Q Just one more. If there -- Senator Durbin is calling for Justice to investigate whether there is -- whether the destruction represents obstruction of justice. Is there any White House comment on whether that might or might not be the case?
MS. PERINO: I saw that they made that request. I know that the CIA Director is gathering facts and our White House Counsel's Office is supporting them in that. Whether or not there is going to be an investigation to that scale will have to be determined by others.
Q Dana, is this something that you would characterize the President's feeling about -- is this something that's sort of seen as understandable, or is this something that you're embarrassed about?
MS. PERINO: I would say that the President supports General Hayden. General Hayden made a statement yesterday to his employees in which he said that the decision was made by the agency, it was made in consultation with the agency's lawyers. And he said -- and I quote -- that "the tapes posed a serious security risk and were they ever to leak, they would permit identification of your CIA colleagues who had served in the program, exposing them and their families to retaliation from al Qaeda and its sympathizers."
He has complete confidence in General Hayden and he has asked White House Counsel's Office, as I said, who is already in communication with the CIA General Counsel as the CIA Director continues to gather facts. As you know, General Hayden wasn't there at this time, either.
Q There was no step short of destruction of the tape that would address these concerns?
MS. PERINO: As they're gathering facts I think that it's best that I not comment along the way, and let them do that review over at the CIA, and have us be supportive of it without us characterizing.
Did you have one?
Q Can you -- just a general description of his reaction when he was briefed by -- briefed about this?
MS. PERINO: I wasn't there. I only asked him about this --
Q Well, what was his reaction -- did he express any opinion or reaction to this when you asked him about it?
MS. PERINO: Again, it would be inappropriate for me to comment about his characterization of it, as the CIA Director is doing a review. They're gathering facts and, as Jennifer said, there's been a call for investigation. So until that plays out, I'm not going to comment.
Matt.
Q Dana, some legal experts are saying that the destruction of these tapes --
MS. PERINO: Who are the legal experts?
Q Some legal experts are saying that the destruction of these tapes actually wrecks the chances of convicting the terrorism suspects who are being -- who were taped. Is there any comment on that --
MS. PERINO: No. I'm sure there are a lot of legal opinions out there. I'm not a lawyer, so I'll decline to comment on it.
Q Dana, regardless of the reasons for destroying these tapes, what does the White House say to members of the House Intelligence Committee? Hayden apparently said, well, we notified them about the tapes and they exist, and we are going to destroy them. Some of them say, no, you didn't, we didn't know about it -- Hoekstra among them. Also, the 9/11 Commission said, you know, we asked for this information; we were told it didn't exist.
Regardless, again, of why this material was destroyed, shouldn't these both -- and certainly the 9/11 Commission -- have had the opportunity to view the tapes that they requested?
MS. PERINO: I think that question is best directed to the CIA in regards to who was briefed and when.
Q And the President doesn't have any concerns about --
MS. PERINO: Again, as they continue to gather facts, I'm not going to comment beyond that characterization. But the CIA should be the one to answer questions about who was briefed, and when, on the Hill.
Q Dana, can I get back to -- when you said the President supports General Hayden, is he supporting the reason that General Hayden cited? Does he think that protecting his employees was an appropriate reason?
MS. PERINO: The President doesn't have any reason to doubt General Hayden. He has complete confidence in him, and he has asked the Counsel's Office to be supportive of the review that General Hayden is doing, and we'll help them to gather the facts as we can.
Sheryl.
Q Can you talk about how the -- General Hayden informed the President? Did he call him on the phone? Did he ask for a meeting and come here to the White House?
MS. PERINO: It was in the regular intelligence briefing yesterday morning.
Q And did the President express no opinion at all about not being made aware of these tapes? You said he was -- he has no recollection of being made aware of the tapes or their destruction before yesterday. Obviously, General Hayden has known for some time that these tapes existed and were destroyed. Is the President angry or upset about being kept in the dark?
MS. PERINO: As I said, I'm not going to characterize -- I asked the President about whether he knew about the tapes and their existence or their destruction; he said he had no recollection of that. He did not remember being made aware of those prior to yesterday morning. And as I said in previous times before, I'm not going to characterize his reaction.
Q Dana, a follow-up to that, was anyone else in the White House notified about the existence of the tapes, aware of the existence, aware that they were going to be destroyed, that they were destroyed? The Vice President? Anyone else in the White House --
MS. PERINO: As I said -- I already said that I asked about the President -- look, if we can get you answers on other people, I will. The Vice President's office has a press office and you can contact them.
Anyone else? Roger.
Q Back to Jennifer's question, you said this -- the White House Counsel is supporting the CIA and helping collect information. But does the President support a request to Mukasey to investigate?
MS. PERINO: I think I answered that already as well, which is, they're gathering facts, and if there's a decision to investigate, of course the White House would -- it's a hypothetical. If the Attorney General moves on down that road, of course the White House would support that.
Q Are you urging the Attorney General to look into it?>
MS. PERINO: As I said, we are supporting the CIA Director. They are still gathering facts over at the CIA. We are helping them, and I think it's premature to say.
Peter.
Q Just to clarify, Dana, when you say the President supports Hayden, is he -- are we to infer that he supports Hayden's decision to destroy these tapes?
MS. PERINO: Hayden wasn't at the agency at the time.
Q I mean, the CIA decision to destroy these tapes.
MS. PERINO: As I said -- what I said is that he doesn't have any reason -- he said he has complete confidence in General Hayden; he doesn't have any reason to doubt him. They are still gathering facts, and I think until that is finished, I'm not going to comment beyond that.
Q What's the level of concern here that a law may have been broken, or laws may have been broken?
MS. PERINO: I think I'll decline to comment.
Q Why?
MS. PERINO: Well, as I said, they are continuing to gather facts. And so I don't think it's appropriate for me to comment on that.
Q Can you elaborate on what the role of the White House Counsel's Office is in this?
MS. PERINO: Well, they're the appropriate -- the CIA General Counsel's Office is the one that is helping to gather the facts for General Hayden. And so it's appropriate that our Counsel's Office be the ones that are communicating with them.
Q So just a -- you're saying it's just a legal liaison between here and there, or is the White House Counsel's Office helping the CIA get its story together on this?
MS. PERINO: They're helping them gather facts. We said we would support them in that.
Anybody else on this? Okay, in the back.
Q Can you confirm that if there was a phone call between President Bush and Chinese President Hu Jintao yesterday, and what was the nature of the conversation?
