Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Joe Miller Wins!
Lisa Murkowski has conceded!Congratulations to Joe and the Palins! A political "miracle on ice" has occurred!
Lawsuit Challenges Nev. Tea Party Senate Hopeful
A lawsuit is challenging the U.S. Senate bid of a Tea Party of Nevada candidate.The suit filed Tuesday in Carson City argues Scott Ashjian was required to submit signatures totaling 1 percent of votes cast in Nevada's last U.S. House elections to qualify for the November ballot.Ashjian collected names of 250 registered voters under another provision in the law, but the suit claims he was still obligated to comply with the larger signature requirement.The suit was filed by members of Citizen Outreach, a group headed by conservative activist Chuck Muth. Other plaintiffs are Independent American Party director Janine Hansen and Debbie Landis, head of a tea party group.Another suit seeking to boot Ashjian from the ballot was rejected by a judge in April.
� Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Netanyahu heads to U.S. for peace summit (Reuters)
By Jeffrey Heller
TEL AVIV |
Tue Aug 31, 2010 7:18am EDT
TEL AVIV (Reuters) - Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu flew to Washington on Tuesday for peace talks with the Palestinians, leaving up in the air the question of future Jewish settlement construction once a partial freeze ends.
The Palestinians have threatened to pull out of the face-to-face peace negotiations, due to begin on Thursday, unless Israel extends the moratorium on new housing starts past its expiration date of September 26.Netanyahu, who heads a government dominated by pro-settler parties including his own, has given no sign he will continue to curb construction of homes for Jews in the occupied West Bank but told his Likud party a peace deal was possible."I am not naive. I see all the difficulties and hurdles and despite this, I believe that a final peace agreement is a reachable objective. Of course, this does not depend just on us," he said on Monday.Netanyahu added that he hoped to find a "brave partner" in Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who arrived in Washington."We are ready for serious, real negotiations that lead to the end of the occupation," Nabil Abu Rdainah, his spokesman, told Reuters by telephone.The Palestinians wanted the talks to be based on a statement issued by the Middle East Quartet and international law, he added. U.S. Middle East envoy George Mitchell has said the sides will determine the terms of reference when they meet.Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak met Abbas in secret in Amman on Sunday, Israel Radio said, although it did not give details of the talks and said Barak reported back to Netanyahu.In a high-profile drive for peace, which contrasts with low expectations amongst Israelis and Palestinians, U.S. President Barack Obama will host Netanyahu, Abbas, Jordan's King Abdullah and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak at a dinner on Wednesday.Israeli-Palestinian peace talks are due to resume, after a 20-month break punctuated by Israel's Gaza war, on Thursday with a ceremony at the State Department.Israeli Vice Premier Silvan Shalom said on Sunday that Netanyahu had told cabinet ministers there would be no decision on the settlement issue, which could split his governing coalition, before the Jewish New Year starting on Sept 8.SETTLEMENT BLOCSSome Netanyahu allies have raised the possibility of limiting most future construction in settlements to those within major blocs that Israel intends to keep in any peace agreement.Palestinians have rejected the idea, saying it would amount to accepting Israeli sovereignty over the enclaves.Netanyahu, who has pushed along with the United States for direct talks without preconditions, has said the future of settlements should be resolved in negotiations which Washington hopes can lead to a Palestinian statehood accord within a year.Many analysts view that goal as unrealistic, citing Israeli and Palestinian internal political divisions and the complexities of issues, including settlements and the fate of Jerusalem, that have defied solution over decades of conflict.The United States opposes settlement expansion but has stopped short of calling for Israel to extend the moratorium. Instead, it has urged both Israel and the Palestinians not to take measures that could jeopardize the negotiations.Some 500,000 Israelis and 2.5 million Palestinians live in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, areas Israel captured in a 1967 war.The Palestinians aim to found a state in the West Bank, where Abbas's Palestinian Authority holds sway, and Gaza, controlled by Hamas Islamists opposed to his peace efforts.(Additional reporting by Ali Sawafta in Ramallah; Editing by Charles Dick)
TEL AVIV |
Tue Aug 31, 2010 7:18am EDT
TEL AVIV (Reuters) - Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu flew to Washington on Tuesday for peace talks with the Palestinians, leaving up in the air the question of future Jewish settlement construction once a partial freeze ends.
