In the Old Days

Jewish men about 1898-1900.

1 March 2008

by HRM Deborah

I remember hearing stories when I was a little girl, of some of what it was like before the war.

For instance, everyone in Palestine regardless of what your religion was, use to eat at each other’s home, the children all played together usually outside in the streets and on a warm evening sit where it was cool and all talk to each other about what ever was on one’s mind.

The point I am trying to make is, one’s religion was not an issue in those days; but the fact you was a person and hopefully a good friend.

Hosseini Condemns Zionist's Regime's Atrocities in Gaza

1 March 2008

Tehran-Foreign Ministry Spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini here on Saturday strongly condemn the savage atrocities of the Zionist regime which claimed the lives of many innocent and defenseless Palestinian women and children.

According to the Information and Press Bureau of the Foreign Ministry, Hosseini condemned the Zionist regime's dastardly acts and called on the United Nations, OIC, Arab Union, NAM as well as other international organizations to take immediate action to condemn and halt such inhuman atrocities by the Zionist regime.

Taking advantage of non-conventional weapons in bombarding residential buildings in Gaza has hurt the conscience of the entire humanity, he said.

Adopting an indifferent attitude by western politicians and their selective approach in dealing with such bitter and painful events, is regarded as a cultural failure in civilization of the contemporary era, he said.

Expressing regret over the silence of western gatherings in dealing with such inhuman catastrophes which run counter to ethical values and achievements of human civilization and underlined that keeping mum or failing to take action against the Zionist regime in fact give credit for the regime to continue and broaden its crime of conducting genocide and massacre of defenseless Palestinians.

Have We Forgotten Ourselves

1 March 2008

by HRM Deborah

Something, I am noticing as I scan the news, is certain news sources seem to be pushing this war to continue and I actually find this appalling.

The idea comes at a time, when I happened to see a nicely dressed Jewish woman when I was out yesterday, she happened to look up at me as I smiled and waved at her. While she looked surprised, she then also smiled a very beautiful smile and waved back at me.

Something, like this small event of people’s daily lives got to making me think that many things between the Jewish people and the Palestinian people has either been forgotten or in some manner erased over time.

While I have showed just a few example’s scattered about this blog of either misconceptions of people whether intentionally or not, also with the telling of lies that maybe started actually this war or has made it contine all this time. In addition, in the things that I did write trying to expose the truth, so with the hope that we can come to a form of inner peace for the fact this war should have never been.

Now as I think back in history, except for a few disagreements people may have had and I do think this happens to most people, even in marriage.

Nevertheless, these incidents have always been by small groups of people and resolved actually in a very small time. However, as a whole of the history of the Middle East, the Jewish people not just including the Palestinian people but all Arab neighbors actually got along with great respect for each other and I would hope this would occur once again.

Going back thinking about that lady yesterday, we as people both Jewish and Palestinian have forgotten some of these elements especially who we once was as people because of this long war.

I do hope in the very near future we find this compassion again, because to appreciate a person; you do not wish to hurt them in any manner.

Prayer in Time of War

(Photo by Abid Katib/Getty Images)

Palestinian militay pray at their position during a IOF operation on March 1, 2008, east of Jabalia refugee camp northern Gaza Strip.

IOF forces killed About 31 Palestinians half of them civilians and children while at least 4 IOF soldiers were killed during an IOF operation north of Gaza.

Abbas Quilty of Helping IOF in Gaza Attacks?

Mahmoud Abbas is recieved by King Abdullah Of Jordan on February 25, 2008 in Amman, Jordan. (Photo by Omar Rashidi/PPO/Getty Images)

Abbas is being accused by undisclosed sources, of his involvement in the IOF aggression on Gaza.

IOF Bloodbath Claims the Lives of 46 Palestinians, including 11 Children

1 March 2008

GAZA, (PIC)-- The IOF ongoing barbaric bloodbath east of Jabalia in northern Gaza claimed the lives of 46 Palestinians, including 11 children, and wounded at least 160 others amidst unprecedented world silence.

Medical and security sources said that three citizens were killed in an Israeli missile raid east of Gaza city Saturday evening.

IOF Apaches an hour earlier fired two missiles at another civilian home killing another three citizens and wounding 13 in the powerful explosions that leveled the three-storey building.

Four citizens were also killed in an IOF air raid on an area near a mosque in Jabalia town including a child, medical sources reported.

They added that six others were killed east of Jabalia Saturday afternoon including two members of the Qassam Brigades.

In the morning and until noon Saturday 30 Palestinians were killed in the IOF massacre that started with an IOF incursion east of Jabalia before dawn Saturday.

The Palestinian center for human rights said that all civilians killed in the Israeli savage raid were murdered inside their homes.

US to Cut Food Aid Due to Soaring Costs: Report

Somalis unload sacks of sorghum that was provided by the United States to the World Food Programme (WFP) in 2007. The Washington Post has said that the US will drastically reduce emergency food aid to some of the poorest countries this year because of soaring food prices.(AFP/File/Jose Cendon)

1 March 2008

WASHINGTON- The United States will drastically reduce emergency food aid to some of the poorest countries this year because of soaring food prices, The Washington Post reported Saturday.

Citing unnamed officials, the newspaper said the US Agency for International Development was drafting plans to cut down the number of recipient nations and the amount of food provided to them.

A 41-percent surge in prices of wheat, corn, rice and other cereals over the past six months has generated a 120-million-dollar budget shortfall that will force the USAID to reduce emergency operations, the report said.

That deficit is projected to rise to 200 million dollars by the end of the year.

The USAID is reviewing all of the agency's emergency programs, which target countries like Ethiopia, Iraq, Somalia, Honduras and Sudan's Darfur region.

"We're in the process now of going country by country and analyzing the commodity price increase on each country," The Post quotes Jeff Borns, director of USAID's Food for Peace program as saying. "Then we're going to have to prioritize."

On Israeli Human Rights Violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory

14 - 20 February 2008

Attempts to offer first medical aid to a person who was wounded during clashes with IOF in Bal’ein village, west of Ramallah.

Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) Escalate Attacks against Palestinian Civilians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT), Launching Intense Air Strikes against Gaza Strip Targets

20 Palestinians, including 3 children, were killed by IOF in the Gaza Strip. In addition, one Palestinian was extra-judicially executed in the West Bank.

8 of the victims, including 3 children and an elderly man, were killed during a series of air strikes.

5 of the victims were killed by IOF in Khan Yunis.

28 Palestinians, mostly civilians, and an international human rights defender, were injured by IOF gunfire.

IOF escalated air strikes against civilian targets in the Gaza Strip

3 workshops and 2 buildings of the Ministry of Interior were destroyed.

IOF conducted 36 incursions into Palestinian communities in the West Bank and 2 into the Gaza Strip.

IOF arrested 67 Palestinian civilians in the West Bank, and three civilians in the Gaza Strip.

4 houses were transformed into IOF military sites.

IOF seized properties of the Islamic Charity and the Islamic Youth Association in Hebron.

IOF have continued to impose a total siege on the OPT.

4 Palestinian civilians were arrested by IOF at various checkpoints in the West Bank.

IOF confiscated 900 donums of agricultural land in villages located southwest of Hebron for the purpose of further constructing the Annexation Wall.

IOF have continued settlement activities in the West Bank and Israeli settlers have continued to attacks Palestinian civilians and property.

IOF demolished a house in East Jerusalem.

Summary

Drug Abuse in America

For Immediate Release

Office of the Press Secretary

March 1, 2008

Audio

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Today, my Administration is releasing our 2008 National Drug Control Strategy. This report lays out the methods we are using to combat drug abuse in America. And it highlights the hopeful progress we're making in the fight against addiction.

When I took office in 2001, our country was facing a troubling rate of drug abuse, particularly among young people. Throughout America, young men and women saw their dreams disrupted by the destructive cycle of addiction. So I committed our Nation to an ambitious goal: In 2002, we began efforts to cut drug use among young people by 25percent over five years.