MS. PERINO: Yes, we've already said that there a conversation. They talked about a wide variety of subjects, including the Iran NIE.
Q Anything about Taiwan, specifically?
MS. PERINO: Not that I recall.
Go ahead.
Q Dana, thank you. President Bush sent a letter to North Korean leader Kim Jong-il. Why he did now, and what is the contents of the letter?
MS. PERINO: Well, as I said yesterday, the President sent a letter to every member of the six-party talks. And we are at a critical juncture, as the President would say, that this is a time when we're nearing the end of the 2005 agreement, that it has to be done by December 31st. And what that means is that North Korea has to make a complete and accurate declaration. And the President was reminding Kim Jong-il and the other members of the six-party talks that at the highest levels of this government we support the effort, and we are working to make sure that everyone is on the same page, and reminding North Korea that they have an obligation and a responsibility to send in a complete and accurate declaration. And Ambassador Chris Hill is on the ground there, and they are working amongst each other to figure out how that is going to be received and disseminated amongst the parties.
Q Have you gotten any response from Kim Jong-il?
MS. PERINO: Not that I'm aware of, but Ambassador Chris Hill might be able to tell you.
Ann.
Q What is the President's instruction to any members of his administration when there have been repeated requests for videos, or information, or any notes, or any investigation, any congressional committee asking for things that might be in the administration's hands?
MS. PERINO: In general, the President has always said that we should be responsive to requests in the appropriate way. And so I'm not going to comment any further on that because that's asking me to comment specifically about this issue regarding the videotapes. As the CIA Director continues to gather his facts, we'll work with him through our White House Counsel's Office to do that.
Sheryl.
Q Dana, can you just elaborate on this fact-gathering process? What is it that the CIA wants to know --
MS. PERINO: I don't know, Sheryl, I think it's too early.
Q -- what facts are being gathered, and when --
MS. PERINO: I don't know, I haven't been on the phone with the general counsel.
Q And when do you expect that the CIA and the President will make some further statement about this, and whether or not there ought to be an investigation, or what should happen next?
MS. PERINO: Beyond my briefing today, I don't expect anything up here today, but you'll have to call the CIA. It's a question best directed at them of whether they'll make another statement or do anything further.
Q No, but I just mean, like, in a week will we hear back from you --
MS. PERINO: I don't know.
Q -- that the CIA has concluded its, you know, investigation?
MS. PERINO: I can understand why you have a question, but I just -- I don't know.
Q Dana, there's an ongoing debate in the country about sort of where the lines are, as regards torture, and -- or enhanced interrogation. And I'm wondering if you feel that this report -- which I don't think anyone's contesting that the destruction of the tapes took place -- does this undermine the administration's position?
MS. PERINO: I think I would say -- I would take this opportunity, though, to take a step back and remind people about this interrogation program, which was put in place to deal with a very limited number of people; the most intransigent of terrorists. This program has saved lives. It is legal, safe, effective; it is limited, it is tough, and it has led to the capture of individuals -- terrorists -- who had information that was able to lead us to others. These are the -- General Hayden has talked about this several times, in terms of how many people -- we had this debate earlier this year, and the program is critical to the safety of the country.
Q And if it's so defensible, then why destroy any part of it?
MS. PERINO: Again, I'm not going to comment on that. The CIA has made its comment. They've said that they -- that the agency made its decision, and it was based -- and it was done in consultation with their legal counsel. And let's let the CIA Director gather those facts, and we'll see what they come up -- what they say after that.
Q Dana, what were the circumstances of General Hayden telling the President about this? Was it a report? Was Bush asking about the report? Was it --
MS. PERINO: All I know, Wendell, is that yesterday in the President's briefing with the intelligence folks, of which General Hayden is the one who comes to brief the President, that's when he was told about it.
Q Dana, when you say the President supports General Hayden, you're specifically singling out the current director, not the previous one who actually made the decision --
MS. PERINO: Well, I didn't ask the President about that. But I don't have any reason for -- I think -- I don't think that we have any reason to doubt what the CIA's legal counsel -- the advice that they gave to the CIA at the time. I said I think that those facts need to be gathered before that can be said.
Paula.
Q It appears that Congress, if they can't resolve the omnibus spending bills, is looking at extending the CR until early February. Would the President support something that long, given that (inaudible) war supplemental?
MS. PERINO: What's interesting is that I just heard another rumor on my way down to the briefing room about what Congress is planning to do, what the Democrats are planning to do with their -- in order to solve the spending fix that they've gotten themselves into. And so I think it's premature to say.
What the President wants is clean and full funding for the troops, as well as an appropriations bill to be sent to him. Of course, the President is not -- does not want a shutdown of the federal government; I don't think Congress wants that either. There's no need for there to be one. They could send us the bills.
If there has to be another CR, we will have to cross that bridge when we come to it. They have another week in order to work, though.
Q Well, my understanding, probably the same thing, is that they are trying to, like, make all these spending bills within the limit, but the war supplemental is still at issue. So if they need a little extra time to try to --
MS. PERINO: I've heard -- I've heard it even differently from that. I think we ought to let the Democrats come together in one -- with one position before we negotiate with them.
All right, Les.
Q Thank you, Dana. Two questions. The President has seen or listened to or seen news coverage of Governor Romney's speech yesterday on church and state, hasn't he?
MS. PERINO: I do not -- no, I don't -- I don't know. He maybe saw news coverage this morning.
Q Does he believe that this speech yesterday will have the same desired effect as a similar speech by Senator John F. Kennedy, also of Massachusetts?
MS. PERINO: I don't know about that. I do know that the President thinks that everyone should be able to describe their religion for themselves.
Peter.
Q Back to this tape story. The CIA says the tapes were part of an internal check that they put in place after the President authorized this questioning technique. So what's the ramification of the destruction of that record that they instituted to --
MS. PERINO: I think this goes back to the question regarding the legal advice that the CIA got from their counsel, and I don't have -- again, I don't have the facts on it, and I don't have any reason to question their legal advice. But that, obviously, will be a part of what the CIA general looks at.
Q Okay, thank you.
MS. PERINO: Thanks.