The Palestinians have threatened to pull out of the face-to-face peace negotiations, due to begin on Thursday, unless Israel extends the moratorium on new housing starts past its expiration date of September 26.Netanyahu, who heads a government dominated by pro-settler parties including his own, has given no sign he will continue to curb construction of homes for Jews in the occupied West Bank but told his Likud party a peace deal was possible."I am not naive. I see all the difficulties and hurdles and despite this, I believe that a final peace agreement is a reachable objective. Of course, this does not depend just on us," he said on Monday.Netanyahu added that he hoped to find a "brave partner" in Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who arrived in Washington."We are ready for serious, real negotiations that lead to the end of the occupation," Nabil Abu Rdainah, his spokesman, told Reuters by telephone.The Palestinians wanted the talks to be based on a statement issued by the Middle East Quartet and international law, he added. U.S. Middle East envoy George Mitchell has said the sides will determine the terms of reference when they meet.Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak met Abbas in secret in Amman on Sunday, Israel Radio said, although it did not give details of the talks and said Barak reported back to Netanyahu.In a high-profile drive for peace, which contrasts with low expectations amongst Israelis and Palestinians, U.S. President Barack Obama will host Netanyahu, Abbas, Jordan's King Abdullah and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak at a dinner on Wednesday.Israeli-Palestinian peace talks are due to resume, after a 20-month break punctuated by Israel's Gaza war, on Thursday with a ceremony at the State Department.Israeli Vice Premier Silvan Shalom said on Sunday that Netanyahu had told cabinet ministers there would be no decision on the settlement issue, which could split his governing coalition, before the Jewish New Year starting on Sept 8.SETTLEMENT BLOCSSome Netanyahu allies have raised the possibility of limiting most future construction in settlements to those within major blocs that Israel intends to keep in any peace agreement.Palestinians have rejected the idea, saying it would amount to accepting Israeli sovereignty over the enclaves.Netanyahu, who has pushed along with the United States for direct talks without preconditions, has said the future of settlements should be resolved in negotiations which Washington hopes can lead to a Palestinian statehood accord within a year.Many analysts view that goal as unrealistic, citing Israeli and Palestinian internal political divisions and the complexities of issues, including settlements and the fate of Jerusalem, that have defied solution over decades of conflict.The United States opposes settlement expansion but has stopped short of calling for Israel to extend the moratorium. Instead, it has urged both Israel and the Palestinians not to take measures that could jeopardize the negotiations.Some 500,000 Israelis and 2.5 million Palestinians live in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, areas Israel captured in a 1967 war.The Palestinians aim to found a state in the West Bank, where Abbas's Palestinian Authority holds sway, and Gaza, controlled by Hamas Islamists opposed to his peace efforts.(Additional reporting by Ali Sawafta in Ramallah; Editing by Charles Dick)
Jennifer Rubin: Palin in Ascendance, Liberals Admit Defeat
Jennifer Rubin writes in Commentary:She certainly has them on the run. At the National Mall rally on Saturday, Sarah Palin delivered an eloquent and moving tribute to servicemen and a nonpartisan call to restore ? not transform ? America. The complete text should be read in full. (If you are not moved to tears by the stories of three heroic military men, you have a heart of stone.)....Meanwhile, Palin clearly has the left in a tizzy. They have finally gotten it: she is redefining feminism. In the New York Times, two liberal feminists exhibit more than a little anxiety over the Palin juggernaut. To put it bluntly, they have Palin envy:In the 24 months since her appearance onstage in Dayton, Ohio, Ms. Palin has enthralled pundits and journalists who devote countless television hours and column inches to her every Twitter message and Facebook update, while provoking outrage and exasperation from the left. ?The left should be outraged and exasperated by all this ? but at their own failings as much as Ms. Palin?s ascension. Since the 2008 election, progressive leaders have done little to address the obvious national appetite for female leadership. And despite (or because of) their continuing obsession with Ms. Palin, they have done nothing to stop an anti-choice, pro-abstinence, socialist-bashing Tea Party enthusiast from becoming the 21st century symbol of American women in politics.You betcha. You see, Palin has proved by example that a woman politician need not