Our strategy has three key elements. First, we are working to disrupt the supply of drugs by strengthening law enforcement and partnering with other countries to keep drugs out of the United States. Second, we're working to reduce the demand for drugs through prevention and education programs. And third, we're providing treatment options for those who've fallen prey to addiction.

These efforts have produced measurable results. Since 2001, the rate of youth drug abuse has dropped by 24 percent. Young people's use of marijuana is down by 25 percent. Their use of Ecstasy has dropped by more than 50 percent. And their use of methamphetamine has declined by 64 percent. Overall, an estimated 860,000 fewer young people in America are using drugs today than when we began these efforts.

Our drug control strategy will continue all three elements of this successful approach. It will also target a growing problem -- the abuse of prescription drugs by youth. Unfortunately, many young Americans do not understand how dangerous abusing medication can be. And in recent years, the number of Americans who have died from prescription drug overdoses has increased.

One of the factors behind this trend is the growing availability of highly addictive prescription drugs online. The Internet has brought about tremendous benefits for those who cannot easily get to a pharmacy in person. However, it has also created an opportunity for unscrupulous doctors and pharmacists to profit from addiction.

One victim of such a doctor was Ryan Haight. The young man from California was only 18 when he overdosed on pain killers that were illegally prescribed over the Internet. With only a few clicks of the mouse, Ryan was able to get a prescription from a doctor he had never met and have the pills sent to his front door. The doctor who wrote Ryan's prescription had previously served time in prison for illegally dispensing controlled substances.

We need to prevent tragedies like this from happening in the future. So I'm asking Congress to work with my Administration to put an end to the illegal sale of highly addictive prescription drugs on the Internet. By working together to meet this goal, we can ensure a safer future for our children.

Government action is only one part of the solution to the problem of drug abuse. Others in our society have an important role to play as well. People in the entertainment and sports industries serve as role models to millions of young Americans, and that comes with the responsibility to dispel the notion that drug abuse is glamorous and free of consequences. Teachers, pastors, and parents also have an obligation to help young people develop the character and self-respect to resist drugs. The Federal Government will continue to do its part to keep our young people safe, and I urge all Americans to do the same. Our children deserve nothing less.

Thank you for listening.

Sign's of Goodwill

A Statement from HRM Deborah of Palestine and the Messenger of Peace

1 March 2008

As a sign of goodwill between Jews and Palestinians, all rockets’ going into Jewish occupied Palestine will stop for twenty-four hours and on the Jewish side that they will cease all attacks upon Gaza.

When this occurs and it show’s that all of us on both side’s start wishing better for each other, their will never again be another rocket fired into Jewish occupied Palestine.

This war has gone on way to long and I know that this situation should never have occurred in the first place. While this is a sorrow to the Palestinian people, I am honestly hoping that the Jewish people feel the same. For war is something, I have never believed in nor any of my family, as well as the Palestinian people had never wanted from the beginning.

May we truly find real peace, towards each other.

Any Holocaust Makes for a Sad Day

1 March 2008

by HRM Deborah

It is strange, I guess because of the onslaught that is going these days among my fellow countryman, that I happen today to find a book at the seller’s stall on the Jewish Holocaust.

I would like to make it very clear here that I in all my studies thus far am still perplexed of how one person could treat another person so despicably. While I have not gotten very far in this new book, which I had been trying to find for a little time now to further my studies of such a time in history that caused so many broken hearts and lost of loved one’s.

When I found this book today, a new friend of mine just happened to be with me and we decided to have coffee and talk.

I was actually a little upset at the subject matter of this book, because as I said, how I feel about people mistreating each other.

Earlier in this blog, I had related a story of an older women that I use to help her carry her shopping bag. Because something about her reminded me of my Grandmother and later I learned she was a survivor of an extermination camp and yes the Nazi number Stamp was on her forehead. I will even say she was the only survivor of the Jewish Holocaust from her family and even talking about her today because she had to leave me when I was a child, that I still get a lump in my throat and I will admit a few tears because she was my friend.

In addition, a few people had asked me after I related this story earlier on this blog, if the Jewish friend knew I was Palestinian, I will be perfectly honest here; I do not think it made any more difference to her then it did to me that she was Jewish or I was Palestinian, because the bonds of friendship between two people can often time’s circumvent these other idea’s that sometimes people may have in the world.

Then I got to talking, I think later to my friend, something my mother had told me because when this event happened, I was not born yet. When my Grandmother Dora was Queen and their were several survivor’s of the Jewish Holocaust, she wanted very much to help them. She actually offered for those who wished to come and live among the Palestinian people in peace and she had wanted to ensure their safety because she was so upset to what happened to these people by the Nazi’s. What I was told, why this did not occur she was overturned not by the Palestinian people, but the American’s.

Until the day she died, she never got over that such a thing like this happened and she was made helpless, to at least try to help where she thought she could.

Now as to the current situation between the Zionist and the Palestinians, I heard the old Cliché’, that said to the effect that we the Palestinian people planned to destroy the Jewish,/ Zionist people that at this time is occupying Palestine. Myself, I had said nothing to this effect and I do not know of anyone else who had said such a thing either. Instead, who ever is telling these bold face lies need to put a muzzle over their head.

Myself, unless people forget so soon, I have tried to make a just peace between, the Jewish people and the Palestinians with the hope it would be fair to all, not an idiot statement to the negative effect.

As to threatening a Holocaust against the people in Gaza, just make’s people understand that if the Zionist people attempt to do this, they will become no better then the Nazi’s did to their people during the time of World War 2.

As I said, the day not so many hours ago, if the Zionist wish any advancement’s to cease, stop attacking and murdering innocent Palestinian’s and we will do the same. For it is better to have and honest peace equal to all; then lie’s, murder, deception especially by foreign power’s instead of each other.

I truly hope someday the word, “Holocaust,” will fall out of all the dictionaries in the world and become a thing of the past; to be replaced with love and goodwill.

Israel Threatens Holocaust against the Gaza Civilians

The Nazi Holocaust against the Jewish people.

No one should ever have to endure such acts of barbarism!

President Bush Meets with Secretary General of NATO Jaap de Hoop Scheffer

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
February 29, 2008

President George W. Bush meets with Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Friday, Feb. 29, 2008, in the Oval Office. White House photo by Chris Greenberg

Video

PRESIDENT BUSH: It's my honor to welcome the Secretary General of NATO back to the Oval Office. Last time I was with the Secretary General I was trying to keep up with him on my mountain bike. He's a dear friend and a strong leader.

I appreciate the -- your helping to transform NATO so it deals with the pressures of the 21st century. You've done your job with great dignity and clarity of thought. And I'm looking forward to coming to Bucharest to support your efforts to make sure NATO is a relevant organization aimed at bringing security and peace to the world.

We've had a lot of things to discuss. A couple of key points: One, Afghanistan. The United States is committed to the NATO mission in Afghanistan. We're committed to a comprehensive strategy that helps folks in Afghanistan realize security, at the same time, economic prosperity and political progress. Secondly, our hope is that nations that have applied to join NATO continue to meet their MAP obligations. I'm looking forward to getting an assessment of the progress that these three nations have made from you, before we take the vote on enlargement.

I appreciate very much NATO's role in helping to provide some sense of stability in the Balkans. Thank you for doing a training mission in Iraq. Over all, thanks for being a force for good. And I'm proud to welcome you back here.

SECRETARY GENERAL DE HOOP SCHEFFER: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, George.

Four working weeks until the Bucharest summit of NATO. I can echo the President's words, first of all, NATO's operations and missions. We have a long-term commitment vis-a-vis Afghanistan. I thank the President for the United States' contribution in the NATO framework, which is an essential one. All 26 NATO allies are there and we are there for the long haul. We are there to support President Karzai and the Afghan people. But we're also there because we're fighting terrorism, and we cannot afford to lose. We will not lose; we are not losing; we are prevailing.