END 12:57 P.M. EST. For Immediate Release, Office of the Press Secretary, December 7, 2007
Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House or Dana Perino and VIDEO, or Mitt Romney Faith in America Speech VIDEO and Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and MIT: 'Micro' livers could aid drug screening
0
comments
||
||
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Mitt Romney Faith in America Speech VIDEO
 | Fmr. Gov. Mitt Romney's (R-MA) "Faith in America" Speech: FULL STREAMING VIDEO Speaking from the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library in College Station, TX, fmr. Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) discusses religion, politics and governance. |
Governor Romney's "Faith In America" Address (As Delivered): "Thank you, Mr. President, for your kind introduction.
 | "It is an honor to be here again today. This is an inspiring place because of you and the First Lady and because of the film that is exhibited across the way in the Presidential library. |
(APPLAUSE)
"Mr. President, your generation rose to the occasion, first to defeat Fascism and then to vanquish the Soviet Union. You left us, your children, a free and strong America. It's why we call yours the greatest generation. It's now my generation's turn. How we respond to today's challenges will define our generation. And it will determine what kind of America we will leave our children, and theirs.
"America faces a new generation of challenges. Radical, violent Islam seeks to destroy us. An emerging China endeavors to surpass our economic leadership. And we're troubled at home by government overspending, overuse of foreign oil, and the breakdown of the family.
"Over the last year, we've embarked on a national debate on how best to preserve American leadership. Today, I wish to address a topic which I believe is fundamental to America's greatness: our religious liberty. I'll also offer perspectives on how my own faith would inform my Presidency, if I were elected.
"There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they're at odds with the nation's founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom. In John Adams' words: 'We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion.' 'Our Constitution,' he said, 'was made for a moral and religious people.'
"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.
"Given our grand tradition of religious tolerance and liberty, some wonder whether there are any questions regarding an aspiring candidate's religion that are appropriate. I believe there are. And I'll answer them today.
"Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for President, not a Catholic running for President. Like him, I am an American running for President. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.
"Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.
"As Governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it, serving the law and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution – and of course, I would not do so as President. I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law.
"As a young man, Lincoln described what he called America's 'political religion' – the commitment to defend the rule of law and the Constitution. When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I'm fortunate to become your President, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States.
(APPLAUSE)
"There are some for whom these commitments are not enough. They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it's more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith, and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers – I will be true to them and to my beliefs.
"Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they're right, so be it. But I think they underestimate the American people. Americans do not respect believers of convenience. Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world.
"There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church's beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.
"There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.
(APPLAUSE)
"I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer to God. And in every faith I've come to know, there are features I wish were in my own: I love the profound ceremony of the Catholic Mass, the approachability of God in the prayers of the Evangelicals, the tenderness of spirit among the Pentecostals, the confident independence of the Lutherans, the ancient traditions of the Jews, unchanged through the ages, and the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims. As I travel across the country and see our towns and cities, I'm always moved by the many houses of worship with their steeples, all pointing to heaven, reminding us of the source of life's blessings.
"It's important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it's usually a sound rule to focus on the latter – on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people.
"We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they're intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They're wrong.
(APPLAUSE)
"The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation 'Under God' and in God, we do indeed trust.
"We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders – in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, Nativity scenes and Menorahs should be welcome in our public places.
(APPLAUSE)
"Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our Constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'
(APPLAUSE)
"Nor would I separate us from our religious heritage. Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks a political office, is this: does he share these American values: the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast commitment to liberty?
"They're not unique to any one denomination. They belong to the great moral inheritance we hold in common. They're the firm ground on which Americans of different faiths meet and stand as a nation, united.
"We believe that every single human being is a child of God – we're all part of the human family. The conviction of the inherent and inalienable worth of every life is still the most revolutionary political proposition ever advanced. John Adams put it that we are 'thrown into the world all equal and alike.'
"The consequence of our common humanity is our responsibility to one another, to our fellow Americans foremost, but also to every child of God. It's an obligation which is fulfilled by Americans every day, here and across the globe, without regard to creed or race or nationality.
"Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government.
(APPLAUSE)
"No people in the history of the world have sacrificed as much for liberty. The lives of hundreds of thousands of America's sons and daughters were laid down during the last century to preserve freedom, for us and for freedom loving people throughout the world. America took nothing from that Century's terrible wars – no land from Germany or Japan or Korea; no treasure; no oath of fealty. America's resolve in the defense of liberty has been tested time and again. It has not been found wanting, nor must it ever be. America must never falter in holding high the banner of freedom.
(APPLAUSE)
"These American values, this great moral heritage, is shared and lived in my religion as it is in yours. I was taught in my home to honor God and love my neighbor. I saw my father march with Martin Luther King. I saw my parents provide compassionate care to others, in personal ways to people nearby, and in just as consequential ways in leading national volunteer movements. I'm moved by the Lord's words: 'For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: naked, and ye clothed me...'
"My faith is grounded on these truths. You can witness them in Ann and my marriage and in our family. We are a long way from perfect and we have surely stumbled along the way, but our aspirations, our values, are the self-same as those from the other faiths that stand upon this common foundation. And these convictions will indeed inform my presidency.
(APPLAUSE)
"Today's generations of Americans have always known religious liberty. Perhaps we forget the long and arduous path our nation's forbearers took to achieve it. They came here from England to seek freedom of religion. But upon finding it for themselves, they at first denied it to others. Because of their diverse beliefs, Ann Hutchinson was exiled from Massachusetts Bay, Roger Williams founded Rhode Island, and two centuries later, Brigham Young set out for the West. Americans were unable to accommodate their commitment to their own faith with an appreciation for the convictions of others to different faiths. In this, they were very much like those of the European nations they'd left.
"It was in Philadelphia that our Founding Fathers defined a revolutionary vision of liberty, grounded on self evident truths about the equality of all, and the inalienable rights with which each is endowed by his Creator.
"We cherish these sacred rights, and secure them in our Constitutional order. Foremost do we protect religious liberty, not as a matter of policy but as a matter of right. There will be no established church, and we are guaranteed the free exercise of our religion.
"I'm not sure that we fully appreciate the profound implications of our tradition of religious liberty. I've visited many of the magnificent cathedrals in Europe. They are so inspired, so grand, and so empty. Raised up over generations, long ago, so many of the cathedrals now stand as the postcard backdrop to societies just too busy or too 'enlightened' to venture inside and kneel in prayer. The establishment of state religions in Europe did no favor to Europe's churches. And though you will find many people of strong faith there, the churches themselves seem to be withering away.
"Infinitely worse is the other extreme, the creed of conversion by conquest: violent Jihad, murder as martyrdom, killing Christians, Jews, and Muslims with equal indifference. These radical Islamists do their preaching not by reason or example, but in the coercion of minds and the shedding of blood. We face no greater danger today than theocratic tyranny, and the boundless suffering these states and groups could inflict if given the chance.