spout the pro-big government, pro-abortion, pro-welfare-state line. ?Ms. Palin has spent much of 2010 burnishing her political bona fides and extending her influence by way of the Mama Grizzlies, a gang of Sarah- approved, maverick-y female politicians looking to ?take back? America with ?common-sense? solutions.? She sure did, and she proved herself to be the most effective female politician in the country. Sorry, Hillary ? while you have been playing errand girl for the Obama foreign-policy train wreck, Palin has ascended to the throne. (Nancy Pelosi?s days are numbered.) The left is waving the white flag of surrender:It?s easy of course, for liberals to laugh off Ms. Palin?s ?you go, girl!? ethos and increasingly aggressive co-optation of feminist symbols. We progressives discount her references to the women?s movement ? not to mention her validity as a candidate ? by looking down on her as a dim, opportunistic, mean-girl prom queen, all spunk and no policy muscle. ?If Sarah Palin and her acolytes successfully redefine what it means to be a groundbreaking political woman, it will be because progressives let it happen ? and in doing so, ensured that when it comes to making history, there will be no one but Mama Grizzlies to do the job.Wow. And it?s really worse than the New York Times worriers admit. Palin not only trumped the left on style but she also managed to connect on nearly every issue ? ObamaCare, bailouts, Israel, taxes, American exceptionalism, and the stimulus plan ? in a way the president and his liberal supporters could not. For all of her supposed lack of ?policy muscle,? it was she who defined the debate on ObamaCare and she who synced up with the Tea Party?s small-government, personal-responsibility, anti-tax-hike message. Who?s short on policy muscle ? the White House or Palin? Does ?engagement? of despots, Israel-bashing, and capitulation to Russia make for a meaty foreign-policy agenda? Go read a Palin foreign-policy address or two. Plenty of meat and common sense there.But I give the Times gals credit ? they know they are losing the battle to discredit Palin. Now they need to figure out what to do about it. They might start with examining whether their agenda has as much sell as hers.
Remarks by Vice President Joe Biden at the Veterans of Foreign Wars 111th National Convention
Veterans of Foreign Wars 111th National Convention
Indianapolis, Indiana
As Prepared for Delivery—
“Honor the dead by helping the living.” That’s what you’re all about. That’s what the VFW has always been about. Like you, I know that our nation has just one truly sacred obligation: to prepare and equip those we send into harm’s way, and to care for them when they come home.
Commander Tradewell—Tommy—you’ve walked that walk. You served bravely in Vietnam, then came back and kept right on fighting to make sure your comrades got everything they deserved. Thank you for your service, over there, and over here.
To Richard Eubank, who also served at the height of the Vietnam War, I want to wish you the best of luck as you take the helm of this great organization at a critically important time.
And Bob—thank you for having me, and for all you do on behalf of the VFW, every day in Washington. And to Jan Tittle, President of the Ladies Auxiliary. Thank you for all that you do. And to my home state commander, Bob Wilkinson. And to the Ladies Auxiliary, Roberta Walter. Thank you all for your service. I particularly want to acknowledge those veterans of the Korean War, who this summer are marking the 60th Anniversary of the start of that conflict.
Over the last 111 years—from San Juan Hill to the Argonne Forest, Midway to Inchon, Hue City to Kuwait City, and the Korengal Valley to the Sunni Triangle—VFW members have fought for our country on both the frontlines and the home front. You and your predecessors helped establish the Department of Veterans Affairs and build a National Cemetery System. You worked to secure a better future for service members and their families by helping pass two GI bills.
And you have spoken out time and again on behalf of your 2.2 million members, and for all those who have fought in America’s wars. This work—your work—has never been more important than it is today.
Over the past decade, our military has embarked on a longer period of sustained combat than ever before in our history. More than two million service members have deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, more than half of whom have now returned to a civilian life with the honored title of “Veteran.”
Of those men and women—the very best our nation has—almost 40,000 have been wounded and 5,640 have made the ultimate sacrifice.
And President Obama is taking a major step toward concluding one of those wars, just as he pledged to do before he ever took office. One month after his inauguration, at Camp Lejeune, President Obama laid out a plan for ending the war in Iraq responsibly, and we have followed it closely ever since.
