Obama Disrespects Saudi King

Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud (C-R) and US President Barack Obama (C-L) review an honour guard during a welcoming ceremony at the King Khaled international airport in Riyadh on 3 June 2009.

In which Obama showed disprect towards the Saudi King by walking briskly in front of him, instead of staying beside the King or walk behind him; which is royal protocol.

This was found to be appauling by many within the Islamic world for Obama's lack of respect towards Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud; who also is the caretaker of the two holiest sites in Islam, Makkah and Medina.

Hajj Pilgrimage Seen 2.4 Million Turn-out

Muslim pilgrims pray outside the Prophet Mohammed Mosque in the Saudi holy city of Medina, on 13 December 2008.

Statistics put the total number of pilgrims who attended this year’s annual hajj pilgrimage last week at more than 2.4 million, almost 1.73 million from abroad and 679,000 from within the kingdom, according to the official SPA news agency.

A Pilgrimage from Kashmir to Makkah

A man hugs a relative before leaving Srinagar in Indian-administered Kashmir for a pilgrimage to holy city of Makkah (Mecca), Saudi Arabia, on 30 October 2008.

While this pilgrimage is a very important part of Islam, this photograph is a reminder of a past time when the distance was so vast for some, that they never saw there families or home again.

Which is similar to American history, when a wagon train left for the Western region and families where separated to be left behind; to never hear or see each other again.

Fake-degree mill in US leads to Saudi inquest

CHEAT SHEET: The US-based Spokesman-Review newspaper posted the list of those who had purchased fake degrees. It includes at least 70 Saudis or persons who list their country of residence as Saudi Arabia.

21 August 2008

by Fatima Sidiya

JEDDAH: A long list of people who had purchased or attempted to purchase fake university diplomas in the United States has spurred the Saudi education authorities to launch an investigation into the issue of Saudis and expatriates who may be working in the Kingdom on counterfeit certificates.

However, Shoura Council member Abdullah Al-Tuwairqi called the reaction to the list “disappointing,” and expressed concern that education officials would have a death-by-committee mentality in addressing the issue.

The Spokesman-Review newspaper in Washington state recently obtained and posted online a list of nearly 10,000 names of people who had spent $7.3 million on purchasing or attempting to purchase fake diplomas from an illegal operation. The US Department of Justice shut down the illegal enterprise and compiled a list of its clients. The list was then leaked to the newspaper, which posted it online at: http://www.spokesmanreview.com/data/diploma-mill/.

The list contains at least 70 Saudis, or persons who listed their country of residence as Saudi Arabia. For example, one of the names on the list is a Saudi woman who bought degrees in obstetrics and gynecology. The newspaper reported that US federal investigators do not know if the woman is currently working as a medical doctor in the Kingdom.

Deputy Minister of Higher Education Muhammad Al-Ouhali told Al-Watan newspaper that the ministry would investigate people on the list who may be working in Saudi Arabia on fake documents. He said that if the US Department of Justice’s list were accurate then Saudi education officials would take necessary action.

Al-Tuwairqi lambasted newspapers for publishing advertisements from institutes promising college diplomas without background checks. He blames both the government and the media for promoting these illegitimate operations that churn out unqualified degree holders who then “unfairly” compete with people who worked hard for their academic achievements at real universities.

Abdullah Al-Qahtani, head of the Certificates Accreditation Department at the Ministry of Higher Education, told Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper that his department had won an approval from higher authorities to form an investigative committee. The committee would include members from the Ministry of Higher Education, the Interior Ministry, the Ministry of Culture and Information, the Ministry of Commerce and Industry and the Ministry of Labor and would also receive assistance from the King Abdul Aziz City for Science and Technology.

“The Ministry of Higher Education expresses its worries regarding the increasing number of agencies that lure students into nonexisting universities and obtaining unaccredited certificates,” said Al-Qahtani, referring to the issue of local unaccredited institutions and degree mills.

Al-Qahtani also said the Ministry of Higher Education is now consulting the Ministry of Culture and Information to put a stop to the publication of advertisements from unaccredited institutions offering sketchy diplomas. He also called on newspapers and magazines to cooperate with the Ministry of Culture and Information to ensure the accuracy of information provided by universities that want to advertise their services.

According to Al-Watan, there are roughly 18 branches of unauthorized universities, with over 5,000 students in the Kingdom. Last year, 70 staff members at different girls’ colleges around the Kingdom were fired for having fake diplomas.

President Bush Discusses Energy

As U.S. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne looks on, U.S. President George W. Bush delivers a statement on energy Wednesday, 18 June 2008, in the Rose Garden of the White House.

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
June 18, 2008

Video
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. I want to thank Secretary Kempthorne and Secretary Bodman for joining me. For many Americans, there is no more pressing concern than the price of gasoline. Truckers and farmers and small business owners have been hit especially hard. Every American who drives to work, purchases food, or ships a product has felt the effect. And families across our country are looking to Washington for a response.

High oil prices are at the root of high gasoline prices. And behind those prices is the basic law of supply and demand. In recent years, the world's demand for oil has grown dramatically. Meanwhile, the supply of oil has grown much more slowly. As a result, oil prices have risen sharply, and that increase has been reflected at American gasoline pumps. Now much of the oil consumed in America comes from abroad -- that's what's changed dramatically over the last couple of decades. Some of that energy comes from unstable regions and unfriendly regimes. This makes us more vulnerable to supply shocks and price spikes beyond our control -- and that puts both our economy and our security at risk.

In the long run, the solution is to reduce demand for oil by promoting alternative energy technologies. My administration has worked with Congress to invest in gas-saving technologies like advanced batteries and hydrogen fuel cells. We've mandated a large expansion in the use of alternative fuels. We've raised fuel efficiency standards to ambitious new levels. With all these steps, we are bringing America closer to the day when we can end our addiction to oil, which will allow us to become better stewards of the environment.

In the short run, the American economy will continue to rely largely on oil. And that means we need to increase supply, especially here at home. So my administration has repeatedly called on Congress to expand domestic oil production. Unfortunately, Democrats on Capitol Hill have rejected virtually every proposal -- and now Americans are paying the price at the pump for this obstruction. Congress must face a hard reality: Unless Members are willing to accept gas prices at today's painful levels -- or even higher -- our nation must produce more oil. And we must start now. So this morning, I ask Democratic Congressional leaders to move forward with four steps to expand American oil and gasoline production.

First, we should expand American oil production by increasing access to the Outer Continental Shelf, or OCS. Experts believe that the OCS could produce about 18 billion barrels of oil. That would be enough to match America's current oil production for almost ten years. The problem is that Congress has restricted access to key parts of the OCS since the early 1980s. Since then, advances in technology have made it possible to conduct oil exploration in the OCS that is out of sight, protects coral reefs and habitats, and protects against oil spills. With these advances -- and a dramatic increase in oil prices -- congressional restrictions on OCS exploration have become outdated and counterproductive.

Republicans in Congress have proposed several promising bills that would lift the legislative ban on oil exploration in the OCS. I call on the House and the Senate to pass good legislation as soon as possible. This legislation should give the states the option of opening up OCS resources off their shores, provide a way for the federal government and states to share new leasing revenues, and ensure that our environment is protected. There's also an executive prohibition on exploration in the OCS. When Congress lifts the legislative ban, I will lift the executive prohibition.

Second, we should expand oil production by tapping into the extraordinary potential of oil shale. Oil shale is a type of rock that can produce oil when exposed to heat or other process[es]. In one major deposit -- the Green River Basin of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming -- there lies the equivalent of about 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil. That's more than three times larger than the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. And it can be fully recovered -- and if it can be fully recovered it would be equal to more than a century's worth of currently projected oil imports.

For many years, the high cost of extracting oil from shale exceeded the benefit. But today the calculus is changing. Companies have invested in technology to make oil shale production more affordable and efficient. And while the cost of extracting oil from shale is still more than the cost of traditional production, it is also less than the current market price of oil. This makes oil shale a highly promising resource.

Unfortunately, Democrats in Congress are standing in the way of further development. In last year's omnibus spending bill, Democratic leaders inserted a provision blocking oil shale leasing on federal lands. That provision can be taken out as easily as it was slipped in -- and Congress should do so immediately.

Third, we should expand American oil production by permitting exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR. When ANWR was created in 1980, Congress specifically reserved a portion for energy development. In 1995, Congress passed legislation allowing oil production in this small fraction of ANWR's 19 million acres. With a drilling footprint of less than 2,000 acres -- less than one-tenth of 1 percent of this distant Alaskan terrain -- America could produce an estimated 10 billion barrels of oil. That is roughly the equivalent of two decades of imported oil from Saudi Arabia. Yet my predecessor vetoed this bill.

In the years since, the price of oil has increased seven-fold, and the price of American gasoline has more than tripled. Meanwhile, scientists have developed innovative techniques to reach ANWR's oil with virtually no impact on the land or local wildlife. I urge members of Congress to allow this remote region to bring enormous benefits to the American people.

And finally, we need to expand and enhance our refining capacity. Refineries are the critical link between crude oil and the gasoline and diesel fuel that drivers put in their tanks. With recent changes in the makeup of our fuel supply, upgrades in our refining capacity are urgently needed. Yet it has been nearly 30 years since our nation built a new refinery, and lawsuits and red tape have made it extremely costly to expand or modify existing refineries. The result is that America now imports millions of barrels of fully-refined gasoline from abroad. This imposes needless costs on American consumers. It deprives American workers of good jobs. And it needs to change.

So today I'm proposing measures to expedite the refinery permitting process. Under the reformed process that I propose, challenges to refineries and other energy project permits must be brought before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals within 60 days of the issuance of a permit decision. Congress should also empower the Secretary of Energy to establish binding deadlines for permit decisions, and to ensure that the various levels of approval required in the refinery permitting process are handled in a timely way.

With these four steps, we will take pressure off gas prices over time by expanding the amount of American-made oil and gasoline. We will strengthen our national security by reducing our reliance on foreign oil. We will benefit American workers by keeping our nation competitive in the global economy -- and by creating good jobs in construction, and engineering, and refining, maintenance, and many other areas.