"The diversity of our cultural expression, and the vibrancy of our religious dialogue, has kept America in the forefront of civilized nations even as others regard religious freedom as something to be destroyed.
"In such a world, we can be deeply thankful that we live in a land where reason and religion are friends and allies in the cause of liberty, joined against the evils and dangers of the day.
(APPLAUSE)
"And you can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen. We do not insist on a single strain of religion. Rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith.
(APPLAUSE)
"Recall the early days of the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia, during the fall of 1774. With Boston occupied by British troops, there were rumors of imminent hostilities and fears of an impending war. In this time of peril, someone suggested that they pray. But there were objections. 'They were too divided in religious sentiments', what with Episcopalians and Quakers, Anabaptists and Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Catholics.
"Then Sam Adams rose, and said he would hear a prayer from anyone of piety and good character, as long as they were a patriot.
"And so together they prayed, and together they fought, and together, by the grace of God, they founded this great nation.
(APPLAUSE)
"And, in that spirit, let us give thanks to the divine 'author of liberty.' And together, let us pray that this land may always be blessed, 'with freedom's holy light.'
"God bless this great land, the United States of America. Thank you."
(APPLAUSE)
Technorati Tags: Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee New Television Ad Believe VIDEO and Historic Chanukkah menorot VIDEO and Remote-control nanoparticles deliver drugs directly into tumors
0
comments
||
||
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Fred Thompson New TV Ad Service VIDEO
Fred Thompson: I'm Fred Thompson and I approved this message.
Announcer: Called to public service in challenging times. A young federal prosecutor, tough on crime. Fred Thompson. A courageous reformer - fighting corruption in both parties.
Helping to expose the truth during Watergate and sending a crooked Democratic Governor to prison.
Fred Thompson. A consistent conservative in the U.S. Senate, a 100% pro-life record, voting for three major tax cuts and fighting for conservative judges.
Fred Thompson - True conservative for President.
Technorati Tags: Fred Thompson or Press Conference by the President 12/04/07 VIDEO and Harry Truman, David Ben-Gurion, Abba Eban, Chanukkah menorah and NASA Goddard Space Flight Center's carbon nanotube manufacturing technology wins Nano 50 Award
0
comments
||
||
Mike Huckabee New Television Ad Believe VIDEO
"Faith doesn't just influence me, it really defines me,” says Huckabee on camera, echoing a sentiment he often expresses on the campaign trail.
The 30-second spot (the second in two weeks) also reiterates Huckabee’s strong stand on pro-life issues, including his belief that life begins at conception, and dedication to conservative values. “Let us never sacrifice our principles for anybody's politics. Not now. Not ever,” said Huckabee.
Huckabee became politically active because of the life amendment when he helped pass Arkansas’ Unborn Child Amendment. As governor, he fought for passage of a constitutional amendment to protect the right to life and other pro-life initiatives including signing legislation to ban partial birth abortion and a litany of other measures. He supports, and has always supported, passage of a federal Life Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As president, he has vowed to fight for passage of this amendment.
Recognizing that “our true strength comes from our families,” Huckabee strongly supports and has consistently supported passage of a federal constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. As Governor of Arkansas, he led the successful effort to pass a similar state constitutional amendment in 2002 and a successful effort to make Arkansas one of three states to adopt "covenant" marriage.
The new television ad hit the airwaves in Iowa.
Technorati Tags: Mike Huckabee or Press Conference by the President 12/04/07 VIDEO and Harry Truman, David Ben-Gurion, Abba Eban, Chanukkah menorah and NASA Goddard Space Flight Center's carbon nanotube manufacturing technology wins Nano 50 Award
0
comments
||
||
Rudy Giuliani New Television Ad One Hour VIDEO
The Rudy Giuliani Presidential Committee today announced the launch of a new television ad, entitled “One Hour.” The ad is airing in New Hampshire and Boston.
Script for “One Hour”:
MAYOR GIULIANI: “I remember back to the 1970s and the early 1980s. Iranian mullahs took American hostages and they held the American hostages for 444 days. And they released the American hostages in one hour, and that should tell us a lot about these Islamic terrorists that we’re facing. The one hour in which they released them was the one hour in which Ronald Reagan was taking the Oath of Office as President of the United States. The best way you deal with dictators, the best way you deal with tyrants and terrorists, you stand up to them. You don’t back down. I’m Rudy Giuliani and I approve this message.”
Technorati Tags: Rudy Giuliani or Press Conference by the President 12/04/07 VIDEO and Harry Truman, David Ben-Gurion, Abba Eban, Chanukkah menorah and NASA Goddard Space Flight Center's carbon nanotube manufacturing technology wins Nano 50 Award
0
comments
||
||
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Press Conference by the President 12/04/07 VIDEO
 | Press Conference by the President. running time is 42:40. FULL STREAMING VIDEO. James S. Brady Press Briefing Room. In Focus: National Security and In Focus: Budget and In Focus: Middle East. 10:01 A.M. EST. |
But Congress still has a lot to do, and doesn't have very much time to do it. Three weeks from today Americans will celebrate Christmas, and three groups of Americans are waiting on Congress to act. The first group are the troops. Our troops are waiting on Congress to fund them in their operations overseas. Nearly 10 months ago, I submitted a detailed funding request. Congress has not acted. Our men and women shouldn't have to wait any longer.
Second, our intelligence professionals are waiting for Congress to act. The legislation Congress approved early this year to make sure our intelligence professionals can continue to effectively monitor terrorist communications is set to expire in February. Allowing this law to lapse would open gaps in our intelligence and increase the danger to our country. Our intelligence professionals need these tools to keep our people safe, and they need Congress to ensure that these tools are not taken away.
Third, American taxpayers are waiting on Congress to act. Congress has failed to pass legislation that will protect middle class families from the burden of the Alternative Minimum Tax. If Congress doesn't act, millions of Americans will be hit with an unexpected tax bill. And even if Congress does act by the end of the year, this action could delay the delivery of about $75 billion worth of tax refund checks. Congress expects Americans to pay their taxes on time, and the least the Congress can do is make sure Americans get their refunds on time.
Americans also expect their tax dollars to be spent wisely. Yet today, 11 of the 12 annual spending bills that fund the day-to-day operations of the federal government remain unfinished. And now congressional leaders are talking about piling these bills into one monstrous piece of legislation which they will load with billions of dollars in earmarks and wasteful spending. Taxpayers deserve better. And if the Congress passes an irresponsible spending bill, I'm going to veto it.