As a result, one week from tomorrow, the U.S. combat phase of that war will close. From more than 140,000 troops in Iraq when our Administration took office, by the end of August, 50,000 will remain. Our last remaining combat unit, one that I visited with and know well, the 4th Stryker Brigade of the Army’s Second Infantry Division, left Iraq last week.
I’m proud to say that as of September 1, the mission of the United States Forces in Iraq will be to advise, assist, train, and equip the Iraqi Security Forces; to conduct partnered counterterrorism operations; and to provide security for our military and civilian personnel and infrastructure.
I recently went to Fort Drum, to meet with the Army’s proud 10th Mountain Division, whose motto is “climb to glory.” God, have they climbed to glory. I was there to welcome nearly 3,000 of them back from Iraq, three months early, after they accomplished all of their goals.
These homecomings are something I have long looked forward to, and I know many of you have as well. The day my son Beau returned from a yearlong tour in Iraq, and I watched him embrace his wife and children, was one of the proudest and happiest moments of my life.
By the end of next year—2011—our remaining troops in Iraq will have come home to their families and a grateful nation. This is only possible because of the extraordinary progress our military—the finest fighting force this planet has ever seen—has brought about, led by the great General Ray Odierno.
Three accomplishments are worth singling out.
First, violence in Iraq has decreased to such a degree that those who last served there three or four years ago—when the country was being torn apart by sectarian conflict—would hardly recognize the place. Al Qaeda in Iraq and the Shiite extremists remain dangerous, and their attacks still claim innocent lives. But they have utterly failed to achieve their objectives of inflaming sectarian conflict and undermining the Iraqi government.
Second, Iraq’s security forces—now more than 650,000 strong—are already leading the way to defend and protect their country. We have transferred control over hundreds of bases, and many thousands of square miles of territory. Some said that our drawdown would bring more violence. They were wrong, because the Iraqis are ready to take charge. And in recent months, operations that they led, based on intelligence they developed, killed two key leaders of Al Qaeda in Iraq and purged more than 30 other top terrorists from its ranks.
Third, but no less important, is the fact that Iraqi leaders who once settled disputes through violence are at this very moment, ironing out their differences in face-to-face negotiations.
The Iraqis recently held their second national election that the world all agreed was legitimate, and although it is taking a long time to form a government, I am convinced that this will happen soon.
Another way of putting this is that politics has broken out.
Now, I certainly don’t need to tell you that politics is not always pretty, even our own. But the hard work of forming a new government is well underway, and we urge these politicians to match the courage their citizens have shown, by completing that process.
Ever since the President asked me to oversee our Iraq policy, I have been actively engaged, on a daily basis. I have visited the country 13 times; I know all the players from all the leading coalitions; I speak regularly with Iraqi leaders; and I understand Iraq’s intricate politics. We have a first-rate Embassy team, now led by Ambassador Jim Jeffrey, that is interacting daily with the Iraqis throughout the government formation process.
Many people point to the Iranian influence in Iraq but I believe this to be exaggerated. The Iranian government spent over $100 million dollars to try to sway the national elections but Iran failed. The Iraqi people voted for their desired candidate, not who the Iranians wanted them to vote for.
Now the Iraqi leaders are working to form a government and we urge them to do so in a way that reflects the will of the Iraqi people. An important step in this process is formalizing a power-sharing arrangement, which the Iraqi leaders are currently undertaking to do.
This process can sometimes be frustrating, and there will be ups and downs, but I am confident that the Iraqis will form a national unity government soon.
And one more thing: Drawing down our troops does not mean we are disengaging from Iraq. In fact, quite the opposite is true. While our warriors that remain there are as capable as any in our armed services—they know how to fight if they have to—their mission has changed. They are there now to help the Iraqis help themselves.
Meanwhile, we are also ramping up a civilian-led effort to help ensure Iraq remains stable, sovereign, and self-reliant. We will continue to help strengthen its economic and political institutions, foster new ties of trade and commerce, and support Iraq’s return to its rightful place in the region and the broader community of nations.