The proposals I've outlined will take years to have their full impact. There is no excuse for delay -- as a matter of fact, it's a reason to move swiftly. I know the Democratic leaders have opposed some of these policies in the past. Now that their opposition has helped drive gas prices to record levels, I ask them to reconsider their positions. If congressional leaders leave for the 4th of July recess without taking action, they will need to explain why $4-a-gallon gasoline is not enough incentive for them to act. And Americans will rightly ask how high oil -- how high gas prices have to rise before the Democratic-controlled Congress will do something about it.

I know this is a trying time for our families, but our country has faced similar strains before and we've overcome them together -- and we can do that again. With faith in the innovative spirit of our people and a commitment to results in Washington, we will meet the energy challenges we face -- and keep our economy the strongest, most vibrant, and most hopeful in the world.

Thank you for your time.

END

Bush illegally in UK against Queen’s Wishes

U.S. President George W. Bush holds talks with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown at No. 10 Downing Street.

It was reported, that Bush is still in the UK against HRM Elizabeth II wishes, for she requested him to leave the country, yesterday.

Queen Elizabeth II did not approve of Bush’s foreign policy towards Palestine and his continuous insults towards Queen Deborah of Palestine.

In the Press conference below, one will not find any reference to Bush’s ideals against the country of Palestine nor the monarchy, which is the legal representative of Palestinian government.

U.S. President Bush Participates in Joint Press Availability with United Kingdom Prime Minister Brown

For Immediate Release

Office of the Press Secretary

June 16, 2008

Foreign & Commonwealth Office Building -- Lacarno Treaty Room
London, England

PRIME MINISTER BROWN: I'm delighted to welcome President Bush and the First Lady back to London. And his visit today is an opportunity to celebrate the historic partnership of shared purpose that unites the United Kingdom and the United States of America. We both share a great love of history and about how we have forged the ideas of democracy and liberty over centuries. And the special partnership that President Bush and I both agree today is a partnership not just of governments but of peoples is driven forward not simply by mutual interests, but by our shared values: both countries founded upon liberty, our histories forged through democracy, our shared values expressed by a commitment to opportunity for all, putting into practice what Churchill called the "joint inheritance of the English speaking world."

So let me thank President Bush for being a true friend of Britain and for the importance he attaches to enhancing our transatlantic partnership, from the work we do in Afghanistan and Iraq to every part of the world. And let me thank him for the steadfastness and the resolution that he has shown in rooting out terrorism in all parts of the world; in working for a Middle East peace settlement; in bringing hope to Africa; in working for a free trade world, where in spite of today's difficulties with oil and food prices, there is and should be a wider and deeper prosperity in the future for all.

Now in our substantive and wide-ranging talks last night and this morning, the President and I have discussed a number of central issues. We have discussed Iran's nuclear ambitions. We have discussed Iraq and Afghanistan, where our forces are working side by side. We have discussed the criminal cabal that now threatens to make a mockery of free and fair elections in Zimbabwe. We have discussed what we can do about democracy in Burma.

We have resolved, first of all, as we did some years ago, that it is in the British national interest to confront the Taliban in Afghanistan or Afghanistan would come to us. And so today Britain will announce additional troops for Afghanistan, bringing our numbers in Afghanistan to the highest level. And let me thank our troops, and the troops of America and 42 other countries who are in Afghanistan, as I thank our forces in Iraq for their courage and for their professionalism. And let me acknowledge the bravery of the five members of the 2nd paratroop regiment, British men who have in the last few days sacrificed their lives for freedom. Eighteen months ago, the Taliban boasted that they and their paid foreign fighters would drive our forces out of southern Helmand. Now most agree that security is on the way to being transformed. Last week in Paris a total of 80 countries pledged $20 billions, with nearly a billion from the United Kingdom to support the Afghan National Development Strategy.

Our aim is to generate progress, where the fourth poorest country in the world, laid low by decades of conflict, can as a democracy enjoy peaceful social and economic development, with our forces, over time, moving from a direct combat role to train and support Afghanistan's own army and police.

In Iraq, there is still work to be done, and Britain is playing and will continue to play its part. Where we have over 4,000 troops in Basra, we will continue the shared policy of Iraqis taking more control over their own affairs, moving from combat to overwatching Basra. Our policy is showing success as we continue the task we have set ourselves: strong and well-trained Iraqi forces capable of securing the peace, firm commitments to new local government elections soon, and speeding up the social and economic development of Iraq so that people have a stake in the future.

Our message today to the Iranian people is that you do not have to choose the path of confrontation. The latest rounds of talks with the Iranians took place over the weekend. Once again, we put our enhanced offer on the table, including political and economic partnership, and help with nuclear technology for civilian use. We await the Iranian response and we'll do everything possible to maintain the dialogue. But we are also clear that if Iran continues to ignore united resolutions, to ignore our offers of partnership, we have no choice but to intensify sanctions. And so today Britain will urge Europe and Europe will agree to take further sanctions against Iran.

First of all, we will take action today that will freeze the overseas assets of the biggest bank in Iran, the bank Melli.

And second, action will start today for a new phase of sanctions on oil and gas. And I will repeat that we will take any necessary actions so that Iran is aware of the choice it has to make: to start to play its part as a full and respected member of the international community or face further isolation.

We discussed the deteriorating situation in Zimbabwe. In recent weeks, under Robert Mugabe's increasingly desperate and criminal regime, Zimbabwe has seen 53 killings, 2,000 beatings, the displacement of 30,000 people, the arrest and detention of opposition leaders, including Morgan Tsvangirai, and this is wholly unacceptable. Mugabe must not be allowed to steal the election that is now less than two weeks away. And that is why we call for Zimbabwe to accept a United Nations human rights envoy to visit Zimbabwe now, and to accept the international monitors from all parts of the world who are available to ensure that this is a free and fair election.

We agreed that at the G8 in Japan, the United Kingdom and the U.S.A. would propose a plan to recruit and train health workers for the poorest countries. To save the lives of mothers who needlessly die in childbirth, we are developing proposals to tackle the diseases that bring needless death and suffering, including malaria, AIDS, and neglected tropical diseases. And we agreed also to work together to ensure G8 commitment to scale up funding on education and get the remaining 72 million children who do not go to school today into school.

The world oil prices trebled in recent months. In the right of this, I welcome Saudi Arabia's initiative to host a producer-consumer summit in Jeddah on the 22nd of June. And we will all work together to ensure an enhanced dialogue between oil producers and consumers.

And the President and I also agreed that over the next few weeks we need to press hard to achieve a world trade deal. Both of us are ensured that this could unlock new opportunities for the world economy. It would also help reduce high global food prices.

Finally, we go from here to Northern Ireland. The United States has played an essential role in securing peace in Northern Ireland and helping the people of Northern Ireland move away from conflict to potentially a new prosperity. And I want to thank President Bush for his personal efforts to speed up the Northern Ireland peace process, and to make sure that there is investment in Northern Ireland, not just from the rest of the United Kingdom, but from America.

And I thank him for his work to ensure that the recent investment conference in Northern Ireland was a huge success, and there will be further announcements of jobs in Northern Ireland today. America has played a huge role in this peace process, and President Bush is to be thanked by all the people of the United Kingdom for what he has done.

So, Mr. President, I thank you again for your friendship, for your leadership, for your commitment to us continuing to work together to solve the challenges facing the world. I'm pleased you're here. I value the gains we've made together, and I look forward to our continued friendship.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Thank you, Mr. Prime Minister. And I thank you very much for your friendship, thank you for your hospitality. This is -- this has been a good trip. By the way, some are speculating this is my last trip. Let them speculate. Who knows? (Laughter.) But it's been a -- we had a great dinner last night. I want to thank you and Sarah. And thanks for calling together the historians. It's a -- you know, Great Britain has produced great historians. And I am -- I love reading a lot of their works, and it was so kind of you to have them over. And the food was good, too. (Laughter.)

And also we had a great visit yesterday. Laura and I went to see Her Majesty, the Queen. I thank her for her hospitality. And then yesterday at the embassy, thanks to our Ambassador, I had the opportunity to speak to some of your soldiers. And I was -- listened to their stories of courage and bravery and sacrifice, and it was so -- really touching. And I really appreciate the British people supporting the people who wear the uniform. And I am looking forward to going to Northern Ireland this evening. You've taken the lead. We're just pleased to help. And hopefully this visit will help keep the process moving.

First thing about Gordon Brown, he's tough on terror, and I appreciate it -- and so should the people of Great Britain and the world. He fully understands that while some want to say that the terrorist threat is gone or there's nothing to worry about, it is something to worry about. And he was -- you were tested early in your Prime Ministership. You dealt with the challenge. And I appreciate your continued focus and your understanding that we've got to work together to protect our people, and your understanding that freedom is transformative, and the ultimate way to succeed against these extremists who use murder as a way to achieve their political objectives is to marginalize them through the advance of liberty.

And that's what we're doing in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. And it is tough work. It's hard to take a society that had been ravished [sic] by brutality and convince people to take the risk necessary to work for civil society and freedom for women and to educate their children. But I believe it's necessary work, for the sake of peace and for our security. And I believe it's in the moral interests of comfortable nations to help others realize the blessings of liberty. Oh, for some that sounds like hopeless idealism; for those of us involved with making public policy necessary to protect our people, it is the only realistic way to guarantee the peace for our people.

And so you've been strong on Afghanistan and Iraq, and I appreciate it. But more importantly, the people of Afghanistan and Iraq appreciate it. The march to democracy is never smooth. We've had our own history. America is viewed as a great democracy; just remember, many of our citizens were enslaved for a long period of time before we finally got it right.

But it's in our interests to help these folks. It's in our interests little girls go to school in Afghanistan. It's in our interests that there be free elections in Iraq. And it's in our interests that we help these governments survive. And it's taken sacrifice from our people, I understand that. The fundamental question of history is going to look back on it, is did we understand the duty that we've been called to do, to protect ourselves and hope others? And this Prime Minister has understood the duty.