The holidays are approaching and the clock is ticking for the United States Congress. Based on the record so far, Americans could be forgiven for thinking that Santa will have slipped down their chimney on Christmas Eve before Congress finishes its work. Let's hope they're wrong.
And now I'll be glad to answer some questions, starting with Terry Hunt.
Q Mr. President, a new intelligence report says that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program four years ago, and that it remains frozen. Are you still convinced that Iran is trying to build a nuclear bomb? And do the new findings take the military option that you've talked about off the table?
THE PRESIDENT: Here's what we know. We know that they're still trying to learn how to enrich uranium. We know that enriching uranium is an important step in a country who wants to develop a weapon. We know they had a program. We know the program is halted.
I think it is very important for the international community to recognize the fact that if Iran were to develop the knowledge that they could transfer to a clandestine program it would create a danger for the world. And so I view this report as a warning signal that they had the program, they halted the program. And the reason why it's a warning signal is that they could restart it. And the thing that would make a restarted program effective and dangerous is the ability to enrich uranium, the knowledge of which could be passed on to a hidden program.
And so it's a -- to me, the NIE provides an opportunity for us to rally the international community -- continue to rally the community to pressure the Iranian regime to suspend its program.
You know, the NIE also said that such pressure was effective, and that's what our government has been explaining to other partners in keeping the international pressure on Iran. The best diplomacy, effective diplomacy, is one of which all options are on the table.
Q Mr. President, Iraq's WMD turned out not to be there, and now Iran halted its nuclear program in 2003. Are you concerned that the United States is losing credibility in the world, and now may be seen as the boy who cries -- who called wolf?
THE PRESIDENT: Actually, I am -- I want to compliment the intelligence community for their good work. Right after the failure of intelligence in Iraq, we reformed the intel community so that there was a lot of serious considerations of NIEs in a way that would give us confidence. And here's a, I think, a very important product that is a result of the reforms we've put in place. As a matter of fact, the American people should have confidence that the reforms are working, and that this work on the intel community is important work.
People said, well, why is it that you can't get exact knowledge quicker? Well, the answer is, is because we're dealing with a regime that is not very transparent and, frankly, we haven't had a very good presence in Iran since 1979. And that's why I instructed the intel community to beef up its intelligence on Iran, so we could have a better sense for what they're thinking and what they're doing. And this product is a result of intelligence reform and, more importantly, the good, hard work of our intelligence community.
One of the reasons why this is out in the public arena is because I wanted -- and our administration believed that, one, it was important for people to know the facts as we see them. Secondly, that members of my administration had been very clear about the weapons program earlier this year and, therefore, it's important for the American people to see that there has been a
-- a reevaluation of the Iranian issue.
David.
Q Mr. President, thank you. I'd like to follow on that. When you talked about Iraq, you and others in the administration talked about a mushroom cloud; then there were no WMD in Iraq. When it came to Iran, you said in October, on October 17th, you warned about the prospect of World War III, when months before you made that statement, this intelligence about them suspending their weapons program back in '03 had already come to light to this administration. So can't you be accused of hyping this threat? And don't you worry that that undermines U.S. credibility?
THE PRESIDENT: David, I don't want to contradict an august reporter such as yourself, but I was made aware of the NIE last week. In August, I think it was Mike McConnell came in and said, we have some new information. He didn't tell me what the information was; he did tell me it was going to take a while to analyze. Why would you take time to analyze new information? One, you want to make sure it's not disinformation. You want to make sure the piece of intelligence you have is real. And secondly, they want to make sure they understand the intelligence they gathered: If they think it's real, then what does it mean? And it wasn't until last week that I was briefed on the NIE that is now public.
And the second part of your question has to do with this. Look, Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous, and Iran will be dangerous if they have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon. The NIE says that Iran had a hidden -- a covert nuclear weapons program. That's what it said. What's to say they couldn't start another covert nuclear weapons program? And the best way to ensure that the world is peaceful in the future is for the international community to continue to work together to say to the Iranians, we're going to isolate you. However, there is a better way forward for the Iranians.
Now, in 2003, the Iranian government began to come to the table in discussions with the EU-3, facilitated by the United States. In other words, we said to the EU-3, we'll support your efforts to say to the Iranians, you have a choice to make: You can continue to do policy that will isolate you, or there's a better way forward, so that it was the sticks-and-carrots approach.
You might remember the United States said at that point in time, we'll put the WTO on the table for consideration, or we'll help you with spare parts for your airplanes. It was all an attempt to take advantage of what we thought was a more open-minded Iranian regime at the time -- a willingness of this regime to talk about a way forward. And then the Iranians had elections, and Ahmadinejad announced that -- to the IAEA that he was going to -- this is after, by the way, the Iranians had suspended their enrichment program -- he said, we're going to stop the suspension, we'll start up the program again. And that's where we are today.
My point is, is that there is a better way forward for the Iranians. There has been a moment during my presidency in which diplomacy provided a way forward for the Iranians. And our hope is we can get back on that path again. But what is certain is that if Iran ever had the knowledge to develop a nuclear weapon and they passed that knowledge on to a covert program, which at one time in their history has existed, the world would be more dangerous. And now is the time for the international community to work together.
Q Mr. President, thank you. Just to follow, I understand what you're saying about when you were informed about the NIE. Are you saying at no point while the rhetoric was escalating, as "World War III" was making it into conversation, at no point nobody from your intelligence team or your administration was saying, maybe you want to back it down a little bit?
THE PRESIDENT: No, nobody ever told me that. Having said -- having laid that out, I still feel strongly that Iran is a danger. Nothing has changed in this NIE that says, okay, why don't we just stop worrying about it. Quite the contrary. I think the NIE makes it clear that Iran needs to be taken seriously as a threat to peace. My opinion hasn't changed.
And I just explained, Jim, that if you want to avoid a really problematic situation in the Middle East, now is the time to continue to work together. That's our message to our allies, and it's an important message for them to hear. And here's the reason why: In order for a nation to develop a nuclear weapons program they must have the materials from which to make a bomb, the know-how on how to take that material and make it explode, and a delivery system.
Now, the Iranians -- the most difficult aspect of developing a weapons program, or as some would say, the long pole in the tent, is enriching uranium. This is a nation -- Iran is a nation that is testing ballistic missiles. And it is a nation that is trying to enrich uranium. The NIE says this is a country that had a covert nuclear weapons program, which, by the way, they have failed to disclose, even today. They have never admitted the program existed in the first place.