While the Iraq war winds down, our troops continue to take the fight to our enemies in Afghanistan. That is where Al Qaeda plotted and trained to launch the devastating attack on 9-11.
Our forces there are now in the able hands of one of our nation’s finest generals, David Petraeus—a great warrior, strategist, and friend—whom you are honoring this week with the Eisenhower Award.
Afghanistan poses unique and daunting challenges, including a local population scarred by more than three decades of war and plagued by illiteracy, crushing poverty, and corrupt governance.
The country’s harsh terrain is some of the least hospitable our forces have ever had to navigate. I’ve seen it firsthand, including two years ago when a surprise blizzard forced my helicopter to land between two snowy peaks, on a road not much wider than the rotor blades, about 9,000 feet up, with a steep drop on both sides.
But after too many years of neglect, we now have a clearly defined strategy, backed by the resources needed to implement it—and we are making measurable progress focused on the overarching goal: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, so that it no longer threatens America and our allies.
In order to do this, we must deny Al Qaeda a safe haven. We must reverse the Taliban's momentum. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's security forces and government so that they can begin to assume primary responsibility for their country's future.
Nearly all of the additional personnel President Obama ordered to the region are now in place, along with about 10,000 new troops and trainers provided by our allies for the International Security Assistance Force.
General Petraeus only now has all the resources that the strategy calls for. Together, they are working tirelessly to strengthen the Afghan security forces, and to take insurgents on in regions where they have run roughshod for too long. That effort is being complemented by an unprecedented surge of civilian diplomats and technical experts.
In the meantime, our Ambassador, General Eikenberry, is working every day, pushing the Afghan government to step up its efforts to tackle corruption, and devise a plan of reintegration for the portion of the Taliban that is ready to lay down its arms and join the government.
As General Petraeus has said, we will assess the progress made in December and begin a responsible conditions-based transition to Afghan security leadership, on a province-by-province basis, in July 2011, a date that represents both our sense of urgency for Afghanistan to step up and our resolve to meet our stated goals.
In the meantime, our thoughts and prayers remain with our troops still serving in harm’s way, and we will continue to give them the resources they need to succeed. But, as you know better than anyone, providing for our service members overseas is where our responsibility to them begins, not where it ends.
That is why the Obama-Biden Administration has embarked on one of the largest, most comprehensive programs in American history to support our returning veterans, and their families, long after their military service is over.
President Obama trusted a great warrior, General Eric Shinseki, with transforming the Department of Veterans Affairs to meet 21st Century challenges. We’re providing him the resources to do exactly that. Even while freezing most discretionary spending, we’ve given VA one of the biggest budget increases in 30 years—$16 billion, for a total of $114 billion—and followed that up with a request for an increase of another $11 billion next year.
I know we hear some voices—and we will continue to hear more—who say that in tough economic times we can’t fulfill that commitment. But I say to those voices: whether or not we keep this promise will say a lot about whether we are who we say we are.
In my view, our nation’s obligation to veterans is not negotiable.
Meanwhile, the post-9/11 G.I. Bill is already helping nearly 300,000 veterans— and, for the first time, their family members—earn college degrees. We are revitalizing VA facilities, including $957 million for the already admirable Veterans Health Administration and $46 million for our VA cemeteries—national shrines that must be preserved. We have taken steps to help veterans exposed to Agent Orange in Vietnam and those who suffer from a range of ailments related to their service in the first Gulf War.
Tommy, Richard, and others here will remember how veterans from our generation had to prove the source of their ailments in order to get their benefits. The burden was on them. Well, thanks in part to the hard work of your organization they no longer have that burden. It’s now the government’s.
And also thanks to your help, we will not make the same mistake with younger veterans.
For those with post traumatic stress disorder, our policy will be to trust veterans’ own explanations of how it came about, without requiring corroborating evidence. And we’ve implemented a new rating system to improve how claims of traumatic brain injury are evaluated. We’re doing these things because wounded veterans should not have to plead for the care they deserve.
Two landmark pieces of legislation deserve special mention, and not just because the VFW was instrumental in both successes.
For the first time in American history, we have secured advanced appropriations to end, once and for all, the nightmare of long delays in funding for veterans’ medical treatment. And since sometimes the best care comes from family members, we passed the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act to fund and train relatives who serve as caregivers for wounded warriors.