No, I know there's a lot of discussion here in the British press about, well, you know, is there going to be enough troops, or not enough troops, and all that business; is he trying to distance this, that and the other -- it's just typical. But I just want to remind you that he has left more troops in Iraq than initially anticipated. And like me, we'll be making our decisions based upon the conditions on the ground, the recommendation of our commanders, without an artificial timetable set by politics.

I thank you for your troop announcement today in Afghanistan, as well. Then you issued a strong statement on Iran. It was a clear statement, and it was a strong statement, and it was a necessary statement, because the free world has an obligation to work together in concert to prevent the Iranians from having the know-how to develop a nuclear weapon. And now is the time to work together to get it done, and I appreciate your statement. Hopefully the Iranian leadership will take a different position then the one they've taken in the past, which is basically, who cares what the free world says, we're going to -- we'll go our own way. And now has faced -- they face serious isolation, and the people who are suffering are the Iranian people. We have no qualms with the Iranian people. As a matter of fact, we want the Iranian people to thrive. It's in our interests that there be a hopeful society. It's their government who has denied them their rightful place in the world.

And so I want to thank you very much for working hard to, you know, to help keep this coalition together to provide pressure necessary so we can solve the problem diplomatically. That's my first choice. Iranians must understand all options are on the table, however.

Thank you for your strong words on Zimbabwe. And I -- you know, you obviously are emotional on the subject and I don't blame you, because the people of Zimbabwe have suffered under Mugabe leadership, and we will work with you to ensure these good folks have free and fair elections to the extent -- best extent possible, which obviously Mr. Mugabe does not want to have.

We talked about Darfur. We talked about Burma. I strongly support your health care worker initiative. I'm looking forward to going to the G8 to articulate that. And we expect the people of the G8 -- the leaders of the G8 countries to fulfill their obligations, because last year we met and we had a -- we discussed a lot of issues, including HIV/AIDS and malaria on the continent of Africa, and they all came forth and said, we'll match the United States -- except most nations haven't matched the United States to date except for Great Britain, and they haven't done their part in matching the United States.

And so my message at the G8 is: Looking forward to working with you; thanks for coming to the meeting -- just remember, there are people needlessly dying on the continent of Africa today, and we expect you to be more than pledge-makers. We expect you to be check-writers for humanitarian reasons.

We did talk about energy and Doha. I'm concerned about Doha. I'm concerned that while we're making some progress on the agricultural side, that nations such as Brazil and India and China are not making corresponding openings on manufacturing and service -- and the service sector on their part. And in order to have a successful round, which I believe is essential -- and so does Gordon -- to fight off protectionism and help poor nations develop, that now is the time to get a Doha Round completed. And in order to do so, there has to be more movement on the manufacturing and service sector so there can be a fair and equitable deal.

Finally, we talked about global climate change and briefed Gordon on our strategy for the major economies meeting to hopefully reach an international goal for 2050 that will have intermediate strategies that are binding on each nation within the U.N. framework. And the reason why I believe this is the right approach to take, that unless China and India are a part of a binding international agreement -- and the United States -- then we will not have effective policy in dealing with climate change. It might make us all feel good, but the results won't be satisfactory. And so hopefully in Seoul, South Korea coming up there will be a major economy meeting agreement on a long-term goal with binding commitments.

Mr. Prime Minister, all in all, it's been a great meeting. Thank you for the conversation and thank you for your friendship.

PRIME MINISTER BROWN: Thank you.

Q Nick Robinson, BBC News.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Who? (Inaudible.) (Laughter.)

Q Good to have you here.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Missed the hat. (Laughter.)

Q Prime Minister, isn't it time to withdraw British troops from Iraq in order to send them where the military really needs them, to Afghanistan, or are you too worried about his reaction if you do?

PRESIDENT BUSH: We miss you, Nick, we miss you, buddy.

Q Are you prepared to see British troop withdrawn from Iraq while you're still in office, or are you concerned about the symbolic significance of that?

PRIME MINISTER BROWN: Can I just say that in Iraq there is a job to be done and we will continue to do the job, and there's going to be no artificial timetable. And the reason is that we are making progress -- making progress in the Iraqis themselves being trained up to run the (inaudible) forces, and of course to be the police men and women in their areas. And we're making progress also because we hope local government elections will happen later this year. We hope to return the airport that we are responsible for in Basra to civilian use, as well. And most of all, in the next stage, we want to see the economic and social development of Basra and the southern part of Iraq proceed, so that people have a stake in the future.

So, yes, we are moving from what we call "combat" to "overwatch", and that's been announced many months ago -- yes, as a result of what happened in Basra a few months ago we have kept higher the level of troops that are necessary, but yes, also, we have a job that's still to be done. And that job is to train up the forces, that job is to speed up economic and social development, and that job is to have local government elections so that Iraqis can take control of their own democracy. And I'm determined that we continue to do that job.

And that will happen not at the cost of lesser troops for Afghanistan, but with more troops going to Afghanistan. The Defense Secretary will announce later this afternoon that we will send more troops to Afghanistan. The reason is that we want to help the Afghans train up their own army and their own police forces, and the reason is we want to have better equipment in Iraq -- in Afghanistan in future; and therefore there's going to be a reconfiguration of our troops, with some coming out and some more going in, and that an overall increase in the numbers so that we will have the highest level of troops in Afghanistan. You cannot trade numbers between the two countries.

There is a job to do in Iraq, and I've described it. And there is a job to do in Afghanistan, and we will continue to do it. And the fact that 43 countries are helping us in Afghanistan and 80 countries are supporting the economic and social development of Afghanistan shows how in this country, which is one of the poorest in the world, we are trying to make progress more quickly. So the announcement will come later today from the Defense Secretary.

PRESIDENT BUSH: We're withdrawing troops. We anticipate the 30,000 surge troops will be coming home by July -- more or less, 30,000. And so the plan is, bring them home based upon success. That's what we expect the British Prime Minister to do. That's what I'm doing -- that as the Iraqis are trained up, as they're taking more responsibility, as the security situations decline, as the economy is improved, as political reconciliation is taking place, we can bring more troops home. That's the whole purpose of the strategy. And so, give the Iraqis more responsibility. Let them take more -- be in more charge of their own security and their own government, and that's what's happening.

And so, you know, I mean -- look, the key thing for me is that I have -- you know, is that Gordon shares with me his plans. He listens to -- he talks to his commanders and he picks up the phone and says, here's what we're thinking. So there's no surprises. And as I said yesterday on TV here, I have no problem with how Gordon Brown is dealing with Iraq. He's been a good partner and -- but, as I told you, we're bringing ours home, too.

Q Mr. President, I'd like to ask you about recent events along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. Do you back President Karzai when he says he may send his troops into Pakistan to take care of some of the militants who are launching attacks on his territory? And do you think that the agreements that the new government of Pakistan is pursuing with some of the militant tribes in that area amount to the sort of appeasement that you talked about in your speech last month?

And Mr. Prime Minister, I'd like to ask you about the meeting, upcoming meeting, in Saudi Arabia. What do you expect to come out of that meeting? And do you think it would be helpful if your friend there standing there, Mr. Bush, were to see you in Jeddah at that meeting?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Our strategy is to deny safe haven to extremists who would do harm to innocent people. And that's the strategy of Afghanistan; it needs to be the strategy of Pakistan. It's in all our interests to prevent those who murder innocent people to achieve political objectives to gain safe haven.

And so we'd look forward to working -- I mean, one thing that can happen is there can be, you know, more dialogue between the Pak government and the Afghan government. There was -- in the past they had a jirga amongst tribal leaders in the region on both -- from both sides of the border that made a difference. And I think that would be a good idea to restart the jirga process.

I know there needs to be dialogue between the intel services between the respective countries. And I know there needs to be better cooperation, and there needs to be trilateral cooperation on the border; trilateral being Pak, Afghan and coalition border patrols to prevent people from coming back and forth to cross the border.

And there's a lot of common ground. I repeat, it is no one's interest that extremists have a safe haven from which to operate. And I'm, you know -- and obviously it's a testy situation there. And if I'm the President of a country and people are coming from one country to another -- allegedly coming from one country to another -- to kill innocent civilians on my side, I'd be concerned about it. But we can help. We can help calm the situation down and develop a strategy that will prevent these extremists from, you know, from developing safe haven and having freedom of movement.

PRIME MINISTER BROWN: Can I say, I'm traveling to Jeddah next Sunday at the invitation of the King of Saudi Arabia. And I want a long-term dialogue, and this is part of a process, not an event, between oil producers and oil consumers. I think there is a view developing that the price of oil is increasingly dependent not just on today's demand and supply factors but on what people perceive as demand outstripping supply next year, in the medium term, and in the long term.

And I want to tell the King of Saudi Arabia and others who are there that the world will build more nuclear power. And I have suggested that on present trends it would be about a thousand nuclear power stations over the next 30 years. The world will increase its use of renewables. The world will increase its use of coal. It will lessen its dependence on oil, and that the world is determined to make a more efficient use of oil.

And I think this dialogue between producers and consumers is absolutely essential. President Bush has just been in Saudi Arabia. I have not been there recently. I want to go and talk to the King and talk to others there about what I believe should be a process whereby we understand what are the pressures on demand in future years, as well as we understand the pressures on supply. And I believe that that long-term debate about the future can have an effect on today's markets.

Now, that's what the debate is about, and that is part of a process that I hope will continue, if necessary, with a meeting in London later, and with further meetings so that there is a genuine dialogue between producers and consumers about what is the most worrying situation in the world at the moment, and that is the trebling of the price of oil.

Q Mr. President, in his last major speech, Tony Blair said on Iraq, "Hand on heart, I did what I thought was right. But if I got it wrong, I'm sorry." Is it possible you got it wrong? Would you share at this point those slightly more reflective sentiments? And in particular, should you, in retrospect, perhaps have concentrated a little more on Afghanistan?

And could I ask the Prime Minister, is the Lisbon Treaty dead in the water now? And if so, what happens next for Europe?