May I mention Kosovo, which will be discussed. The secondary important NATO presence, 60,000 strong, to protect all Kosovars, majority, minority, Albanian or Serb, so that also Kosovo will have a future.

NATO enlargement, the President mentioned. The nations concerned should go on with their reforms. No tickets are punched yet, but NATO enlargement will be on the agenda of the Bucharest summit. And certainly also what I call NATO finding the answers to modern threats and challenges, be it energy security and NATO's role as a bringer of added value. Cyber defense; we saw a huge cyber attack on Estonia not that long ago. Missile defense is certainly an issue.

So we have a real full calendar in Bucharest, and that is basically the calendar the President and I discussed. And I'm always very much enjoying the hospitality not only in the Oval, but at the Crawford ranch, as well.

I thank you very much.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Thank you all.

END

IOF Troops Kill Egyptian Girl Playing Outside Her House

29 Aeptember 2009

CAIRO, GAZA, (PIC)-- Egyptian local residents said that a 14-year-old Egyptian girl died on Thursday of wounds she sustained earlier in the day as a result of being hit by a bullet fired by an Israeli occupation soldier stationed at the Karm Abu Salem crossing with Egypt.

Local residents said that Samah Nayef Msallam was hit in the head, apparently by an IOF sniper, while playing outside her house which stands about 700 meters from the Karm Abu Salem crossing which is under the control of the IOF.

Egyptian security officials who spoke on condition of anonymity confirmed that the girl was hit with Israeli bullets. Meanwhile, Sheikh Darwish Abu Jarad, one of the girls relatives said that the firing came from the Israeli side.

Karm Abu Salem is a Palestinian village which was occupied in 1948 by the Zionists and its name was changed to Kerem Shalom. The Egyptian village which lies opposite this Palestinian village is called Karm Abu Musleh where the Egyptian girl was shot.

Egyptian websites reported that the girl was taken to Areesh hospital, but died shortly after arrival at hospital.

A relative of the girl was killed by an Israeli bullet last month and these killings continue despite the fact that Egypt has a peace treaty with Israel and despite the fact that no rockets are being fired from Egypt at Israel.

Abbas to meet Olmert despite IOF massacres in Gaza

29 September 2009

OCCUPIED JERUSALEM, (PIC)-- While his people in the Gaza Strip are licking their wounds after a series of lethal Israeli airstrikes that claimed the lives of 34 Palestinians including nine children, PA chief Mahmoud Abbas is scheduled to meet with Israeli premier Ehud Olmert next week in the occupied city of Jerusalem.

Prior to his departure from the Japanese capital Tokyo, Olmert confirmed to journalists that he was heading back to occupied Palestine to meet with Abbas next week.

Olmert was replying to media questions if the ongoing Israeli massacres in Gaza Strip would jeopardize the PA-Israeli "peace" negotiations, stressing that the open war against the Palestinian people will continue.

Hamas Movement accused Abbas of paving the way for the new round of the Israeli escalation over the past 48 hours after he blamed the Palestinian resistance home-made missiles fired from Gaza in response to Israeli atrocities against the Palestinian people for the brutal IOF aggressions in the Gaza Strip.

He (Abbas) also alleged that the Qaeda group was present in the tiny Strip with the aim to instigate the world against his own people. Hamas categorically denied Abbas's allegations.

Palestinian and Arab parties condemned the "unwarranted" statements of Abbas, affirming that they pour in Israel's favor against the Palestinian people in Gaza.

Dr. Sami Abu Zuhri, the spokesman of Hamas Movement in Gaza Strip was clear when he charged that the new IOF escalation wasn’t normal but rather it was part of an Israeli plan supported by the USA and regional parties in the region with the aim to topple Hamas Movement and to finish off its political program that adheres to the Palestinian national constants without compromising any of them.

"The revelation of an Israeli plan to unleash full-scale military offensive on Gaza by a number of Israeli media outlets leaves no doubt that the Israeli military escalation against Gaza doesn’t relate to the issue of the home-made missiles but rather it is politically motivated", said Abu Zuhri in an interview with the PIC Thursday night.

But he stressed that the Israeli plan will fail "as previous conspiracies against Hamas had also failed".

"We want to remind [the Israeli occupation government] that wagering on possible Hamas collapse in Gaza Strip will be a very big mistake as that will fail as previous attempts were failed", Abu Zuhri underlined.

"Hamas isn't a group of individuals that can be finished off once those individuals are killed. Hamas is the Palestinian people, and whoever wants to finish Hamas off must finish off the entire Palestinian people", Abu Zuhri highlighted.

"Hamas will confront the conspiracy with all the strength it has and with all resoluteness", he asserted.

Israeli military analyst Ronnie Daniel had disclosed a couple of days ago that the IOF aggressions on Gaza Strip aim at weakening Hamas till it collapses, and to completely separate the West Bank from Gaza Strip.

Meanwhile an Israeli former official unveiled that the Israeli plan intends to overthrow Hamas's rule in Gaza Strip and to bring back the Strip under Abbas's rule.

Israeli Plan to Depose Haneyya's Government Disclosed

29 February 2008

OCCUPIED JERUSALEM, (PIC)-- Israeli political and military analysts have disclosed Thursday a military plan of the Israeli occupation government to weaken and depose the PA legitimate government under Premier Ismael Haneyya.

Ronnie Daniel, the well-known military analyst in the Israeli TV, unveiled that the Israeli political and security echelons endorsed the plan without reservations, adding that the plan calls for relentless and concentrated IOF aggressions against Hamas.

He added that the plan aims at weakening Hamas before toppling it, rendering Hamas incapable of firing home-made missiles on Israeli colonies, stopping of [the alleged] weapon smuggling through the Rafah terminal, and to completely separate the Gaza Strip from the West Bank.

One of the Qassam home-made rockets fired on Israeli settlements adjacent to the Gaza Strip in retaliation to the IOF vicious military onslaught resulted in the wounding of a bodyguard of the Israeli public security minister Avi Dichter. Dichter himself who visited the colony later had to run for cover upon hearing and air raid siren.

Following Dichter's experience, the landing location of the helicopter transporting the Israeli President Shimon Peres had to be changed when he visited the colony of Sderot.

Other Israeli military analysts including Ehud Yaari said that at least 160,000 Israeli settlers became within the range of the Palestinian home-made rockets and mortar shells after the Palestinian resistance succeeded in upgrading its rockets.

For his part, Matan Velnai refused calls for negotiating a truce with Hamas from the Israeli settlers and mayors of the affected Israeli colonies, stressing, "Hamas's strategy was to destroy Israel, so, Israel must strive hard to destroy Hamas".

Israel Mulls Major Gaza Action

Palestinians mourn next to the bodies of four boys after they were killed on Thursday by Israeli forces, in Gaza February 29, 2008. Israeli forces killed four Palestinian boys playing football in the Gaza Strip on Thursday, medical workers said.

29 February 2008

Israel was mulling on Friday intensifing its operations against the Gaza Strip, where Palesrinian legal government called for mass protests against strikes that have killed 30 Palestinians in two days.

"We will not shy away from any action" to halting the near-daily rocket fire on Israeli soil, Deputy Defence Minister Matan Vilnai told army radio.

"By intensifying the rocket fire and extending their reach they are bringing on to themselves a worse catastrophe as we will use all means to defend ourselves," Vilnai said.

He said, adding that Israel "will have no choice" but to launch a widescale ground operation that he admitted will be "costly and difficult."

Defence Minister Ehud Barak warned on Thursday that "a large-scale ground operation is being considered."

Since early Wednesday, Israeli raids in Gaza have killed about 30 Palestinians, including six children and at least 15 militants.

Gaza fighters have fired dozens of rockets into Israel during the same period, injuring a handful of people and killing one man who became the first Israeli civilian to die as a result of the near-daily rocket fire since May.

On Friday, four people, including two children aged five and six, were wounded in the latest raid targeting rocket launchers in the northern town of Jabaliya, medics and witnesses said.