Almost 18,000 men and women have been wounded so badly in Iraq and Afghanistan that they could not return to duty.
The good news is that medical advances and improved technology allowed so many to survive who might not have made it home from past conflicts. But it also means that many are left with injuries that will require critical care for the rest of their lives.
You know as well as I do that long after the wars are over; after the welcome home parades; after the memorials are built and the streets renamed; you and your fellow veterans organizations will still be needed out there demanding that these wounded warriors get the care they need years and decades from now.
I’m counting on you. An entire generation of veterans—my son’s generation—is counting on you. We owe them nothing less, because the warriors we sent to Iraq and Afghanistan have served as ably as any generation of fighting men and women in our nation’s history.
But the sacred obligation I mentioned earlier extends also to those who share the burden of veterans’ service. That is why First Lady Michele Obama, and my wife, Jill, are leading an unprecedented push for our nation to support and engage military families.
Over nearly a decade, military families have endured multiple deployments, and the wrenching toll that absence takes. When our son Beau was in Iraq, Jill and I came to understand what the poet John Milton meant when he wrote, and I quote: “They also serve, who only stand and wait.”
Our military families do far more than stand and wait. We owe them for their service to our country. And we must acknowledge and repay that debt. It is no secret that today more than ever, a small fraction of our citizens bear the lion’s share of the cost our wars have imposed.
The call to duty has been answered by a new generation of heroes every bit as honorable as those who came before.
Heroes like Lt. Col. Chris Kolenda, whom I met on a far-flung FOB in a remote corner of Kunar Province, Afghanistan, a few miles from the Pakistan border. With the heart of a warrior and the precision of a cultural anthropologist, he and his soldiers talked me through the myriad tribes and sub-tribes that inhabited his terrain, and the near-constant enemy fire they endured every night sitting on that exposed mountaintop.
Heroes like the seven service members who last week were awarded the Silver Star for valorous acts more awe-inspiring than anything Hollywood could have conjured.
One of them, Sergeant First Class David Nunez, was traveling through the Afghan village of Shewan on May 29, 2008, when insurgents attacked. His body engulfed in flames, he sought to save his comrades’ lives by ridding his damaged vehicle of ammunition and explosives, until he made the ultimate sacrifice.
These stories are chapters in the greatest epic of our age. They will inspire future warriors as surely as did those in this room who fought and bled in wars gone by. And our enemies should take them as irrefutable proof of our resolve in the face of the threats we now confront.
As President Obama said upon taking office: “Our spirit is strong and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.”
On behalf of a grateful nation, I thank all of our troops—and all of you here today—for giving life to those words, and for sacrificing so much for your country. God Bless you. God bless all our troops around the world. And God Bless the United States of America.
Indianapolis, Indiana
As Prepared for Delivery—
“Honor the dead by helping the living.” That’s what you’re all about. That’s what the VFW has always been about. Like you, I know that our nation has just one truly sacred obligation: to prepare and equip those we send into harm’s way, and to care for them when they come home.
Commander Tradewell—Tommy—you’ve walked that walk. You served bravely in Vietnam, then came back and kept right on fighting to make sure your comrades got everything they deserved. Thank you for your service, over there, and over here.
To Richard Eubank, who also served at the height of the Vietnam War, I want to wish you the best of luck as you take the helm of this great organization at a critically important time.
And Bob—thank you for having me, and for all you do on behalf of the VFW, every day in Washington. And to Jan Tittle, President of the Ladies Auxiliary. Thank you for all that you do. And to my home state commander, Bob Wilkinson. And to the Ladies Auxiliary, Roberta Walter. Thank you all for your service. I particularly want to acknowledge those veterans of the Korean War, who this summer are marking the 60th Anniversary of the start of that conflict.
Over the last 111 years—from San Juan Hill to the Argonne Forest, Midway to Inchon, Hue City to Kuwait City, and the Korengal Valley to the Sunni Triangle—VFW members have fought for our country on both the frontlines and the home front. You and your predecessors helped establish the Department of Veterans Affairs and build a National Cemetery System. You worked to secure a better future for service members and their families by helping pass two GI bills.