PRESIDENT BUSH: History will judge the tactics. History will judge whether or not, you know, more troops were needed earlier, troops could have been positioned here better or not. Removing Saddam Hussein was not wrong. It was the right thing to do. Right thing to do for our security, right thing to do for peace, and the right thing to do for 25 million Iraqis. And now the fundamental question is will we have the willpower and the patience to help the Iraqis develop a democracy in the heart of the Middle East. It's a democracy that's not going to look like America, it's not going to look like Great Britain, but it's a democracy that will have government responsive to the people. People say, was that worth it, is it necessary. Absolutely it's necessary if you believe we're in an ideological war being -- the theaters of which right now, the most notable theaters are Afghanistan and Iraq.

The strategic implications of a free Iraq are significant for our future. For example, a free Iraq will make it easier to deal with the Iranian issue. A free Iraq will send a clear signal to reformers and dissidents, would-be journalists throughout the Middle East that a free society is available for you, as well. And the question facing the Western world is, will we fall prey to the argument that stability is more important than forms of government; that what appears to be stable and peaceful -- is that more important than how people live their lives, what kind of government? You just heard the Prime Minister speak eloquently about Zimbabwe. The lesson there is, forms of government matter.

Freedom has had a transformative effect in Europe, in the Far East. And the fundamental question is, will we work to see it have a transformative effect in the Middle East? Now, there are many doubters. I understand that, because there is some who say that perhaps freedom is not universal. Maybe it's only Western people that can self-govern. Maybe it's only, you know, white-guy Methodists who are capable of self government. I reject that notion. I think that's the ultimate form of political elitism, and I believe an accurate reading of history says that freedom can bring peace we want. And it'll bring peace to the Middle East, unless of course we become isolationist; unless of course we lose our confidence; unless of course we quit. And, so, yes, I'm sure there's people will say, they could have done things better here and there. But I'm absolutely confident that the decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision.

PRIME MINISTER BROWN: And can I just emphasize, the passion for freedom I think is a universal value, and I believe that Iraq is a democracy today because of the action that we have taken. And our next task is to make sure that all Iraqis feel that they have an economic stake as well as a democratic stake in the future of the country. And that's why the work continues.

On Europe, I'll meet Brian Cowen, the Taoiseach of Ireland, when I'm in Belfast later today. The legal position on the European treaty is very clear, that all 27 members must sign and therefore ratify the treaty before it comes into force. It is for each member to decide its own process for doing so, and we will continue our process of debating this in the House of Lords, and then royal assent during the course of this week.

I think a short period of reflection is necessary for the Irish to put forward their proposals about how they will deal with this, and we look forward to the Irish coming to the European Council on Thursday with a view of what should be done. I believe that when David Miliband makes a statement to the House this afternoon following a meeting of the European foreign ministers, he will be able to say that all the European Union members believe that Ireland should be given this time to reflect on what they need to do, and then make their proposals about how the situation can be resolved.

Q Good morning, Mr. President, Prime Minister. I'd like to ask you both about Iran. President Bush, you've talked about it at every stop. A similar process, it seems, that is deterring North Korea from its nuclear ambitions has basically allowed North Korea [sic] to make progress toward nuclear weapons. At what point are you willing to draw a line here with Iran, and isn't Iran seemingly learning a lesson from the North Korea experience?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Ed, I just strongly disagree with your premise that the six-party talks has encouraged Iran to develop nuclear weapons. I don't know why you have even come to that conclusion, because the facts are the six-party talks is the only way to send a message to the North Koreans that the world isn't going to tolerate them having a weapon.

I mean, in other words, they are -- we'll see what they disclose, but we hopefully are in the process of disabling and dismantling their plutonium manufacturing. We're hopefully in the process of getting them to disclose what they have manufactured and eventually turning it over. We're hopefully in the process of disclosing their proliferation activities, and it's a six-party process. I mean, the only way, in my judgment, to diplomatically solve these kinds of problems with nations like Iran and North Korea, non-transparent nations, is through a multilateral process, where there's more than one nation sending the same message to the leaders of these respective countries.

And so I disagree with your premise. As a matter of fact, the Iranians must understand that when we come together and speak with one voice, we're serious. That's why the Prime Minister's statement was so powerful, and that's the lesson that the North Koreans are hearing. And so it's -- I said the other day that, you know, one of the things that I will leave behind is a multilateralism to deal with tyrants, so problems can be solved diplomatically.

And the difficulty, of course, is that sometimes economics and money trumps national security interests. So you go around asking nations -- by the way, it's not a problem for Great Britain -- so you say to your partners, don't sell goods; you know, let's send a focused message all aiming to create the conditions so that somebody rational shows up. In other words, people hopefully are sick of isolation in their respective countries, and they show up and say, we're tired of this; there's a better way forward.

And in order for that to be effective, Ed, there has to be more than one voice. So if I were the North Koreans and I were looking at Iran, or the Iranians looking at North Korea, I'd say, uh-oh, there are coalitions coming together that are bound tightly -- more tightly than ever in order to send us a focused message.

And, you know, let me just say one thing about the Iranian demand for civilian nuclear power. It's a justifiable demand. You just heard the Prime Minister talk about the spread of civilian nuclear power, which I support -- starting in my own country, by the way; we need to be building civilian nuclear power plants.

And so when the Iranians say, we have a sovereign right to have one, the answer is, you bet, you have a sovereign right, absolutely. But you don't have the trust of those of us who have watched you carefully when it comes to enriching uranium, because you have declared that you want to destroy democracies in the neighborhood, for example. Therefore -- and this is the Russian proposal, by the way -- therefore we'll provide fuel for you, and we'll collect the fuel after you've used it so you can have your nuclear -- civilian nuclear power, which undermines what the Iranians are saying, and that is, we must enrich in order to have civilian nuclear power. You don't need to enrich to have civilian nuclear power. The Russian proposal is what we support. This proposal wouldn't have happened had there not been a multilateral process.

And so what these nations need to see is we're serious about solving these problems. And the United States spends a lot of time working with our partners to get them solved.

Thank you very much.

PRIME MINISTER BROWN: Thank you all very much.

END

Saudi King says US policy toward Iran is non-diplomatic

11 June 2008

Tehran-Saudi Kind Abdullah said on Wednesday that the United States policy toward Iran is non-diplomatic.

In a meeting with Chairman of the Expediency Council Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the Saudi King said that the US policy toward Iran is unacceptable.

King Abdullah also said that Saudi Arabia has notified its stance about the US political mistake several times.

Referring to the vital role of the Islamic Republic in the region and the world, he said that Saudi Arabia is willing to boost bilateral ties in all fields.

He expressed hope that the two sides could work to thwart extremist thoughts aimed at demolishing the Muslim world unity.

The Saudi King appreciated Rafsanjani's recommendation to Iranian woman pilgrims who visited Baqi Cemetery in Medina, for the first time that they observed the discipline.

The Baqi is well-known as graveyard of members of the infallible household of Prophet Mohammad (PBUH), including four Imams and the beloved daughter of the Great Prophet, Hazrat Zahra (SA).

The prominent cleric arrived in Saudi Arabia on June 2 to attend an Islamic interfaith dialogue with the participation of some 500 Muslim dignitaries from more than 50 countries.

Muslims Gather for Interfaith Dialogue

Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah performs Maghreb prayer with others at the Grand Mosque in Makkah on Tuesday.

4 June 2008

by Badea Abu Al-Naja & Siraj Wahab

MAKKAH — Muslim religious scholars, media personalities, academics and intellectuals from around the globe have arrived in the Holy City of Makkah for a three-day interfaith dialogue that begins today at the request of Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah. The king is to open the first session this morning with a speech that will outline the parameters of discussion Muslims should be having with people of other faiths.

The Makkah Hilton lobby buzzed last night as nearly 500 delegates from 50 different countries shared their points of view. The conference follows King Abdullah’s plea in March for dialogue among Muslims, Christians and Jews.

“We are excited and looking forward to participate in this historic meeting,” said Abdul Aziz Khalidi of the UK-based Islam Channel. “King Abdullah has realized that we Muslims have to play a part in reducing tensions across the world. It is a courageous decision.”

“Whether we accept it or not, this is a global village, and we have to play a constructive part in this world,” said Syrian delegate Sheikh Abdul Qader. “This conference will show us the direction. There will be a healthy debate among our scholars to discuss the format of our dialogue with people of other faiths.”

Noted author and writer M.J. Akbar said dialogue with other faiths should be conducted not because other people want it but because it is the right thing to do.

“Whether the other side is ready or not, we should take this step and make the other side run out of excuses,” he said. “Islam has a glorious history of protecting people of the other faiths.”

Abdullah Al-Turki, secretary-general of the Muslim World League, said the conference would discuss the basis for dialogue with other faiths in the context of the teachings of the Holy Qur’an and Sunnah.

Shoura Council President Saleh Bin-Humaid is scheduled to preside over the first session, which features a number of papers on the objectives of dialogue as outlined in the Holy Qur’an and Sunnah, and historical experiences of cultural dialogue.

Sheikh Muhammad Ali Taskhery, secretary-general of the Center for Reconciliation of Islamic Schools of Thought, will chair the second session and Jordan’s Chief Justice Ahmed Muhammad Haleel will present a paper on the mechanisms of dialogue.

Bosnian Mufti Mustafa Ceric will preside over the third session, which focuses on the importance of coordination among Islamic organizations in holding dialogue with other faiths. Abdullah Omar Naseef, secretary-general of the International Islamic Council for Dawa and Relief, will present a paper and Muhammad Al-Sammak, secretary-general of the Islamic Spiritual Summit in Lebanon, will speak on dialogue with followers of divine religions.

The fourth session will be led by Abdul Rahman Sewar Al-Dahab, chairman of the board of trustees of the Islamic Dawa Organization. Mahmoud Ghazi of the College of Islamic Studies in Qatar will present a paper on the clash of civilizations and world peace. Ali Uzak of Turkey will speak on the common ground of family and morality.

The call for dialogue was welcomed by leaders of the three faiths and comes at a time of stalled peace initiatives and escalating tensions in the region.

Al-Zuman Becomes First Saudi to Conquer Everest

22 May 2008
by Ghazanfar Ali Khan

Thirty-year-old Farouk Saad Hamad Al-Zuman planted a Saudi flag on the summit of Mt. Everest yesterday, becoming the first Saudi to conquer the world’s highest peak. The green Saudi flag was unfurled at 12.30 p.m. Saudi time.