An army spokeswoman said the military had launched "three attacks against zones in the northern Gaza Strip from which rockets are fired."

"Palestinian Royal Guards calls on the Palestinian people to organise massive marches immediately after Friday prayers to denounce the Israeli crimes against our people," it said in a statement.

"We also call on the masses in Arab and Islamic countries to march in solidarity with the Palestinian people after Friday prayers," it said.

The violence has overshadowed the Israeli-Palestinian peace process which was revived in late November but has made little progress since.

The latest escalation in violence around Gaza flared early Wednesday when an Israeli strike killed five Palestinian Royal Guards in the southern town of Khan Yunis.

In response, the Palestinian military launched a volley of rockets into southern Israel, one of which killed a man, the first Israeli civilian since May killed by a rocket that Gaza militants fire on nearly a daily basis.

Several of the rockets have hit the coastal city of Ashkelon, raising fears inside Israel that Gaza fighter's are getting longer-range rockets and upping calls for the military to launch a widescale ground operation to stop the projectiles.

The chief of the Israeli left-wing Meretz party, Yossi Beilin, said that Palestine military had offered a truce around Gaza over the past two weeks, but the overtures were rejected by the Israeli leadership.

"At least on two occasions (legal Palestinian government) has made it passed on truce offers to Israel via third parties," Beilin told public radio, who said such a ceasefire was "the only way to stop the rocket fire."

Rice Accuses the Legal Palestinian Government of a Coup?

28 February 2008

By HRM Deborah

To begin with, the organization that became known as the Palestinian authority was created illegally against the legal government of Palestine in about 1994, at the time the Queen Zaytuna of Palestine had been poisoned, she suffered for another year and died in 1995.

Condoleezza Rice, can sustainably accuse the legal government of Palestine as to try at this time to make accusations towards a coup, she need’s to rethink her position, for she is either lying to the global community or as well as working with a terrorist fraction in Palestine?

Because the United States with the inception in about 1964 to create a terrorist group known as the PLO and later Fatah in an attempt to overthrown Queen Dora of Palestine, that they now are trying to keep in charge to sustain their illegal peace treaty in Palestine, they really need to rethink their political policies or history of the Palestinian/Zionist war at least.

Furthermore, any attacks within Palestine by the Zionist will not be resolved by further murder’s to Palestinian civilians, especially women and children. For anything to stop, Israel has to stop all attacks and massacres in the Palestinian territory’s at once. For in doing so, their will be a seizing of fire by the Palestinian military as well.

For again, this has always been the policy in this war as far as I know; for you do not keep putting more gasoline on a burning fire if you wish it to expire.

Finally, this new maneuver you got going, will not work, I still refuse to abdicate my position as the Queen of Palestine. For Palestine, has been a monarchy for thousands of years and will stay as such. And as for peace in Palestine, we are willing to speak in such a case, but only if it is done right and not underhanded as so far has been the case.

Bush Hanging from Thin Thread?

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
February 28, 2008

Video

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Laura and I, as you know, recently came back from Africa, where we saw firsthand how the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief is saving lives. I had a chance to go to the -- speak to the Sullivan Foundation the other day about our trip, and the reason I did so was to remind the American people about how important it is for our nation to remain generous and compassionate when it comes to helping people overseas.

I also, during my trip, urged Congress to reauthorize the Emergency Plan and increase our commitment, and they did. They approved a good, bipartisan bill, that maintains the principles that have made this program effective. And so I want to thank acting Chairman Howard Berman and Ranking Member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and all the members of the Committee for the action they took. This afternoon they're going to come down and I'll be able to thank them in person -- I'm going to brief them on the trip. Obviously, our hope is now that the House will act quickly and send the bill reauthorizing PEPFAR to the Senate, and I'd like to sign it into law as quickly as possible.

Members should also act on a very urgent priority, and that is to pass legislation our intelligence officials need to quickly and effectively monitor terrorist communications. At issue is a dispute over whether telecommunications companies should be subjected to class-action lawsuits because they are believed to have helped defend America after the attacks of 9/11. Allowing these lawsuits to proceed would be unfair. If any of these companies helped us, they did so after being told by our government that their assistance was legal and vital to our national security.

Allowing the lawsuits to proceed could aid our enemies, because the litigation process could lead to the disclosure of information about how we conduct surveillance, and it would give al Qaeda and others a roadmap as to how to avoid the surveillance. Allowing these lawsuits to proceed could make it harder to track the terrorists, because private companies besieged by and fearful of lawsuits would be less willing to help us quickly get the information we need. Without the cooperation of the private sector, we cannot protect our country from terrorist attack.

Protecting these companies from lawsuits is not a partisan issue. Republicans and Democrats in the United States Senate came together and passed a good bill, protecting private companies from these abusive lawsuits. And Republicans and Democrats in the House stand ready to pass the Senate bill, if House leaders would only stop blocking an up or down vote and let the majority in the House prevail.

Some in Congress have said we have nothing to worry about, because if we lose the cooperation of the private sector we can use the old FISA law. They're wrong. FISA was out of date. It did not allow us to track foreign terrorists on foreign soil quickly and effectively. And that is why a dangerous intelligence gap opened up last year, and that is why Congress passed legislation that reformed FISA -- but they did so only temporarily. The law expired; the threat to America has not expired.

Congress understood last year that FISA did not give our intelligence professionals the tools they needed to keep us safe. The Senate understands that the FISA -- old FISA didn't give us the tools needed to protect America. The bipartisan bill it passed provides those tools our intelligence professionals need. Yet the House's failure to pass this law raises the risk of reopening a gap in our intelligence gathering, and that is dangerous.

Another vital priority for protecting the nation is prevailing in Iraq. Unfortunately, this week the Senate debated yet another bill that threatens to cut off funding and tie the hands of our commanders in Iraq. It seems that no matter what happens in Iraq opponents to the war have one answer: Retreat. When things were going badly in Iraq a year ago, they called for withdrawal. Then we changed our strategy, launched the surge and turned the situation around. Since the surge began, high-profile terrorist attacks are down, civilian deaths are down, sectarian killings are down, and our own casualties are down. U.S. and Iraqi forces have captured or killed thousands of extremists, including hundreds of key al Qaeda operatives and leaders. Reconciliation is taking place in local communities across the country. That reconciliation is beginning to translate into political progress in the capital city.

In the face of these changes on the ground, congressional leaders are still sounding the same old call for withdrawal. I guess you could say that when it comes for pushing for withdrawal, their strategy is to stay the course. It's interesting that many of the same people who once accused me of refusing to acknowledge setbacks in Iraq now are the ones who are refusing to acknowledge progress in Iraq. If we followed their advice a year ago, Iraq would be a far different and more dangerous place than it is today. And the American people would be at greater risk.

If we follow their advice now, we would put at risk the gains our troops have made over the past year. Congress does need to act when it comes to Iraq. What they need to do is stand by our brave men and women in uniform and fully fund the troops.

Finally, Congress needs to act to help homeowners avoid foreclosure. Unfortunately, the Senate is considering legislation that would do more to bail out lenders and speculators than to help American families keep their homes. The Senate bill would actually prolong the time it takes for the housing market to adjust and recover and it would lead to higher interest rates. This would be unfair to the millions of homeowners who make the hard choices every month to pay their mortgage on time and it would be unfair to future home buyers. Instead, Congress should move ahead with responsible legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. By taking these steps we can help struggling homeowners and help our economy weather the difficult time in the housing market.

I'd be glad to take some questions. Terry.

Q Mr. President, bad economic news continues to pile up, the latest today with the GDP barely growing. Are you concerned that a sagging economy and hard times will help defeat John McCain, like it did your father in 1992? And how far are you willing to go to prevent that?

THE PRESIDENT: I'm concerned about the economy because I'm concerned about working Americans, concerned about people who want to put money on the table and save for their kids' education. That's why I'm concerned about the economy. I want Americans working.