And you have spoken out time and again on behalf of your 2.2 million members, and for all those who have fought in America’s wars. This work—your work—has never been more important than it is today.
Over the past decade, our military has embarked on a longer period of sustained combat than ever before in our history. More than two million service members have deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, more than half of whom have now returned to a civilian life with the honored title of “Veteran.”
Of those men and women—the very best our nation has—almost 40,000 have been wounded and 5,640 have made the ultimate sacrifice.
And President Obama is taking a major step toward concluding one of those wars, just as he pledged to do before he ever took office. One month after his inauguration, at Camp Lejeune, President Obama laid out a plan for ending the war in Iraq responsibly, and we have followed it closely ever since.
As a result, one week from tomorrow, the U.S. combat phase of that war will close. From more than 140,000 troops in Iraq when our Administration took office, by the end of August, 50,000 will remain. Our last remaining combat unit, one that I visited with and know well, the 4th Stryker Brigade of the Army’s Second Infantry Division, left Iraq last week.
I’m proud to say that as of September 1, the mission of the United States Forces in Iraq will be to advise, assist, train, and equip the Iraqi Security Forces; to conduct partnered counterterrorism operations; and to provide security for our military and civilian personnel and infrastructure.
I recently went to Fort Drum, to meet with the Army’s proud 10th Mountain Division, whose motto is “climb to glory.” God, have they climbed to glory. I was there to welcome nearly 3,000 of them back from Iraq, three months early, after they accomplished all of their goals.
These homecomings are something I have long looked forward to, and I know many of you have as well. The day my son Beau returned from a yearlong tour in Iraq, and I watched him embrace his wife and children, was one of the proudest and happiest moments of my life.
By the end of next year—2011—our remaining troops in Iraq will have come home to their families and a grateful nation. This is only possible because of the extraordinary progress our military—the finest fighting force this planet has ever seen—has brought about, led by the great General Ray Odierno.
Three accomplishments are worth singling out.
First, violence in Iraq has decreased to such a degree that those who last served there three or four years ago—when the country was being torn apart by sectarian conflict—would hardly recognize the place. Al Qaeda in Iraq and the Shiite extremists remain dangerous, and their attacks still claim innocent lives. But they have utterly failed to achieve their objectives of inflaming sectarian conflict and undermining the Iraqi government.
Second, Iraq’s security forces—now more than 650,000 strong—are already leading the way to defend and protect their country. We have transferred control over hundreds of bases, and many thousands of square miles of territory. Some said that our drawdown would bring more violence. They were wrong, because the Iraqis are ready to take charge. And in recent months, operations that they led, based on intelligence they developed, killed two key leaders of Al Qaeda in Iraq and purged more than 30 other top terrorists from its ranks.
Third, but no less important, is the fact that Iraqi leaders who once settled disputes through violence are at this very moment, ironing out their differences in face-to-face negotiations.
The Iraqis recently held their second national election that the world all agreed was legitimate, and although it is taking a long time to form a government, I am convinced that this will happen soon.
Another way of putting this is that politics has broken out.
Now, I certainly don’t need to tell you that politics is not always pretty, even our own. But the hard work of forming a new government is well underway, and we urge these politicians to match the courage their citizens have shown, by completing that process.
Ever since the President asked me to oversee our Iraq policy, I have been actively engaged, on a daily basis. I have visited the country 13 times; I know all the players from all the leading coalitions; I speak regularly with Iraqi leaders; and I understand Iraq’s intricate politics. We have a first-rate Embassy team, now led by Ambassador Jim Jeffrey, that is interacting daily with the Iraqis throughout the government formation process.
Many people point to the Iranian influence in Iraq but I believe this to be exaggerated. The Iranian government spent over $100 million dollars to try to sway the national elections but Iran failed. The Iraqi people voted for their desired candidate, not who the Iranians wanted them to vote for.
Now the Iraqi leaders are working to form a government and we urge them to do so in a way that reflects the will of the Iraqi people. An important step in this process is formalizing a power-sharing arrangement, which the Iraqi leaders are currently undertaking to do.
This process can sometimes be frustrating, and there will be ups and downs, but I am confident that the Iraqis will form a national unity government soon.