“Farouk has made all of us proud,” said Aasma Al-Yahya, Al-Zuman’s mother. “I thank Allah that my son’s purpose and the Saudi nation’s mission have been successfully completed.”

Three members of the 10-person expedition failed to reach the top, with one Japanese climber dying on the way. “But Al-Zuman made history and has now been fondly nicknamed the ‘Sir Edmund Hillary of Saudi Arabia,’” said Al-Zuman’s boss and sponsor, Sultan Al-Bazie, CEO of Attariq Communications.

“A total of seven members of our expedition team succeeded to reach the top,” said Al-Zuman, a PR strategist and graduate of Oregon State University in the US.

Al-Zuman’s mother said there were tense moments during the climb. “We were concerned about his safety and health as we lost contact for quite some time after Farouk’s satellite phone failed to work or got disrupted from time to time.”

Hamid Ansari, the Nepalese ambassador to the Kingdom, congratulated the climber. “I was happy to know that this young Saudi has reached the summit and unfurled the Saudi flag, which bears the name of Allah and Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him),” said Ansari.

“This climb was made in the wake of harsh climatic conditions and deadly blizzards. It is not an easy task,” he added.

Al-Zuman, a black belt in Tae Kwondo and professional swimmer, is an experienced mountain climber. Previously, he scaled Mt. Rainer in Washington, US, Mt. Halealala in Maui, Hawaii, and Mt. Shasta in California.

Al-Zuman is the first Arab this year to climb the peak. A large number of people have died attempting to reach the top since the first historic climb by New Zealander Edmund Hillary and his Nepalese guide Tenzing Norgay in 1953. The death rate for Mt. Everest climbers is about one in 10.

Saudis see no reason to raise oil production now

U.S. President George W. Bush and King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz walk with an entourage of greeters Friday, 16 May 2008, after the President’s arrival at Riyadh-King Khaled International Airport in Riyadh.

16 May 2008

By JENNIFER LOVEN

RIYADH-Saudi Arabia's leaders made clear Friday they see no reason to increase oil production until customers demand it, apparently rebuffing President Bush amid soaring U.S. gasoline prices.

It was Bush's second personal appeal this year to King Abdullah, head of the monarchy that rules this desert kingdom that is a longtime prime U.S. ally and home to the world's largest oil reserves. But Saudi officials stuck to their position that they will only pump more oil into the system when asked to by buyers, something they say is not happening now, the president's national security adviser told reporters.

"Saudi Arabia does not have customers that are making requests for oil that they are not able to satisfy," Stephen Hadley said on a day when oil prices rose above $127 a barrel, a record high. "What the Saudis wanted to tell us was we're doing everything we can do ... to meet this problem, but it's a complicated problem."

The Saudi oil minister, Ali al-Naimi, announced that the kingdom decided on May 10 to raise production by 300,000 barrels at the request of customers, including the United States. He said that increase was sufficient.

"Supply and demand are in balance today," he told a news conference. "How much does Saudi Arabia need to do to satisfy people who are questioning our oil practices and policies?"

Bernard Picchi, an energy analyst at Wall Street Access, an independent research firm, said the 300,000-barrel Saudi production increase was "a token amount" that is not expected to have much impact on prices.

It would be different, he said, if Saudi Arabia boosted production by 1 million or 1.5 million barrels a day. The announced increase will have Saudi Arabia pumping 9.45 million barrels a day by June, Saudi officials said. That's about 2 million barrels below its capacity.

Oil prices advanced Friday as traders, unimpressed by efforts to boost supply, kept buying on the expectation that prices would keep setting new records.

Saudi Arabia often adjusts its output to meet demand, and the increase coincides with the start of the peak driving season in the U.S. "It's a way to raise production without raising production," said Phil Flynn, analyst at Alaron Trading Corp. "I think it was a way to save face."

Hadley never mentioned the Saudi's new production in his recap with reporters. He said the Saudis briefed Bush again on their plan to increase their production capacity over time. They also argued that even an increase would be unlikely to bring down the soaring prices, driven more by uncertainty in the market, lack of refining capacity for the type of oil readily available and other complicated dynamics, he said.

Economists say prices are being driven up by increased demand, not slowed production. Energy-guzzlers China and India are stretching supplies.

As a result, Hadley suggested the White House was satisfied with — or at least accepted — the Saudi response. He added, however, the Bush administration will see if the explanation "conforms to what our experts say."

Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal said the discussion with Bush about oil was friendly. "He didn't punch any tables or shout at anybody," the minister said. "I think he was satisfied."

High energy costs are a major drain on the U.S. economy, which is experiencing a slowdown that some think is already a recession. At the pump, gas prices rose to a national average of $3.78 per gallon on Friday, according to a survey of stations by AAA and the Oil Price Information Service.

When Bush and Abdullah met in the kingdom in mid-January, the president also sought more Saudi output in a plea that also ultimately was for naught.

Iran was the other dominant topic of Bush's overnight visit with the king.

The two shared a concern over the recent violence in Lebanon, where Hezbollah overran Beirut neighborhoods last week in protest of measures aimed at the group by the country's government. The display of military power by the Shiite militant group, which the U.S. considers a terrorist organization, resulted in the worst internal fighting since the end of Lebanon's 1975-90 civil war.

With Shiite-dominated Iran backing Hezbollah, Sunni-dominated Saudi Arabia — eager to stop any advance of regional power by Tehran — joins the West in supporting Lebanon's government. Hadley said Bush and Abdullah shared a concern that the recent events would "embolden Iran." The U.S. and Saudi Arabia, he said, "are of one mind in condemning what Hezbollah did."

On Thursday, Hezbollah and the government reached a deal to end the violence after Lebanon's Cabinet reversed measures aimed at reining in the militants.

Bush's Saudi stop was intended, in part, to celebrate 75 years of formal U.S.-Saudi relations and strengthen ties that, once strong, have frayed over the perception Washington favors Israel too much in the dispute with the Palestinians, the Iraq war and the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. Fifteen of the 19 airline hijackers were Saudis, and Americans blamed Saudis for allowing the religious extremism that gave rise to them, an accusation that stings here.

Bush was spending the day with Abdullah at his lavish farm complex outside Riyadh, talking mostly out of public view over multiple tea services and meals. Abdullah greeted Bush warmly at the airport, and rode with him in his limousine out into the desert.

The White House hoped that new agreements formalized during Bush's visit would give the relationship a boost.

Among them was an agreement for the U.S. to assist the kingdom in developing civilian nuclear power. Another agreement involves U.S. promises to help protect any Saudi nuclear infrastructure with training, the exchange of experts "and other support services as needed." Hadley said it would not involve U.S. troops.

But the rising price of oil commanded attention.

When Bush first ran for president in 2000, he criticized the Clinton administration for high fuel prices and said the president must "jawbone" oil producing nations and persuade them to drop rates. At that time, oil was nearing $28 a barrel — less than a quarter what it is now.

Bush's visit comes two days after Congress voted to temporarily halt daily shipments of 70,000 barrels of oil to the nation's emergency reserve.

After Bush's talks on Friday, his administration announced in Washington that it has canceled oil shipments into the reserve beginning in July, when the current purchase contract expires. Bush has refused to stop pouring oil into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, saying the stockpile was meant for emergencies and that halting the shipments would have little or no impact on gasoline or crude oil prices.

Bush Blames Congress for His Faults and Lies to the American Public

Press Conference by the President
Rose Garden

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

Video

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Good morning. This is a tough time for our economy. Across our country many Americans are understandably anxious about issues affecting their pocketbook, from gas and food prices to mortgage and tuition bills. They're looking to their elected leaders in Congress for action. Unfortunately, on many of these issues all they're getting is delay.

Americans are concerned about energy prices, and I can understand why. I think the last time I visited with you it was like -- I said it was like a tax increase on the working people. The past 18 months, gas prices have gone up by $1.40 per gallon. Electricity prices for small business and families are rising, as well.

I've repeatedly submitted proposals to help address these problems. Yet time after time, Congress chose to block them. One of the main reasons for high gas prices is that global oil production is not keeping up with growing demand. Members of Congress have been vocal about foreign governments increasing their oil production; yet Congress has been just as vocal in opposition to efforts to expand our production here at home.

They repeatedly blocked environmentally safe exploration in ANWR. The Department of Energy estimates that ANWR could allow America to produce about a million additional barrels of oil every day, which translates to about 27 millions of gallons of gasoline and diesel every day. That would be about a 20-percent increase of oil -- crude oil production over U.S. levels, and it would likely mean lower gas prices. And yet such efforts to explore in ANWR have been consistently blocked.

Another reason for high gas prices is the lack of refining capacity. It's been more than 30 years since America built its last new refinery. Yet in this area, too, Congress has repeatedly blocked efforts to expand capacity and build more refineries.

As electricity prices rise, Congress continues to block provisions needed to increase domestic electricity production by expanding the use of clean, safe nuclear power. Instead, many of the same people in Congress who complain about high energy costs support legislation that would make energy even more expensive for our consumers and small businesses.

Congress is considering bills to raise taxes on domestic energy production, impose new and costly mandates on producers, and demand dramatic emissions cuts that would shut down coal plants, and increase reliance on expensive natural gas. That would drive up prices even further. The cost of these actions would be passed on to consumers in the form of even higher prices at the pump and even bigger electric bills.

Instead of increasing costs and increasing new roadblocks to domestic energy production, Congress needs to clear away obstacles to more affordable, more reliable energy here at home.

Americans are concerned about rising food prices. Unfortunately, Congress is considering a massive, bloated farm bill that would do little to solve the problem. The bill Congress is now considering would fail to eliminate subsidy payments to multi-millionaire farmers. America's farm economy is thriving, the value of farmland is skyrocketing, and this is the right time to reform our nation's farm policies by reducing unnecessary subsidies. It's not the time to ask American families who are already paying more in the check-out line to pay more in subsidies for wealthy farmers. Congress can reform our farm programs, and should, by passing a fiscally responsible bill that treats our farmers fairly, and does not impose new burdens on American taxpayers.

Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes, and I don't blame them. Last year I called on Congress to pass legislation that would help address problems in the housing market. This includes critical legislation that would modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and allow state housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans. Yet they failed to send a single one of these proposals to my desk. Americans should not have to wait any longer for their elected officials to pass legislation to help more families stay in their homes.

Americans are concerned about the availability of student loans. The recent credit crunch makes it uncertain that some students will be able to get the loans they need. My administration is taking action through the Department of Education's "lender of last resort" program, which works to arrange loans for students who are unable to secure one from a lender on their own. In other words, we're helping. Congress needs to do more by passing a bill that would temporarily give the federal government greater authority to buy federal student loans. This authority would safeguard student loans without permanently expanding the government's role in their financing.

In all these issues, the American people are looking to their leaders to come together and act responsibly. I don't think this is too much to ask even in an election year. My administration will reach out to Congress. We will work to find areas of agreement so that we can deal with the economic pressures that our American taxpayers and American families are feeling. I ask Congress to do its part by sending me sensible and effective bills that I can sign, instead of issuing or sending bills that simply look like political statements. We can work together. We can help Americans weather this difficult period. We can keep our country moving forward.

Now I'll be glad to take some of your questions. Jennifer.

Q Thank you, sir. You have said that we need to wait until the first stimulus has taken effect to act again. But since it was passed, gas prices have gone up, foreclosures have gone up, there have been layoffs, news just this morning that consumer confidence is down yet again. Isn't it time to think about doing more?

And on another issue, would you support a summer moratorium on the federal gas tax?

THE PRESIDENT: First of all, the money is just now making it into people's bank accounts. And I applaud the Speaker and the Leader of the Senate and minority leaders there for working together to get this done. And now, after a period of time, the money is beginning to arrive, and we'll see what the effects are.

And we'll look at any idea in terms of energy, except I will tell you this, that if Congress is truly interested in solving the problem, they can send the right signal by saying we're going to explore for oil and gas in the U.S. territories, starting with ANWR. We can do so in an environmentally friendly way. They ought to say, why don't we -- I proposed, you might remember, taking some abandoned military bases and providing regulatory relief so we can build new refineries. I mean, if we're generally interested in moving forward with an energy policy that sends a signal to the world that we're not -- we're going to try to become less reliant upon foreign oil, we can explore at home, as well as continue on with an alternative fuels program.

Yes, sir.

Q Was that a "yes" on the moratorium?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I'm going to look at everything they propose. We'll take a look.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Were you premature in saying that the U.S. economy is not in a recession, when food and energy prices are soaring so high? And what more can you do to persuade Saudi Arabia during your upcoming visit to reconsider output levels and cut prices?

THE PRESIDENT: I mean, you know, the words on how to define the economy don't reflect the anxiety the American people feel. The average person doesn't really care what we call it; the average person wants to know whether or not we know that they're paying higher gasoline prices and that they're worried about staying in their homes. And I do understand that. That's why we've been aggressively helping people refinance their homes. That's why I continue to call upon Congress to pass legislation that will enable people to stay in their homes.

These are tough times. People -- economists can argue over the terminology. And these are difficult times. And the American people know it, and they want to know whether or not Congress knows it. I think an important signal to send on energy, just like I said, is to say, okay, we're going to go find oil here at home.

We're transitioning to a new era, by the way -- a new era where we're going to have batteries in our cars that will power -- enable people to drive 40 miles on electricity. There's going to be more ethanol on the market, more alternative fuels. It would be -- our driving habits will change. But in the meantime, we need to be sending a signal to the world markets that we intend to explore here in America. We can also send a clear signal that we understand supply and demand, and then when you don't build a refinery for 30 years, it's going to be a part of restricting supply. And therefore, we ought to expand our refining capacity by permitting new refineries and getting after it quickly.

On the electricity front, as you know, I'm a big believer in nuclear power, except we keep getting mixed signals out of Congress. And the regulatory system sends mixed signals.

And so -- and then, to your question on the Saudis, look, I have made the case that the high price of oil injures economies. But I think we better understand that there's not a lot of excess capacity in this world right now. Hopefully high prices will spur more exploration to bring excess capacity on, but demand is rising faster than supply. And that's why you're seeing global energy prices rise. And that's why it's important for us to try to take the pressure off by saying we're going to start exploring here at home.

John.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to ask you about an area --

THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.

Q -- where food prices and energy come together; that's biofuels.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q The World Bank says about 85 percent of the increase in corn price since 2002 is due to biofuel -- increased demand for biofuels. And your Secretary of State said that -- indicated yesterday that she thought that might be part of the problem. Do you agree with that? And what can the United States do -- what more can the United States do to help make food more affordable around the world?

THE PRESIDENT: Actually, I have a little different take: I thought it was 85 percent of the world's food prices are caused by weather, increased demand and energy prices -- just the cost of growing product -- and that 15 percent has been caused by ethanol, the arrival of ethanol.

By the way, the high price of gasoline is going to spur more investment in ethanol as an alternative to gasoline. And the truth of the matter is it's in our national interests that our farmers grow energy, as opposed to us purchasing energy from parts of the world that are unstable or may not like us.

In terms of the international situation, we are deeply concerned about food prices here at home and we're deeply concerned about people who don't have food abroad. In other words, scarcity is of concern to us. Last year we were very generous in our food donations, and this year we'll be generous as well. As a matter of fact, we just released about $200 million out of the Emerson Trust as part of a ongoing effort to address scarcity.

One thing I think that would be -- I know would be very creative policy is if we -- is if we would buy food from local farmers as a way to help deal with scarcity, but also as a way to put in place an infrastructure so that nations can be self-sustaining and self-supporting. It's a proposal I put forth that Congress hasn't responded to yet, and I sincerely hope they do.

Jim.

Q Good morning, Mr. President. Thank you. I just want to follow up on the idea of the gas tax moratorium if I may, because you're indicating that perhaps you'd be open to it. You mentioned in your opening remarks that --

THE PRESIDENT: I'm open to any ideas and we'll analyze everything that comes our way, but go ahead.

Q Well, we're talking about perhaps the most immediate relief to people who are buying gasoline every day, because it would be an 18.4 cents a gallon tax cut. Senator Clinton and Senator McCain are in favor of it; Senator Obama is not. But Americans are hearing about this every day. So could you flesh out perhaps some of your thinking about why this would be a good idea, or not; why you would agree with Senator McCain or Senator Obama?

THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate you trying to drag me in the '08 race. And this is the first attempt to do so, and I can understand why you would want to do that. I will tell you that, first of all, the American people have got to understand that here in the White House we are concerned about high gasoline prices, we're concerned about high food prices, we're concerned about people staying in their homes, and we're concerned about student loans -- just like I described. And Congress can be helpful. Congress -- they can show leadership by dealing with these issues.

And we'll consider interesting ideas. But, Jim, what I'm not going to do is jump right in the middle of a presidential campaign. We'll let the candidates argue out their ideas.

Q Well, would --

THE PRESIDENT: I just told you I'll consider the ideas. If it's a good idea, we embrace it; if not, we're analyzing the different ideas coming forward.

Wendell.

Q Mr. President, you just said there's not a lot of excess supply out there. Some energy experts think we may have already passed or be within a couple of years of passing the maximum oil-pumping capability. In other words, we may be close to tapping all we've got. Do you think that's the case? And if you do, why haven't you put more resources into renewable energy research, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: Wendell, we've put a lot into ethanol. As a matter of fact, the solution to the issue of corn-fed ethanol is cellulosic ethanol, which is a fancy word for saying we're going to make ethanol out of switchgrasses, or wood chips. And we're spending a lot of money along those lines.

But energy policy needs to be comprehensive. And we got to understand we're in a transition period. The problem is there's been a lot of focus by the Congress in the intermediate steps and in the long-term steps -- the long-term steps being hydrogen; the intermediate steps being biofuels, for example, and researching the biofuels, and battery technology -- but not enough emphasis on the here and now.

And so you ask -- you say that people think we can't -- there's not any more reserves to be found. Well, there are reserves to be found in ANWR; that's a given. I just told you that there's about 27 million gallons of diesel and gasoline that could be -- from domestically produced crude oil that's not being utilized. And not only that, we can explore in environmentally friendly ways. New technologies enables for -- to be able to drill like we've never been able to do so before -- slant hole technologies and the capacity to use a drill site, a single drill site, to be able to explore a field in a way that doesn't damage the environment. And yet this is a litmus test issue for many in Congress. Somehow if you mention ANWR it means you don't care about the environment. Well, I'm hoping now people, when they say "ANWR," means you don't care about the gasoline prices that people are paying.

Yes, sir. Rog.

Q Thank you, Mr. President, and good morning.

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. (Laughter.) I like a friendly guy here in the Rose Garden.

Q Sir, 14 --

THE PRESIDENT: Would that be you, Rog, a friendly guy here in the Rose Garden? (Laughter.)

Q Thank you. Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Sunshine, they call you. (Laughter.)

Q Fourteen senators, including your own Senator, Kay Bailey Hutchison from Texas, are calling on you to stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. You've been asked that several times over the past few years. I know what your answer has been. But do you think now, with the rising prices, the record high oil prices, it's time to change course?

THE PRESIDENT: In this case, I have analyzed the issue, and I don't think it would affect price, for this reason: We're buying, at the moment, about 67,000 to 68,000 barrels of oil per day, fulfilling statutory obligations to fill up the SPR. World demand is 85 million barrels a day. So the purchases for SPR account for one-tenth of one percent of global demand. And I don't think that's going to affect price when you affect one-tenth of one percent, and I do believe it is in our national interests to get the SPR filled in case there's a major disruption of crude oil around the world.

And one of the -- for example, one of the things the -- al Qaeda would like to do is blow up oil facilities, understanding we're in a global market, a attack on an oil facility in a major oil-exporting country would affect the economies of their enemy -- that would be us, and other people who can't stand what al Qaeda stands for. And therefore, the SPR is necessary, if that's the case, to be able to deal with that kind of contingency. And if I thought it would affect the price of oil positively, I'd seriously consider it. But when you're talking about one-tenth of one percent of global demand, I think the -- if you -- on a cost-benefit analysis, I don't think you get any benefits from making the decision. I do think it costs you oil in the case of a national security risk.