And there's no question the economy has slowed down. You just cited another example of slowdown. I don't think we're headed to a recession, but no question we're in a slowdown. And that's why we acted, and acted strongly, with over $150 billion worth of pro-growth economic incentives -- mainly money going into the hands of our consumers. And some money going to incent businesses to invest, which will create jobs.

And so we acted robustly. And now it's time to determine whether or not this pro-growth package will actually work. Now, the checks will start going out in the second week of May. There are going to be letters out soon explaining who is eligible for the refunds. Credit will happen in the first week of May. In other words, some people will choose to have their bank accounts credited. And in the second week of May, we anticipate the checks start moving out of Washington.

And the purpose is to encourage our consumers. The purpose is to give them money -- their own to begin with, by the way -- but give them money to help deal with the adverse effects of the decline in housing value. Consumerism is a significant part of our GDP growth, and we want to sustain the American consumer, encourage the American consumer and, at the same time, we want to encourage investment. So we'll see how the plan works.

Q But the political context --

THE PRESIDENT: You're trying to get me to be the pundit again. Look, you all figure that out. I mean, we've -- what I'm dealing with is the situation at hand, and I appreciate that -- both Democrats and Republicans in the United States Congress and Senate for getting this bill done very quickly. And it's a substantial piece of legislation, and it's a good sign that we can figure out how to cooperate with each other at times.

And so we'll see the effects of this pro-growth package. I know there's a lot of -- here in Washington, people are trying to -- stimulus package two and all that stuff. Why don't we let stimulus package one, which seemed like a good idea at the time, have a chance to kick in?

Yes.

Q Mr. President, Turkey's ground offensive in northern Iraq is now a week old with no end in sight. How quickly would you like to see Turkey end its offenses, its incursion? And do you have any concerns about the possibility of protracted presence in northern Iraq causing further destabilization in the region?

THE PRESIDENT: A couple of points on that. One, the Turks, the Americans, and the Iraqis, including the Iraqi Kurds, share a common enemy in the PKK. And secondly, it's in nobody's interests that there be safe haven for people who are -- have the willingness to kill innocent people.

A second point I want to make to you, Matt, is that there is a special forces presence in northern Iraq -- in Kurdistan -- now, apart from what you're referring to. So there is a presence. And there has been a presence for a while.

Thirdly, I strongly agree with the sentiments of Secretary Gates, who said that the incursion must be limited, and must be temporary in nature. In other words, it shouldn't be long-lasting. But the Turks need to move quickly, achieve their objective, and get out.

Q But how quickly, sir, do they need to move out?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, as quickly as possible.

Q Days or weeks?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as possible.

Q Sir, I'd like to ask you about Russia. The Democratic candidates, when asked about the new Russian leader, Dmitry Medvedev, didn't appear to know a great deal about him. I wonder what you can say about him, how much power you think he's really got, with Putin still in the picture? And critics would say you badly misjudged Vladimir Putin. So what would be your cautionary tale to your successor about the threat Russia poses, and how to deal with this new leader?

THE PRESIDENT: I don't know much about Medvedev either. And what will be interesting to see is who comes to the -- who represents Russia at the G8, for example. It will be interesting to see -- it will help, I think, give some insight as to how Russia intends to conduct foreign policy after Vladimir Putin's presidency. And I can't answer the question yet.

I can say that it's in our interests to continue to have relations with Russia. For example, on proliferation matters, it's in our interest to be able to make sure that materials that could cause great harm aren't proliferated. It's in our interest to work together on Iran. As I said I think in this room the last time I was here, I appreciated the fact that Vladimir Putin told the Iranians that they will provide -- they, Russia -- will provide enriched uranium to run the Bushehr power plant, thereby negating the need for the Iranians to enrich in the first place. I thought that was a constructive suggestion, and we need to be in a position to be able to work with Russia on Iran.

There's a lot of areas where -- yesterday, for example, with the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic, I talked about a missile defense system in Europe, but I believe it's in our interests to try to figure out a way for the Russians to understand the system is not aimed at them, but aimed at the real threats of the 21st century, which could be a launch from a violent regime -- a launch of a weapon of mass destruction.

So there's areas, David, where we need to cooperate and -- let me finish -- and so it's -- I'm going to try to leave it so whoever my successor is will be able to have a relationship with whoever is running foreign policy in Russia. It's in the country's interest. That doesn't mean we have to agree all the time. I mean, obviously we didn't agree on Kosovo. There will be other areas where we don't agree. And yet it is in the interest of the country to have a relationship, leader to leader, and hopefully beyond that.

Q But first of all, are you suggesting, or are you worried that, in fact, Medvedev is a puppet for Vladimir Putin? And --

THE PRESIDENT: No, I wouldn't say that. That's your conclusion, not mine.

Q No, I'm asking the question about whether you're concerned. But isn't there something you took away that you can offer to your successor about how it's risky in the process of sizing up your Russian counterpart? Don't you think that you learned something from your time with Putin?

THE PRESIDENT: Here's what I learned -- here's what I learned: I learned that it's important to establish personal relations with leaders even though you may not agree with them -- certain leaders. I'm not going to have a personal relationship with Kim Jong-il, and our relationships are such that that's impossible.

But U.S.-Russian relations are important. It's important for stability. It's important for our relations in Europe. And therefore my advice is to establish a personal relationship with whoever is in charge of foreign policy in Russia. It's in our country's interest to do so.

Now, it makes it easier, by the way, when there's a trustworthy relationship, to be able to disagree and yet maintain common interests in other areas. And so we've had our disagreements. As you know, Putin is a straightforward, pretty tough character when it comes to his interests. Well, so am I. And we've had some head-butts, diplomatic head-butts. You might remember the trip to Slovakia. I think you were there at the famous press conference. But -- and yet, in spite of that, our differences of opinion, we still have got a cordial enough relationship to be able to deal with common threats and opportunities. And that's going to be important for the next President to maintain.

Yes, Jonathan.

Q Mr. President, do you believe if we have the kind of rapid pull-out from Iraq that Democrats are talking about, that we would be at greater risk of a terrorist attack here at home? And when Senator Obama was asked a similar question, he said, "If al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad." So I'm wondering if --

THE PRESIDENT: That's an interesting comment. If al Qaeda is securing a al Qaeda base -- yes, well, that's exactly what they've been trying to do for the past four years. That's their stated intention, was to create enough chaos and disorder to establish a base from which to either launch attacks or spread a caliphate. And the intent of the surge was to send more Marines into the area that -- where they had proclaimed their desire to set up a base. That was Anbar province. And so, yes, that's one of the challenges we face, is denying al Qaeda a safe haven anywhere. And their intentions -- that's what they said, that they would like to have a base or safe haven in Anbar province.

Yes, Bill.

Q But --

THE PRESIDENT: No, next turn.

Q But the question about --

THE PRESIDENT: Nice try. (Laughter.)

Q Mr. President --

THE PRESIDENT: You obviously haven't been here long. John, where have you been, Jonathan? (Laughter.)

Q Across the river.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, okay, yes. Welcome to the other side. (Laughter.)

Q You can get the Congress to protect telecom companies from lawsuits, but then there's no recourse for Americans who feel that they've been caught up in this. I know it's not intended to spy on Americans, but in the collection process, information about everybody gets swept up and then it gets sorted. So if Americans don't have any recourse, are you just telling them, when it comes to their privacy, to suck it up?

THE PRESIDENT: I wouldn't put it that way, if I were you, in public. Well, you've been long been long enough to -- anyway, yes, I -- look, there's -- people who analyze the program fully understand that America's civil liberties are well protected. There is a constant check to make sure that our civil liberties of our citizens aren't -- you know, are treated with respect. And that's what I want, and that's what most -- all Americans want.