The danger is, is that they can enrich, play like they got a civilian program -- or have a civilian program, or claim it's a civilian program -- and pass the knowledge to a covert military program. And then the danger is, is at some point in the future, they show up with a weapon. And my comments are, now is the time to work together to prevent that scenario from taking place. It's in our interests.
Yes, ma'am.
Q Mr. Bush, how can you say nothing has changed? You may see it this way, but the rest of the world is going to see the lead as the fact that the nuclear weapons program was halted in 2003.
THE PRESIDENT: Right.
Q When you first saw this, weren't you angry? You didn't know about Syria. In 2005, you had the same assessment, "with high confidence that Iran currently is determined to develop nuclear weapons." And now, quite the opposite. How can you possibly think the rest of the world is going to continue -- to the degree it did -- to rally around you and your intelligence?
THE PRESIDENT: Because many in the world understand that if Iran developed a nuclear weapon, the world would be a very dangerous place. Secondly, many of the world are going to take heart in noting that it's diplomatic pressure that caused them to change their mind. And plenty of people understand that if they learn how to enrich, that knowledge can be transferred to a weapons program, if Iran so chooses.
And I think this is a -- it's a -- to me, it's a way for us to continue to rally our partners. That's why I'm working the phones and Condi Rice is working the phones. All of us are calling our partners. And I appreciate many of the comments that have come out of the capitals.
One thing is for certain. The NIE talks about how a carrot-and-stick approach can work. And this is heartening news to people who believe that, on the one hand, we should exert pressure, and on the other hand, we should provide the Iranians a way forward. And it was working until Ahmadinejad came in. And our hope is that the Iranians will get diplomacy back on track.
Yes, ma'am.
Q Why should you trust this intelligence if it's different than 2005? Why should we trust it any more?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you know, I'm -- without getting into sources and that, that's -- I believe that the intelligence community has made a great discovery, and they've analyzed the discovery, and it's now part of our government policy.
Toby, I apologize for getting immediately to the TV people. That's bad protocol, I should have called on you.
Q She went already.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, she already has --
Q Yes, you're getting on TV. (Laughter.)
Q I've got another question, though.
THE PRESIDENT: I'm having such a good time, I forgot what passed.
Q You're just afraid I'll ask another follow-up, which I'd love to.
THE PRESIDENT: No, but you're just going to -- (laughter.)
Q Okay, 2005, why --
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me, Toby.
Q Thank you. Another issue -- on another issue of credibility in the Mideast, at the Annapolis summit, you used your influence to get Saudi Arabia to the table. But I wonder whether now you will use your influence to do something about the Saudi rape case that's gotten so much international attention. What goes through your mind when you hear about a 19-year-old Saudi women getting gang-raped by seven men and basically a Saudi court blames the victim and sentenced her to 200 lashes? You spoke to King Abdullah by telephone in the last couple of weeks. Did you press him on this case? If so, what did you say? And if not, are you giving him a pass?
THE PRESIDENT: My first thoughts were these: What happens if this happened to my daughter? How would I react? And I would have been -- I would have been -- I'd have been very emotional, of course. I'd have been angry at those who committed the crime, and I'd be angry at a state that didn't support the victim. And our opinions were expressed by Dana Perino from the podium and --
Q But did you press King Abdullah about it, personally?
THE PRESIDENT: I talked to King Abdullah about the Middle Eastern peace. I don't remember if that subject came up.
Q But if it's that important to you, why wouldn't you bring it -- at that level, bring it directly up to King Abdullah?
THE PRESIDENT: We'll have plenty of time. He knows our position loud and clear.
McKinnon.
Q Maybe we could switch to the economy just for one second, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute, that's not a diss on the front row, is it?
Q Not at all, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Okay. Well, they're not taking it that way, it looks like --
Q They're misreading it. (Laughter.)
There's a lot of indications that people are increasingly concerned about the state of the economy and the outlook for the next couple of years. Your administration is considering a plan to help people out with their mortgage payments, but I wonder if there's anything else beyond that that you've got in mind? If you could just give us your thoughts about all this.
THE PRESIDENT: First of all, let me talk about the Paulson-Jackson initiative. They're working with lenders, service industry people and investors to come up with a plan that would make it easier for qualified home buyers to stay in their homes -- and I appreciate their efforts. And that's an important part of what I'm about to say, and that is this: First of all, the basics in the economy are good. Inflation is low, job creation is good, interest rates are low, productivity is up, exports are up. In other words, the basic underpinnings of the economy are strong.
Secondly, we are addressing the current issues, and home ownership is a current issue. And no question it's a headwind; it's a part of why many people are saying that the economy is slowing down. Thirdly, Secretary Paulson has worked with the private sector on a credit reassurance fund. Fourthly, we have called consistently on Congress to pass measures that will help keep the economy strong. And one -- such as the free trade agreement, which I heralded today. That's a signal, John, that as you keep opening up markets it will help the psychology of the country. There's not going to be an immediate impact on Peru; I mean, it's not going to happen next month. But nevertheless, when the country is country is confident we'll continue to open up markets for goods and services, it should say that this administration is aggressively pursuing pro-growth policies.
And the main thing we're going to do is make it clear that Congress is not going to raise taxes during a time when this economy could be slowing down.
So I'm optimistic. I recognize there's some serious issues -- the credit crunch, as well as the home building industry. I am concerned about people who may not be able to stay in their homes. That's of concern to me and our administration. That's why we're taking the action we're taking.
Ed.
Q Mr. President, good morning.
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning, Ed. Thank you, appreciate that. A little ray of sunshine here. (Laughter.)
Q We do all we can. (Laughter.)
Sir, was the government too slow in this case to recognize the sub-prime mortgage problem? And what specific expects -- do you expect to see with the economy on the proposals that will be coming later this week?
THE PRESIDENT: We've been working on this since August, Ed. And ours is a belief that, one, we shouldn't bail out lenders. And so -- in other words, we shouldn't be using taxpayers' money and say, okay, you made a lousy loan, therefore we're going to subsidize you.
Secondly, that we recognize there's -- this is a -- the home mortgage industry is a little more complex than in the past. The old days, you'd go to your local savings and loans or your bank, get your home mortgage, and if you had a problem, you go back to the banker that loaned you the money and renegotiate if possible. Now what has happened, as you know, people have taken those mortgages and bundled them up as securities. And somebody else owns the mortgage -- it's not the originating bank, it's somebody else owns the mortgage.