Martha.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to switch to Afghanistan. There was another attempt on President Karzai's life. There are operations going on there right now. Is the strategy succeeding? Are we winning in Afghanistan?

THE PRESIDENT: I think we're making progress in Afghanistan, but there's a very resilient enemy that obviously wants to kill people that stand in the way of their reimposition of a state that is -- which vision is incredibly dark. I mean, it's very important for the American people to remember what life was like in Afghanistan prior to the liberation of the country. We had a government in place that abused people's human rights, they didn't believe in women's rights, they didn't let little girls go to school, and they provided safe haven to al Qaeda. In the liberation of this country, we've achieved some very important strategic objectives: denying al Qaeda safe haven from which to plot and plan attacks, and replacing this repressive group with a young democracy.

And it's difficult in Afghanistan. If you know the history of the country, you understand it's hard to go from the kind of society in which they had been living to one in which people are now responsible for their own behavior. But I am pleased with a lot of things. One, I'm pleased with the number of roads that have been built. I'm pleased with the number of schools that have opened up. I'm pleased a lot of girls, young girls are going to school. I'm pleased health clinics are now being distributed around the country. I'm pleased with the Afghan army, that when they're in the fight they're good.

I wish we had completely eliminated the radicals who kill innocent people to achieve objectives, but that hasn't happened yet. And so I think it's very much in our interests to continue helping the young democracy. And we will.

Yes. Obviously you've got a follow-up.

Q But do you think we're winning? Do you think we're winning?

THE PRESIDENT: I do, I think we're making good progress. I do, yes.

Q Can I just add to that, a couple weeks ago --

THE PRESIDENT: No, you can't. This is the second follow-up. You usually get one follow-up, and I was nice enough to give you one. I didn't give anybody on this side a follow-up, and now you are trying to take a second follow-up.

Q They didn't try.

THE PRESIDENT: I know you try.

Yes.

Q Can I just say --

THE PRESIDENT: They just cut off your mic. You can't, no.

Q A couple weeks ago you said --

THE PRESIDENT: Now she's going to go without the mic. This is awesome. (Laughter.)

Q A couple weeks ago you said that in Iraq, in 2006, you said we were winning and the strategy was working to keep up troop morale.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q How can we believe that you're not doing the same thing here?

THE PRESIDENT: You tried to ask me that question before. It's a repeat. Look, I said --

Q No, I'm talking --

THE PRESIDENT: Can I finish, please? The question you asked me before at the exclusive I gave you on the ranch was: You said that we were winning in the past. I also said that there was tough fighting. Make sure you put the comments in place.

So what I'm going to tell you now is, we're making progress in Afghanistan, but there's tough fighting. I'm under no illusions that this isn't tough. I know full well we're dealing with a determined enemy. I believe it's in our interest that we defeat that enemy. And so, yes, we're making progress. But it's also a tough battle. We're facing people who are willing to strap bombs on themselves and walk into places where the innocent dwell, or the innocent shop, and kill them.

Is it in our interest to confront these people now, whether it be in Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Europe, or anywhere else? And the answer is, absolutely, it's in our interest. And the notion that somehow we can let these people just kind of have their way or, you know, let's don't stir them up, is naive or disingenuous, and it's not in our nation's interests. We are in a global struggle against thugs and killers. And the United States of America has got to continue to take the lead.

And so in Afghanistan, yes, we're making progress. Does that mean that it's over? No, it doesn't mean it's over. We're in a long struggle, as I've told you many a time, against these jihadists. You defeat them ultimately by the advance of democracy. See, this is an ideological struggle. These aren't isolated, law-enforcement moments. We're dealing with a group of ideologues who use asymmetrical warfare -- that means killing innocent people -- to try to achieve their objectives. And one objective is to drive us out of Afghanistan, Iraq, the Middle East, or anywhere else where we try to confront them.

And so, yes, I mean, look -- is it tough? Yes, it's tough. Is it difficult? Absolutely. Is it worth the fight? In my judgment, yes, it is.

Yes, ma'am.

Q Mr. President --

THE PRESIDENT: I can't hear you too well. Sorry, got a flawed mic. Martha, what did you do to the mic? (Laughter.) She wanted an exclusive again. Anyway. (Laughter.)

Q Mr. President, thank you, sir. Previously when asked about Israel's September bombing of the Syrian facility, you refused aggressively to discuss it. Then suddenly last week, your administration released classified photos and details of that bombing, intelligence officials claiming that it showed that this facility was a North Korean-designed nuclear facility being actually built with the help of Pyongyang. Why the turnaround, sir? What did you hope that that would accomplish? And what do you say to lawmakers of both parties on Capitol Hill who are quite concerned that indeed if this was what this facility was, that it took some eight months for you to inform them, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Let me correct the record. We briefed 22 members of Congress on what I'm about to tell you. First, we were concerned that an early disclosure would increase the risk of a confrontation in the Middle East or retaliation in the Middle East. As I mentioned to you early on, we did notify 22 members of Congress, key committee chairmen. And I was -- I'm mindful that there was going to be this kind of reaction, and of course, we wanted to include more members of Congress at a time when we felt the risk of retaliation or confrontation in the Middle East was reduced, and so that moment came upon us, and then extended the briefings.

We also wanted to advance certain policy objectives through the disclosures, and one would be to the North Koreans, to make it abundantly clear that we may know more about you than you think, and therefore, it's essential that you have a complete disclosure on not only your plutonium activities, but proliferation, as well as enrichment activities.

And then we have an interest in sending a message to Iran, and the world for that matter, about just how destabilizing a -- nuclear proliferation would be in the Middle East, and that it's essential that we work together to enforce U.N. Security Council resolutions aimed at getting Iran to stop their enrichment programs. In other words, one of the things that this example shows is that these programs can exist and people don't know about them -- because the Syrians simply didn't declare the program; they had a hidden program.

And finally, we wanted to make it clear to Syria -- and the world -- that their intransigence in dealing with helping us in Iraq, or destabilizing Lebanon, or dealing with Hamas -- which is a destablizing force in our efforts to have a Palestinian state coexist peacefully with Israel -- that those efforts are -- gives us a chance to remind the world that we need to work together to deal with those issues. So that's why we made the decision we made.

Yes, sir.

Q Mr. President, you've expressed frustration with Congress, obviously, over the economic -- wanting them to do more on the economy. They've blocked you on Colombia. They've blocked you on the FISA issue. Are you frustrated? Are you angry? And do you have any real hope of being able to work with this Congress this year?

THE PRESIDENT: I am -- I believe that they're letting the American people down, is what I believe. On the FISA issue, it is hard to believe that it's okay to pass the Protect America Act in August of 2007, and that act -- people in Congress can't -- don't believe that act is relevant in 2008. I mean, the act was set to expire; it did; and yet this threat hasn't gone away. And I can only -- it's either lack of leadership or a lack of understanding of the issue, and either way, it's not good for the country. We need to make sure our professionals have the tools to protect the American people from attack.

The Colombia free trade agreement, this economy is -- as I mentioned to you, it's a sour time. It's tough for the American people. And yet the Colombia free trade agreement would benefit our economy. And the reason why is, is that many goods from Colombia come into our country duty-free. And yet our goods going to Colombia are taxed through tariff. And the American people expect the President and the Congress to at least insist that a foreign country treat us the way we treat them. And in this case, the benefits will be more exports, more mid-sized and small businesses exporting into Colombia. About 9,000 exporters into Colombia today; 8,000 are mid-sized and small businesses. And when you can export more, it helps the economy. And one of the bright lights of the economy has been the amount of exports going overseas.

So rather than playing politics or whatever rationale that they have made for Colombia, they ought to be saying, this is good for our economy, it's good for workers, it's good for small businesses.

And so I'm perplexed, I guess is the best way to describe it, about why there's no action, inactivity on big issues. And -- because the two issues you mentioned -- FISA, protecting America, and Colombia, protecting America's economy by encouraging growth -- are important to people whether they be Republicans, Democrats or independents.

Sheryl.

Q Thank you, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.

Q I'm still waiting for my exclusive at the ranch.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. (Laughter.)

Q Mr. President, today I'm -- (laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: I'm at a loss for words. If only you'd have been at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, I would have invited you. (Laughter.) Anyway, please, go ahead.

Q Well said.

THE PRESIDENT: An inside joke for everybody listening. (Laughter.)

Q Mr. President, you have spoken today about opening ANWR for drilling and also refineries. But these are clearly long-term solutions to the problem of rising gas prices. What can you tell Americans about what your administration is doing in the short term? And secondly, have you been briefed on tomorrow's GDP numbers, and are you concerned --

THE PRESIDENT: No, I haven't been.

Q Okay -- and are you concerned that they will show us to officially be in a recession?

THE PRESIDENT: I think they'll show that we're -- it's a very slow economy. I can't guess what the number will be, and I haven't been shown, truly.

And by the way, opening up ANWR is not long term, it's intermediate term. But it sends a clear signal, is what it does. It sends a clear signal to the markets that the United States is not going to restrict exploration; the United States is going to encourage exploration.

And in the meantime we have done, increasing CAFTA, for example. But the market is going to do as much for encouraging conservation as anything else is now. And so I firmly believe that -- you know, if there was a magic wand to wave, I'd be waving it, of course. I strongly believe it's in our interest that we reduce gas prices, gasoline prices. I mean, it would be like a major tax cut for people. And --

Q But what --

THE PRESIDENT: Let me finish, please, Sheryl. Strike one on the exclusive. (Laughter.) Excuse me, strike two. (Laughter.)

That -- you made me lose my train of thought, of course -- maybe that's what you were attempting to do. No, I think that if there was a magic wand, and say, okay, drop price, I'd do that. And so part of this is to make -- set the psychology right that says to the world, we're not going to become more beholden on your oil, we're going to open up and be aggressive and have an aggressive energy policy. Secondly, we're going to send the signal we're going to be building new refineries.