Now let me talk about the phone companies. You cannot expect phone companies to participate if they feel like they're going to be sued. I mean, it is -- these people are responsible for shareholders; they're private companies. The government said to those who have alleged to have helped us that it is in our national interests and it's legal. It's in our national interests because we want to know who's calling who from overseas into America. We need to know in order to protect the people.

It was legal. And now, all of a sudden, plaintiffs attorneys, class-action plaintiffs attorneys, you know -- I don't want to try to get inside their head; I suspect they see, you know, a financial gravy train -- are trying to sue these companies. First, it's unfair. It is patently unfair. And secondly, these lawsuits create doubts amongst those who will -- whose help we need.

I guess you could be relaxed about all this if you didn't think there was a true threat to the country. I know there's a threat to the country. And the American people expect our Congress to give the professionals the tools they need to listen to foreigners who may be calling into the United States with information that could cause us great harm. So, on the one hand, the civil liberties of our citizens are guaranteed by a lot of checks in the system, scrutinized by the United States Congress.

And secondly, I cannot emphasize to you how important it is that the Congress solve this problem. The Senate has solved the problem. And people say, would you ever compromise on the issue? The Senate bill is a compromise. And there's enough votes in the House of Representatives to pass the Senate bill. It's a bipartisan bill. And the House leaders need to put it on the floor, let the will of the House work. In my judgment, it happens to be the will of the people, to give the professionals the tools they need to protect the country.

Elaine.

Q Mr. President, you've stressed over and over in recent days particularly the importance of FISA reform to help keep America safe, and yet you have not yet filled a key national security post. Fran Townsend announced her resignation months ago, in November. What is the delay there, and what are Americans to make of that delay? Is America less safe because of it?

THE PRESIDENT: We got a fine man named Joel Bagnal working that office right now. He's a professional. I trust his judgment. He's a real good guy. And no, they shouldn't worry about Joel. He knows what he's doing.

John.

Q But, sir, the American --

THE PRESIDENT: John.

Q The Homeland Security Advisor is a key post. What's taking so long?

THE PRESIDENT: Joel Bagnal has occupied the position, Elaine. He's doing the job, and I've got confidence in him. And so should the American people have confidence in him. He's a fine professional. He knows what he's doing. And I'm very comfortable in saying, on your cameras, that our staff in the White House, led by Joel Bagnal, knows what they're doing when it comes to advising the President on matters of homeland security.

John.

Q Thanks, Mr. President. There's been a lot of criticism on the campaign trail of free trade policies and even talk about the U.S. opting out of NAFTA. And it doesn't seem that you want to discuss the prospects of Republican candidates on the campaign trail this year, but --

THE PRESIDENT: Not yet.

Q Not yet. But just given all the concerns about the economy that people have, do you feel like you could win in a state like Ohio if you were running again for President?

THE PRESIDENT: Landslide. (Laughter.) Look, I am a big believer in free trade. And the reason why is I firmly believe that free trade is essential to the formation of high-paying, quality jobs. In other words, people who work for industries that export goods to overseas are likely to be paid more than their -- other workers.

Secondly, if you look at the -- our economic growth recently, particularly last year, a major portion of that growth came as a result of exports. It's an essential part of our economic picture.

Yes, I heard the talk about NAFTA. One statistic I think people need to know is I think there's roughly like $380 billion worth of goods that we ship to our NAFTA partners on an annual basis. Now, $380 billion worth of goods means there's a lot of farmers and businesses, large and small, who are benefiting from having a market in our neighborhood. And the idea of just unilaterally withdrawing from a trade treaty because of trying to score political points is not good policy. It's not good policy on the merits, and it's not good policy as a message to send to our -- people who have, in good faith, signed a treaty and worked with us on a treaty.

Thirdly, those of us who grew up in Texas remember what the border looked like when we were kids, and it was really poor. And you go down to that border today, it is prosperous on both sides of the river, to the credit of those who proposed NAFTA, and to the credit of those who got NAFTA through the Congress. If you're worried about people coming into our country illegally, it makes sense to help a place like Mexico grow its economy. Most folks would rather be finding a job close to home; most folks would rather not try to get in the bottom of an 18-wheeler to come and put food on the table.

This agreement has meant prosperity on both sides of our borders, north and south. And I believe it's in the interests to continue to seek markets for our farmers, ranchers and businesspeople. I also know it's in our interest to insist that when people sell products into our countries [sic], that we get treated fairly. In other words, if we treat a country one way, people in a country one way, we expect to be treated the same way -- like Colombia.

The Colombia Free Trade vote is coming up. Many of their products come into our country much easier than our products go into theirs. It makes sense to be treated equally. But on this vote, there's an additional consequence. If the Congress rejects the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, it will sorely affect the national security interests of the United States. It will encourage false populism in our neighborhood. It will undermine the standing of courageous leaders like President Uribe. And I strongly urge the Congress, when they bring this -- when the Colombia Free Trade Agreement is brought to a vote, to seriously consider the consequences of rejecting this trade agreement.

Mike.

Q Mr. President, on FISA, do you worry that perhaps some House Democratic leaders are playing a high-stakes game of "wait and see," in terms of if we get attacked, we all lose; if we don't get attacked, then maybe that makes the case that you don't need all the powers in FISA?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I don't think so. I mean, I think that's -- that would be ascribing motives that are -- I just don't they're the motives of the House leaders to do that. I think they're really wrestling with providing liability protecting to phone companies. I don't think that's cynical or devious, Michael. That's just too risky.

A lot of these leaders understand that there is an enemy that wants to attack. The caucus, evidently, in the House -- the Democratic Caucus -- is, you know, concerned about exactly Plante's question, you know. And I just can't tell you how important it is to not alienate, or not discourage, these phone companies.

How can you listen to the enemy if the phone companies aren't going to participate with you? And they're not going to participate if they get sued. Let me rephrase -- less likely to participate. And they're facing billions of dollars of lawsuits, and they have a responsibility to their shareholders. And yet they were told what they were going to do is legal.

And anyway, I'm going to keep talking about the issue, Mike. This is an important issue for the American people to understand. And it's important for them to understand that no renewal of the Patriot Act -- I mean, the Protect America Act -- is dangerous for the security of the country, just dangerous.

I'm sure people, if they really pay attention to the details of this debate, wonder why it was okay to pass the Protect America Act last summer, late last summer, and all of a sudden it's not okay to pass it now. And so I will keep talking about the issue, and talking about the issue.

Michael.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to ask you about another issue that's kind of come up on the campaign trail, in terms of discussion, which is, this is a point of view that has been espoused, that we would be better off if we talked to our adversaries, in particular, Iran and Cuba, you know, without preconditions. And as President, you have obviously considered and rejected this approach. And I'm wondering if you can give us a little insight into your thinking about this, and just explain to the American people what is lost by talking with those when we disagree?

THE PRESIDENT: What's lost by embracing a tyrant who puts his people in prison because of their political beliefs? What's lost is it will send the wrong message. It will send a discouraging message to those who wonder whether America will continue to work for the freedom of prisoners. It will give great status to those who have suppressed human rights and human dignity.

I'm not suggesting there's never a time to talk, but I'm suggesting now is not the time -- not to talk with Raul Castro. He's nothing more than an extension of what his brother did, which was to ruin an island, and imprison people because of their beliefs.

I had these wives of these dissidents come and see me, and their stories are just unbelievably sad. And it just goes to show how repressive the Castro brothers have been, when you listen to the truth about what they say. And the idea of embracing a leader who's done this without any attempt on his part to release prisoners and free their society would be counterproductive and send the wrong signal.

Q No one is saying embrace him, they're just saying talk --

THE PRESIDENT: Well, talking to him is embracing. Excuse me. Let me use another word -- you're right, "embrace" is like big hug, right? You're looking -- I do embrace people. Mike, one of these days, I'm just thinking about -- (laughter.) Right, okay, good, thank you for reminding me to use a different word. Sitting down at the table, having your picture taken with a tyrant such as Raul Castro, for example, lends the status of the office and the status of our country to him. He gains a lot from it by saying, look at me, I'm now recognized by the President of the United States.