And so Secretary Paulson is working with a more complex industry than we've had in the past. And that's why it's taken a while, Ed, because not only do you have the lender, you now have a whole service industry that has arisen that will hopefully help people stay in their homes -- that's their job -- but you've also got people all around the world who now own U.S. mortgages and assets that are U.S. mortgage -- bundles of U.S. mortgages.
And so it's a complex assignment. I'm pleased with the work that the Secretary is doing, both Secretaries are doing. I think they're making pretty good progress.
Q Mr. President, to go back to Iran for a minute, the Non-Proliferation Treaty doesn't prohibit a country like Iran from having the knowledge to enrich uranium. Are you setting a different standard in this case, and a different international obligation on Iran? And is that going to complicate the efforts to keep the pressure on when it comes to sanctions at the United Nations?
THE PRESIDENT: The problem that most of the world has seen in Iran stems from the fact that they hid their program. That's what the NIE says. The '68 agreement that Iran signed contemplated full transparency and openness. They didn't contemplate a regime that would have a covert nuclear weapons program -- all the more reason for the international community to continue to work together. If somebody hid their program once, they could hide it again. If somebody defied the agreement that they signed, the codicils of the agreement they signed, they could do it again. And most of the world understands that Iran with a nuclear weapon would be a serious danger to peace. And therefore, now is the time to work together to convince them to suspend their program.
People say, would you ever talk to Iran? For you veterans here, for those who have been following this administration for a while, you might remember that I have consistently said that we will be at the table with the EU-3 if Iran would verifiably suspend their program -- and the offer still stands.
What changed was the change of leadership in Iran. We had a diplomatic track going, and Ahmadinejad came along and took a different tone. And the Iranian people must understand that the tone and actions of their government are that which is isolating them. There's a better way forward for Iran. There's a better way forward for the Iranian people than one in which they find themselves isolated in the world. Their economy can be stronger. But their leadership is going to have to understand that defiance, and hiding programs and defying IAEA is not the way forward.
And my hope is, is that the Iranian regime takes a look at their policies and changes their policies back to where we were prior to the election of Ahmadinejad, which was a hopeful period. They had suspended their program, they were at the table. The United States had made some very positive gestures to convince them that there was a better way forward. And hopefully we can get back to that day.
Bret.
Q Mr. President, thank you. I'd like to ask for one clarification and one question, if I may.
THE PRESIDENT: Sure. Depends on what the clarification is.
Q The clarification is, are you saying that this NIE will not lead to a change in U.S. policy toward Iran, or shift in focus?
THE PRESIDENT: I'm saying that I believed before the NIE that Iran was dangerous, and I believe after the NIE that Iran is dangerous. And I believe now is the time for the world to do the hard work necessary to convince the Iranians there is a better way forward. And I say, hard work -- here's why it's hard. One, many companies are fearful of losing market share in Iran to another company. It's one thing to get governments to speak out; it's another thing to convince private sector concerns that it's in our collective interests to pressure the Iranian regime economically.
So I spend a fair amount of time trying to convince our counterparts that they need to convince the private sector folks that it is in their interests and for the sake of peace that there be a common effort to convince the Iranians to change their ways, and that there's a better way forward.
So our policy remains the same. I see a danger. And many in the world see the same danger. This report is not a "okay, everybody needs to relax and quit" report. This is a report that says what has happened in the past could be repeated, and that the policies used to cause the regime to halt are effective policies, and let's keep them up, let's continue to work together.
Question, please.
Q What does the vote in Venezuela mean for the U.S.? Obviously this is a major loss for Hugo Chavez, a leader who has repeatedly referred to you as the "devil." Before his effort for this never-ending terms in office, he told a crowd confidently, quote, "Anyone who votes 'no' is voting for George W. Bush. Our true enemy is the U.S. empire, and on Sunday, December 2nd, we're going to give another knock-out to Bush." What's your reaction to Chavez's opponents winning?
THE PRESIDENT: The Venezuelan people rejected one-man rule. They voted for democracy. And the United States can make a difference in South America, in terms of Venezuelan influence.
And here's how: The Congress can pass a free trade agreement with Colombia. People say, well, how does that affect U.S.-Venezuelan relations, or the relations of Venezuela in South American with other countries, and here's how -- and I like to quote Prime Minister Stephen Harper who said, the biggest fear in South America is not the leader in Venezuela, but the biggest fear for stability is if the United States Congress rejects the free trade agreement with Colombia.
It would be an insult to a friend. It would send a contradictory message to a country led by a very strong leader, who is working hard to deal with some very difficult problems, one of which is armed gangs of people that are ruthless and brutal -- people who just kidnap innocent people for the sake of achieving political objectives.
And so a vote for democracy took place, a very strong vote for democracy. And the United States policy can help promote democracies and stability. And again, I'm going to repeat to you: If the Congress does not pass the free trade agreement with Colombia, it will be a destabilizing moment.
Olivier Knox, yes.
Q Yes, sir. Thank you very much. This morning you spoke for apparently about 40 minutes with President Putin. I was wondering if you could shed a little light on what you talked about? Specifically, did you ask him to not go ahead with the sale of uranium --
THE PRESIDENT: I'm not going to get into the specifics of conversations I have with any world leader. Otherwise, the next time I have a phone call it might be a short one. But I'd be glad to talk about the themes.
Q Please do.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't particularly like when people read out my phone calls with them. Sometimes the words get mischaracterized. Sometimes what I say might not be exact -- what they say I said might not be exactly what I said.
But we did spend a lot of time on the Iranian issue. And one of the interesting tactical decisions that Russia has made that the United States supports is the notion that Iran has a sovereign right to have a civilian nuclear power program. What they don't have is our confidence that they should be able to enrich uranium so that those plants would work. Why? Because they had a covert weapons program that they did not declare and have yet to declare. Secondly, we understand that if they were to develop that weapons program it would be a real danger.
And so the Russians said, well, would you support us on this notion -- that because they're untrustworthy when it comes to the fuel cycle, we will provide the fuel and we will collect the spent fuel? And I have, publicly. I'll say it again -- and we discussed this part of our strategy.
Secondly, I explained to him the content of the NIE, what it meant and how our working together has been effective. And thirdly, we talked about ongoing efforts to come up with another U.N. Security Council resolution if the Iranian regime doesn't suspend.
Q Did the elections come up, sir -- Russian elections?
THE PRESIDENT: They did. They did. And I said we were sincere in our expressions of concern about the elections.