But there is no magic wand to wave right now. It took us a while to get to this fix. That's why I told you that if Congress had responded -- matter of fact, Congress did pass ANWR in the late 1900s -- 1990s -- and the 1900s -- (laughter) -- 1990s. But it didn't go forward. And it's my considered judgment, given the technological advances, to say this is -- we'll destroy the environment is just -- I don't think it's an accurate statement.

And so I think it's very important, Sheryl, for Congress. The other thing Congress can do, if you want to send a good signal during these uncertain times, is make the tax cuts permanent, is to let people -- send the signal that people are going to be able to keep their money. And I think that will help the psychology of the country.

Yes, Mark.

Q Mr. President, do you feel --

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, you can use a mic.

Q Do you feel your foreign policy in the Middle East has been undermined by Jimmy Carter's meeting with Hamas leaders? What harm does it do for him to have met with Hamas leaders?

THE PRESIDENT: Foreign policy and peace is undermined by Hamas in the Middle East. They're the ones who are undermining peace. They're the ones whose foreign policy objective is the destruction of Israel. They're the ones who are trying to create enough violence to stop the advance of the two-party state solution. They are a significant problem to world peace -- or Middle Eastern peace.

And that's the reason I'm not talking to them. And that's the reason why -- it's just important for people to understand that this is a -- we're in a -- we're witnessing a struggle between those who understand liberty and believe in the advance of liberty, and those who want to stop the advance of liberty. And Hamas has made their position very clear.

Unfortunately, they're getting help; in Syria, they get help. There's rumors about Iranian help. And these countries that I just named are -- take, for example, Lebanon. I talked to Prime Minister Siniora today. Here's a struggling democracy in the heart of the Middle East that is -- whose internal politics are being influenced by Syria, Hezbollah -- as a result of Iranian influence with Hezbollah -- all aiming to destabilize the country, which should be a clear signal about the intents of -- the intentions of groups like Hezbollah and Hamas.

So when you want to talk about peace being difficult in the Middle East -- it's going to be difficult, but it's even made more difficult by entities like Hamas, who insist upon lobbing rockets into Israel, trying to provoke response and trying to destabilize -- even destabilize the region more.

And anybody can talk to who they want, but I just want the people to understand that the problem is Hamas. And until Hamas changes, or until there's a competing vision in the Middle East for President Abbas, Prime Minister Fayyad to offer to the Palestinian people, that's all the more reason to try to define a state, and that's why I'm going to the Middle East, besides going to the 60th anniversary of Israel.

Yes, Ann.

Q Thank you, sir. Did any good come out of President Carter's talks with Hamas? And did anyone in your administration ask him not to do it? And will it have any impact on your trip to the Middle East?

THE PRESIDENT: I didn't talk to him, and I don't know, I don't know what the conversations were. And I don't see Hamas changing. It's up to Hamas to change. You get these meetings with these people, and they say one thing and do another. And this is the way it's been now for seven and a half years in this administration, watching Hamas be a destabilizing influence.

And I supported the elections, by the way. And curiously enough, they won the elections against Fatah because they ran on a non-corruption campaign. The sad situation is now they've been given power, they haven't delivered for the people in Gaza.

And my mission is to, when I go to the Middle East, is to continue to work with both Israelis and President Abbas and his government on a variety of fronts: one, coming up with a vision, helping them find a common ground on the vision; but also working with the Israelis to empower the Palestinians in the West Bank to be more in charge of security, to have less obstacles with which to deal with, to help the Palestinians with economic vitality and growth. There's some very interesting initiatives that are being developed there.

I'm still hopeful we'll get an agreement by the end of my presidency. Condi is heading back out there. I've been in touch with President Abbas here in the Oval Office, and I talk to Prime Minister Olmert, and the attitude is good. People do understand the importance of getting a state defined.

But Hamas is -- look, when you're Israel and you've got people lobbing rockets into your country, you're going to take care of business. But you got to ask, why is Hamas lobbing rockets? And one reason why is because they're trying to destabilize and create chaos and confusion. And to answer whether or not people's conversation -- whether they're more effective, all we got to do is watch to see how Hamas behaves.

Richard.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Congress is preparing to add a couple of things to your supplemental spending request for Iraq, and I'm wondering if some of these seem like things you could support -- extending unemployment benefits and, particularly, additional help for Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans in terms of educational benefits. Are these things you might agree to, even though you have set a $108 billion ceiling on the package?

THE PRESIDENT: Richard, $108 billion is $108 billion. And I made my position very clear to Congress and I will not accept a supplemental over $108 billion or a supplemental that micro-manages the war, ties the hands of our commanders.

We will work with Congress on these veterans' benefits. I'm a firm believer that we ought to treat our veterans with respect. In the State of the Union I talked about the idea of transferring -- a soldier being able to transfer educational benefits to a spouse or children. We've sent legislation to that effect up to Congress; we would like for them to move on it quickly. But the $108 billion is $108 billion.

Michael.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. I wonder if there's a big, urgent problem facing the country, coming down the road, that you worry your successor will neglect or postpone. That is, when the politics are done, after the war on terror, what do you think should be at the top of the list of the person who moves into that office?

THE PRESIDENT: I don't think John McCain is going to neglect the war on terror. And I do think he'll be the President. Here I am interjecting myself in the '08 campaign, just like I told you I wouldn't. That's unfair, isn't it?

He -- it's very important for the President to understand that America is still in danger of attack, and that we're dealing with an ideological struggle that can only be solved with the spread of liberty. And a concern of mine, as you've heard me say, is that the nation has had the tendency in the past to become isolationist and correspondingly protectionist. And I would hope whoever the President is, and I do believe it will be John, will be willing to resist the impulse, the temptation, to say, well, it's not worth it anymore to confront an enemy, it's not worth it to try to do the hard work of helping democracies thrive and succeed -- because not only is it worth it, we will succeed in laying the foundation for peace if we have faith in the capacity of liberty to be transformative.

I'm also concerned about protectionism. This lad right here asked me about Congress's intransigence on Colombia. I think it reflects the fact that there is a strong protectionist sentiment in the United States. People -- good people -- believe it is not in our interest to be opening up markets. You might remember the CAFTA trade vote; we won by one vote, and it was a tough vote to get. And now the Speaker pulled a unique maneuver to stop the Colombia from moving forward. And it's a sign of -- that the country is losing its confidence, to a certain extent; that protectionist policy is better than confidently trading and treating unfairness in the marketplace.

And so my worry -- not worry -- my hope is, is that whoever the President is understands that America is a force for good in the world; that in the spread of liberty we're adhering to a universal value -- not an American value, it's a universal value, the notion of liberty. You've heard me say it a lot: I do believe it's a gift from the Almighty to every man, woman and child. If you believe in that and act on that, you're really acting on a platform of peace, because ultimately liberty yields the peace you want. It's transformative and powerful. And I believe that people will be making a mistake if they say we can't compete economically, and therefore, let's throw up walls. And yet the tendencies here in America are pretty strong right now.

There's a lot of concern around the world, by the way, about America's retreat -- they're wondering whether or not America is going to remain a leader. They're wondering whether or not -- for example, will capital be welcomed back into our country. And so it's the "isms" that bother me -- isolationism and protectionism.

April.

Q Thank you, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: You're looking good in yellow.

Q Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: How's the baby?

Q She's good, thank you. You're trying to get me off, but it's okay.

THE PRESIDENT: No. Is it true you named her "Georgia"?

Q No. Is that okay with you?

THE PRESIDENT: It's your baby. (Laughter.)

Q Anyway, moving on to the subject of the day. I talked to James Clyburn before this press conference. He said, "As a man thinketh, so are we." And Americans believe we are in a recession. What will it take for you to say those words, that we are in a recession?

And also on Zimbabwe, what's the next step? And does South Africa play a part in that?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you. I've answered the question on the words and terminologies. I will tell you that these are very difficult economic times -- very difficult. And we'll let the economists define it for what it is. I would hope that those who worry about recession, slowdown, whatever you want to call it, make the tax cuts permanent as a way of helping to address this issue -- because if you're somebody out there trying to plan your future and you're worried about the future and you think your taxes are going to go up, it's going to cause different behavioral patterns.

Secondly, I do want to thank the members of Congress -- and the man you talked to is a leader and did a very good job of helping shepherd through this billions of dollar package that is now beginning to hit America's pocketbooks. And we'll see how that goes. I hope it's as stimulative as we think it will be. But you can tell the good man you talked to, who is a good guy, that I fully understand that people are concerned. And they're concerned about high gasoline prices; they're worried about high food prices; worried about staying in their homes.

The new issue, of course, is student loans. The House of Representatives passed a bill, sponsored by Mr. Miller, George Miller, that is a -- that we think can do the job. I hope the Senate moves a version of it very quickly so that we can help address this issue. I mean, one of the things that government can do is either create more anxiety or less. And if you think your taxes are going to go up, that's going to make you anxious. If you think the government is going to step in with a good policy that will help your child get a student loan, that will make you less anxious.

One of the things we've done on home ownership is the HOPE NOW Alliance, which hopefully makes people less anxious; hopefully it helps -- has kind of brought some sense of not only concern, but action into the marketplace. And I was told this morning that HOPE NOW has affected about 1.4 million homeowners and helped a lot of them refinance, get refinancing, or helped a lot of them get different interest payment schedules -- all aiming for creditworthy people to be able to stay in their homes during this difficult period.

Zimbabwe. First of all, the will of the people needed to be respected in Zimbabwe. And it is clear that they voted for change, as they should have, because the -- Mr. Mugabe has failed the country. It's a country that used to be an exporter of food; it's now got terrible human conditions there.

Secondly, the violence and the intimidation is simply unacceptable. The government is intent upon -- and is -- intimidating the people there.

We support the U.N. Security Council discussions that are going on. But the truth of the matter is, April -- and you mentioned this -- it's really incumbent upon the nations in the neighborhood to step up and lead, and recognize that the will of the people must be respected, and recognize that that will came about because they're tired of failed leadership.

Thank you all for your interest. Enjoyed it.

END