Now, somebody would say, well, I'm going to tell him to release the prisoners. Well, it's a theory that all you got to do is embrace and these tyrants act. That's not how they act. That's not what causes them to respond. And so I made a decision quite the opposite, and that is to keep saying to the Cuban people, we stand with you; we will not sit down with your leaders that imprison your people because of what they believe; we will keep an embargo on you; we do want you to have money from people here in the homeland, but we will stay insistent upon this policy until you begin to get free.

And so that's the way I've conducted foreign policy, and will continue to conduct foreign policy. I just remind people that the decisions of the U.S. President to have discussions with certain international figures can be extremely counterproductive. It can send chilling signals and messages to our allies; it can send confusion about our foreign policy; it discourages reformers inside their own country. And in my judgment, it would be a mistake -- on the two countries you talked about.

Sheryl.

Q Mr. President, thank you. I want to bring you back to Senator Obama's comment on Iraq. Do you believe that his comment was naive?

THE PRESIDENT: I believe Senator Obama better stay focused on his campaign with Senator Clinton, neither of whom has secured their party's nominee yet -- nomination yet. And my party's nomination hasn't been decided yet either. And so there will be ample time to discuss whoever their candidate -- the positions of whoever their candidate is.

Nice try, Sheryl. Would you like to try another tact, another question?

Q Well, you said it was an interesting comment. Okay, I'll follow on it. About Iraq, you have said in the past -- (laughter) -- that you want to leave a sustainable policy --

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q Wait a minute --

Q I'd like to have another question.

THE PRESIDENT: Okay.

Q You want to leave your --

THE PRESIDENT: Well, it was just -- give her -- should we vote on whether she gets another question? (Laughter.)

Q You've said, Mr. President, that you want to leave Iraq in a sustainable situation --

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I do.

Q -- at the end of your administration. Can you describe for us specifically what do you mean by "sustainable"? Do you have specific goals and objectives that in your mind would meet the criteria of sustainability?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, which is to keep enough troops there so we can succeed. And David Petraeus will -- for example, David Petraeus will come back, along with Ryan Crocker, here later on this spring and will make a recommendation as to what those troop levels ought to be.

The idea of having a request by the Iraqi government for a long-term security agreement is part of sustainability. And obviously we're going to be pushing hard at the same time to get the political process moving forward.

I don't know if you noticed yesterday, but it was a very interesting moment in Iraqi constitutional history, when part of the -- a member of the presidency council utilized his constitutional right to veto one of the three pieces of legislation recently passed. I understand the use of the veto, intend to continue to use it, but I thought it was a healthy sign that people are thinking through the legislation that's passed, and they're worrying about making sure that laws are constitutional. And I feel pretty good about the fact that they're, of course, going to continue to work to make sure that their stated objective of getting provincial elections done by October of 2008 will happen.

So there's going to be a lot of -- my only point is sustainability is political, economic and security.

Yes, Ed.

Q Good morning, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you.

Q If I could get back to the economy. The GDP numbers today show that our economy is increasingly relying on U.S. exports to keep growing. How important is a competitive dollar in keeping U.S. exports strong?

THE PRESIDENT: We believe in a strong dollar policy, and we believe that -- and I believe that our economy has got the fundamentals in place for us to be a -- is to grow and continue growing more robustly, hopefully, than we're growing now. And the dollar, the value of the dollar will be reflected in the ability for our economy to be -- to grow economically. And so we're still for a strong dollar.

Q Can I follow up on that, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: Maybe.

Q The --

THE PRESIDENT: I guess you are -- I haven't said yes. (Laughter.)

Q What's your advice to the average American who is hurting now, facing the prospect of $4 a gallon gasoline, a lot of people facing --

THE PRESIDENT: Wait, what did you just say? You're predicting $4 a gallon gasoline?

Q A number of analysts are predicting --

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yeah?

Q -- $4 a gallon gasoline this spring when they reformulate.

THE PRESIDENT: That's interesting. I hadn't heard that.

Q Yes, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. I know it's high now.

Q And the other economic problems facing people. Beyond your concern that you stated here, and your expectations for these stimulus checks, what kind of hope can you offer to people who are in dire straits?

THE PRESIDENT: Permanent tax -- keep the tax cuts permanent, for starters. There's a lot of economic uncertainty. You just said that. You just said the price of gasoline may be up to $4 a gallon -- or some expert told you that -- and that creates a lot of uncertainty if you're out there wondering whether or not -- you know, what your life is going to be like and you're looking at $4 a gallon, that's uncertain. And when you couple with the idea that taxes may be going up in a couple of years, that's double uncertainty. And therefore one way to deal with uncertainty is for Congress to make the tax cuts permanent.

Secondly, it's -- people got to understand that our energy policy needs to be focused on a lot of things -- one, renewables, which is fine, which I strongly support, as you know; two, conservation. But we need to be finding more oil and gas at home if we're worried about becoming dependent on oil overseas. And this -- I view it as a transitory period to new technologies that will change the way we live, but we haven't built a refinery in a long time. We're expanding refineries, but we haven't built a refinery in a long time. I strongly suggested to the Congress that we build refineries on old military bases, but, no, it didn't pass. But if you've got less supply of something, as demand continues to stay steady or grow, your price is going to go up.

Secondly, on oil, we -- the more oil we find at home, the better off we're going to be in terms of the short-run. And yet our policy is, you know, let us not explore robustly in places like ANWR. And there are environmental concerns, and I understand that. I also know there's technologies that should mitigate these environmental concerns. They got a bill up there in Congress now. Their attitude is, let's tax oil companies. Well, all that's going to do is make the price even higher. We ought to be encouraging investment in oil and gas close to home if we're trying to mitigate the problems we face right now.

And so, yes, there's a lot of uncertainty, and I'm concerned about the uncertainty. Hopefully this pro-growth package will help -- this, one hundred -- I think it's $147 billion that will be going out the door, starting electronically in the first week of May, and through check in the second week of May. And the idea is to help our consumers deal with the uncertainty you're talking about. But, yes, no question about it, it's a difficult period.

Yes, Ken.

Q Thank you, sir. Now that you've found a location for your presidential library, you've got to find the money to build it. Reports indicate that you may be trying to collect as much as $200 million. Is that figure accurate? Do you believe it's important for the American people to know who is giving that kind of money to their President? Will you disclose the contributions as they come in? And will you place any restriction on who gives money and how much they can give?

THE PRESIDENT: No, yes, no, yes. (Laughter.) Next question. (Laughter.) I haven't -- phew, man. You obviously haven't asked a question in a long time. It was like, you know, -- one, I haven't seen the final budget. Two, as Donnie Evans said, who is the chairman of the foundation, we'll look at the disclosure requirements and make a decision. You know, here's -- there's a lot of people -- or some people; I shouldn't say "a lot" -- some people who like to give and don't particularly want their names disclosed, whether it be for this foundation or any other foundation. And so we'll take that into consideration.

Thirdly -- and what was the other?

Q Any restrictions on who can give? Will you take foreign money for this?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I'll probably take some foreign money, but don't know yet, Ken. We just haven't -- we just announced the deal and I, frankly, have been focused elsewhere, like on gasoline prices and, you know, my trip to Africa, and haven't seen the fundraising strategy yet. So the answer to your question, really, I can't answer your question well.

Q Where does the people's right to know this fit into all that?

THE PRESIDENT: We're weighing, taking a look, taking consideration, giving it a serious consideration. Nice try, though.

Olivier.

Q Thank you, sir. In China a former factory worker who says that human rights are more important than the Olympics is being tried for subversion. What message does it send that you're going to the Olympics, and do you think athletes there should be allowed to publicly express their dissent?

THE PRESIDENT: Olivier, I have made it very clear, I'm going to the Olympics because it's a sporting event, and I'm looking forward to seeing the athletic competition. But that will not preclude me from meeting with the Chinese President, expressing my deep concerns about a variety of issues -- just like I do every time I meet with the President.