Wolf.
Q A question on the upcoming elections that doesn't --
THE PRESIDENT: Which ones would those be?
Q The ones that begin in January -- that does not require you to take any -- to take sides. What is your feeling right now about the tone of the campaign and, in particular, on the Republican side, some of the talk on immigration?
THE PRESIDENT: Wolf, the next three months you and your august colleagues are trying to get me to be Pundit-in-Chief and I unfortunately practiced some punditry in the past -- I'm not going to any further. I know, I know --
Q Little analysis, maybe?
THE PRESIDENT: You can ask another question. I really am going to -- look, we got -- it's hard to believe, like a month away from the Iowa caucuses, and it's going to get intense. And elections are intense. They are intense experiences, and they're intense on both sides. This is the first time in a long time that both parties haven't had -- kind of a clear nominee, and it's going to be interesting to watch.
Q Do you miss it?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I'm going to miss the campaigning. I like campaigning. If somebody ever says they don't like campaigning, they're not telling you -- either that, or they're a lousy candidate. I mean, it's fun. (Laughter.) I enjoy it. I enjoy the crowds, I enjoy the noise, I enjoy giving that message, I enjoy the competition. And, yes, I'm going to miss it.
On the other hand, what I'm not going to miss is what we all -- some of us went through in 2000, which was getting out on the airplane and having my friend Candy Crowley pass a virus around and -- (laughter.) I got a respiratory infection; so did half the press corps. They got off the plane; I didn't get to get off the plane. And it was tough, it was a tough experience. And, well, look, I'm not dissing Candy; I said, "my friend." Look, it can happen to the best of them, you know.
Yes, Wolf.
Q I get another one. (Laughter.) This is a good deal. Can you tell us whether you think your personal relationship with the Democratic leaders in Congress has had a negative impact on your ability to get your legislation through? And how important is that personal relationship?
THE PRESIDENT: I have got cordial relations with the leaders when I talk to them. I saw Speaker Pelosi last night at the Congressional Ball at the White House, and we have very cordial relations. Congress -- the Democrats in Congress, in the House and the Senate, need to work out their differences before they come to the White House. You can imagine what it's like to try to deal on an important piece of legislation, and the Democrats in the House have one opinion and the Democrats in the Senate have another opinion. FISA is a good example.
And in order for us to be able to reach accord, they have got to come with one voice, one position. Nobody -- the most disappointing thing about Washington has been the name-calling and this kind of a -- people go out in front of mics and they just kind of unleash, and I've tried hard not to do that. I've tried to be respectful to all parties. And that's disappointing.
On the other hand, I think we can get some things done. The Peruvian trade vote is one, there's an example. Congress needs to get their differences sorted. One of the worst ways to negotiate is to negotiate with one group, they pocket your negotiations, and then another group shows up and says, well, you said this to them, now give us this.
And hopefully, as we come down the stretch here, that they're capable of coming forward with, here's what we believe, here's our plan, here's what we would like you to consider. As opposed to some examples, which is passing legislation for the sake of the headline, as opposed to passing legislation to get it passed, and SCHIP is a classic example. They knew I was going to veto the bill. They knew that was going to happen. They knew the veto would be sustained. But they ate up valuable time and passed the bill anyway.
So we sit here in the White House trying to figure out why. Why would you waste time? Why wouldn't you sit down and try to seriously negotiate an agreement on a bill that they knew was going to get vetoed and sustained?
Hopefully in the next -- however long they intend to stay here, that we're capable of working together. But if not, I'm going to stand strong for certain principles, one of which is to make sure our troops get funded. We've got men and women in combat. We've got people risking their lives for the United States of America. And this Congress has yet to fund them, and it needs to. And it needs to fund them without telling our military how to conduct this war. Arbitrary dates for withdrawal are unacceptable, particularly given the fact that the strategy is working. It's working.
And it seems like to me that this Congress ought to be congratulating our military commanders and our troops. And one way to send a congratulatory message is to give them the funds they need -- and now is the time to do it.
Let's see here, Mark Silva -- that would be you back there.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. I may want to apologize in advance because --
THE PRESIDENT: Please do.
Q -- I can't help but read your body language this morning, Mr. President. You seem somehow dispirited, somewhat dispirited.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you need to apologize for advance -- (laughter.) This is like -- all of a sudden, it's like Psychology 101, you know? (Laughter.)
Q A question related to that, sir, is, twice now, on Iran and Iraq, the facts have failed you on things that you've been outspoken on telling the American people. Senator Harry Reid is saying on the war spending issue that "the President is not leveling with the American people."
THE PRESIDENT: On the war spending issue?
Q Yes. Are you, in fact, troubled by --
THE PRESIDENT: Why don't you clarify that for me?
Q Well, are you --
THE PRESIDENT: What aspect of it? That I don't think we ought to fund the troops?
Q No, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: I think we need to fund the troops. I submitted a supplemental last February. Anyway --
Q My question, sir, is, are you feeling troubled about your standing here yesterday, about perhaps facing a credibility gap with the American people?
THE PRESIDENT: No, I'm feeling pretty spirited, pretty good about life, and have made the decision to come before you so I can explain the NIE. And I have said Iran is dangerous, and the NIE doesn't do anything to change my opinion about the danger Iran poses to the world. Quite the contrary. I'm using this NIE as an opportunity to continue to rally our colleagues and allies.
Q Do you think it --
THE PRESIDENT: It makes it -- the NIE makes it clear that the strategy we have used in the past is effective. And the reason why we need to make sure that strategy goes forward for the future is because if Iran shows up with a nuclear weapon at some point in time, the world is going to say, what happened to them in 2007? How come they couldn't see the impending danger? What caused them not to understand that a country that once had a weapons program could reconstitute the weapons program? How come they couldn't see that the important first step in developing a weapon is the capacity to be able to enrich uranium? How come they didn't know that with that capacity, that knowledge could be passed on to a covert program? What blinded them to the realities of the world? And it's not going to happen on my watch, Mark.
And so, kind of Psychology 101 ain't working. It's just not working. I understand the issues, I clearly see the problems, and I'm going to use the NIE to continue to rally the international community for the sake of peace.
Thank you very much.
END 10:44 A.M. EST. For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary December 4, 2007
Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House or intelligence report and nuclear weapons program or National Intelligence Estimate or NORAD tracking Santa Claus VIDEO and Black Santa Claus and Together we stand: bacteria organize to survive hostile zones
0
comments
||
||