And maybe I'm in a little different position. Others don't have a chance to visit with Hu Jintao, but I do. And every time I meet with him I talk about religious freedom and the importance of China's society recognizing that if you're allowed to worship freely, it will benefit the society as a whole; that the Chinese government should not fear the idea of people praying to a god as they see fit. A whole society, a healthy society, a confident society is one that recognizes the value of religious freedom.

I talk about Darfur and Iran and Burma. And so I am not the least bit shy of bringing up the concerns expressed by this factory worker, and I believe that I'll have an opportunity to do so with the President and, at the same time, enjoy a great sporting event. I'm a sports fan. I'm looking forward to the competition. And each Olympic society will make its own decision as to how to deal with the athletes.

Yes, Mark.

Q Mr. President, back to the oil price -- tax breaks that you were talking about a minute ago. Back when oil was $55 dollars a barrel, you said those tax breaks were not needed; people had plenty of incentive to drill for oil. Now the price of oil is $100 a barrel and you're planning to threaten a plan that would shift those tax breaks to renewables.

THE PRESIDENT: I talked about some -- some of the breaks. And this is a -- this generally is a tax increase, and it doesn't make any sense to do it right now. We need to be exploring for more oil and gas. And taking money out of the coffers of the oil companies will make it harder for them to reinvest. I know -- they say, well, look at all of the profits. Well, we're raising the price of gasoline in a time when the price of gasoline is high.

Secondly, we've invested a lot of money in renewables. This administration has done more for renewables than any President. Now, we got a problem with renewables, and that is the price of corn is beginning to affect food -- cost of food, and it's hurting hog farmers and a lot of folks. And the best way to deal with renewables is to focus on research and development that will enable us to use other raw material to produce ethanol. I'm a strong believe in ethanol, Mark. This administration has got a great record in it. But it is a -- I believe research and development is what's going to make renewable fuels more effective.

Again, I repeat, if you look at what's happened in corn out there, you're beginning to see the food issue and the energy issue collide. And so, to me, the best dollar spent is to continue to deal with cellulosic ethanol in order to deal with this bottleneck right now. And secondly, the tax -- yes, I said that a while ago -- on certain aspects, but the way I analyze this bill is it's going to cost the consumers more money. And we need more oil and gas being explored for; we need more drilling; we need less dependence on foreign oil.

And as I say, we're in a period of transition here in America, from a time where we were -- where we are oil and gas dependent, to, hopefully, a time where we got electric automobiles, and we're spending money to do that; a time when we're using more biofuels, and we've taken huge investments in that; a time when we've got nuclear power plants and we're able to deal with the disposal in a way that brings confidence to the American people -- so we're not dependent on natural gas to fire up our -- a lot of our utilities, and a time when we can sequester coal.

That's where we're headed for, but we've got to do something in the interim. Otherwise, we're going to be dealing, as the man said, with $4 gasoline. And so that's why I'm against that bill.

I thank you. It's been a pleasure. Enjoyed being with you.

Q Sir, do you think Hillary Clinton will be the nominee?

THE PRESIDENT: Pardon me?

Q You still think Hillary Clinton will be the nominee?

THE PRESIDENT: I'm not talking about politics.

Q You said that before, though --

THE PRESIDENT: Trying to get me to be pundit-in-chief.

Q Are they qualified to be commander-in-chief?

THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate you doing that.

Jackson -- Jackson, nice to see you. (Laughter.) Glad to see you back. (Laughter.)

END

Economy Slows to Near Crawl

Construction workers lift roofing materials to the top of a townhouse in Centreville, Virginia. The US economy expanded a sluggish 0.6 percent annual pace in the fourth quarter, the government has said in a report that left unrevised its earlier estimate of gross domestic product growth. (AFP/File/Paul Richards)

28 February 2008

By JEANNINE AVERSA

Video

WASHINGTON-The economy skidded to a near halt in the final quarter of last year, clobbered by dual slumps in housing and credit that caused people and businesses to spend and invest more sparingly.

The Commerce Department reported Thursday that the gross domestic product increased at a scant 0.6 percent pace in the October-to-December quarter. The reading — unchanged from an initial estimate a month ago — underscored just how much momentum the economy has lost. In the prior quarter, the economy clocked in at a brisk 4.9 percent pace.

Gross domestic product measures the value of all goods and services produced in the United States and is the best barometer of the country's economic health.

"The economy just kept its head above water," said Nigel Gault, economist at Global Insight.

Economists had thought the newly released fourth-quarter GDP would have been bumped up to a 0.8 percent growth rate.

The housing picture looked even more bleak in the new report.

Builders slashed spending on housing projects by a whopping 25.2 percent on an annualized basis in the fourth quarter, the biggest cut in 26 years.

And, even though economic growth slowed, inflation picked up — an ominous mix that could spell further trouble for the economy.

As if the newly confirmed fourth-quarter GDP figure of 0.6 percent wasn't chilling enough, the Labor Department reported Thursday that new applications for unemployment insurance benefits rose by 19,000 to 373,000 last week, more evidence that the general economic sluggishness is spilling over into the job market.

On Wall Street, the latest batch of economic news rattled investors. The Dow Jones industrials were down in morning trading.

Fears have grown that the country is heading for a recession or is already in one.

The National Association for Business Economics expects economic growth in the current January-to-March quarter to slow to a meager 0.4 percent pace. Some analysts believe the economy's performance could be even worse and actually shrink during this period. Under one rough rule, the economy would have to contract for six months in a row for the country to be viewed as in a recession.

With risks lurking that the problems could intensify and further hurt the economy, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke made clear he stands ready to lower a key interest rate again. The Fed, which started cutting interest rates to bolster the economy in September, has turned much more aggressively recently. In eight days in January, the Fed slashed rates by 1.25 percentage points — the biggest one-month reduction in a quarter-century. Rates are expected to move lower at the Fed's next meeting on March 18.

Bernanke, however, is hopeful that previous rate reductions and the $168 billion economic aid plan of tax rebates for people and tax breaks for business will energize the economy in the second half of 2008.

A gauge of inflation linked to the GDP report showed that "core" prices — excluding food and energy — grew at a rate of 2.7 percent in the fourth quarter. The inflation reading — although unchanged from the government's initial estimate — showed that inflation had picked up sharply from the third quarter's 2 percent pace.

The inflation figure is above the Fed's comfort zone — the upper bound of which is a 2 percent inflation rate.

With inflation rising as the economy slows, fears are increasing that the country may be headed for a bout of stagflation. That's a scenario the country hasn't experienced since the 1970s.

Even though Bernanke has made clear the Fed's top priority — for now — is trying to get the economy back on track, he also says he remains mindful of inflation risks, especially from high energy prices.

Oil prices have reach new record highs, galloping past $100 a barrel in recent days. High energy prices can spread inflation by boosting the costs of a wide variety of other goods and services and can put a further damper on overall economic growth by crimping consumer spending.

Consumers boosted their spending at just a 1.9 percent pace in the fourth quarter. That was down slightly from the government's previous estimate and marked a pullback from the third quarter's 2.8 percent growth rate. Consumer spending accounts for a big share of overall economic activity and thus is a major factor in how the economy fares.

Business spending on equipment and software grew at a 3.3 percent pace in the final quarter of last year. That was lower than the government's initial estimate and marked a deceleration from the third quarter's 6.2 percent growth rate.

There was a bright spot in the report, however. Sales of U.S. goods and services to other countries grew at a 4.8 percent pace in the fourth quarter, better than previously estimated. U.S. exports have been helped by the declining value of the U.S. dollar, which makes U.S. goods less expensive on foreign markets. The U.S dollar dipped to another record low on Thursday in Europe.

For all of 2007, the economy grew by 2.2 percent, the weakest showing in five years. That estimate also was not changed from an earlier reading.

Link:

(Video) Food Prices Skyrocket