And one more thing: Drawing down our troops does not mean we are disengaging from Iraq. In fact, quite the opposite is true. While our warriors that remain there are as capable as any in our armed services—they know how to fight if they have to—their mission has changed. They are there now to help the Iraqis help themselves.
Meanwhile, we are also ramping up a civilian-led effort to help ensure Iraq remains stable, sovereign, and self-reliant. We will continue to help strengthen its economic and political institutions, foster new ties of trade and commerce, and support Iraq’s return to its rightful place in the region and the broader community of nations.
While the Iraq war winds down, our troops continue to take the fight to our enemies in Afghanistan. That is where Al Qaeda plotted and trained to launch the devastating attack on 9-11.
Our forces there are now in the able hands of one of our nation’s finest generals, David Petraeus—a great warrior, strategist, and friend—whom you are honoring this week with the Eisenhower Award.
Afghanistan poses unique and daunting challenges, including a local population scarred by more than three decades of war and plagued by illiteracy, crushing poverty, and corrupt governance.
The country’s harsh terrain is some of the least hospitable our forces have ever had to navigate. I’ve seen it firsthand, including two years ago when a surprise blizzard forced my helicopter to land between two snowy peaks, on a road not much wider than the rotor blades, about 9,000 feet up, with a steep drop on both sides.
But after too many years of neglect, we now have a clearly defined strategy, backed by the resources needed to implement it—and we are making measurable progress focused on the overarching goal: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, so that it no longer threatens America and our allies.
In order to do this, we must deny Al Qaeda a safe haven. We must reverse the Taliban's momentum. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's security forces and government so that they can begin to assume primary responsibility for their country's future.
Nearly all of the additional personnel President Obama ordered to the region are now in place, along with about 10,000 new troops and trainers provided by our allies for the International Security Assistance Force.
General Petraeus only now has all the resources that the strategy calls for. Together, they are working tirelessly to strengthen the Afghan security forces, and to take insurgents on in regions where they have run roughshod for too long. That effort is being complemented by an unprecedented surge of civilian diplomats and technical experts.
In the meantime, our Ambassador, General Eikenberry, is working every day, pushing the Afghan government to step up its efforts to tackle corruption, and devise a plan of reintegration for the portion of the Taliban that is ready to lay down its arms and join the government.
As General Petraeus has said, we will assess the progress made in December and begin a responsible conditions-based transition to Afghan security leadership, on a province-by-province basis, in July 2011, a date that represents both our sense of urgency for Afghanistan to step up and our resolve to meet our stated goals.
In the meantime, our thoughts and prayers remain with our troops still serving in harm’s way, and we will continue to give them the resources they need to succeed. But, as you know better than anyone, providing for our service members overseas is where our responsibility to them begins, not where it ends.
That is why the Obama-Biden Administration has embarked on one of the largest, most comprehensive programs in American history to support our returning veterans, and their families, long after their military service is over.
President Obama trusted a great warrior, General Eric Shinseki, with transforming the Department of Veterans Affairs to meet 21st Century challenges. We’re providing him the resources to do exactly that. Even while freezing most discretionary spending, we’ve given VA one of the biggest budget increases in 30 years—$16 billion, for a total of $114 billion—and followed that up with a request for an increase of another $11 billion next year.
I know we hear some voices—and we will continue to hear more—who say that in tough economic times we can’t fulfill that commitment. But I say to those voices: whether or not we keep this promise will say a lot about whether we are who we say we are.
In my view, our nation’s obligation to veterans is not negotiable.
Meanwhile, the post-9/11 G.I. Bill is already helping nearly 300,000 veterans— and, for the first time, their family members—earn college degrees. We are revitalizing VA facilities, including $957 million for the already admirable Veterans Health Administration and $46 million for our VA cemeteries—national shrines that must be preserved. We have taken steps to help veterans exposed to Agent Orange in Vietnam and those who suffer from a range of ailments related to their service in the first Gulf War.
Tommy, Richard, and others here will remember how veterans from our generation had to prove the source of their ailments in order to get their benefits. The burden was on them. Well, thanks in part to the hard work of your organization they no longer have that burden. It’s now the government’s.
And also thanks to your help, we will not make the same mistake with younger veterans.
For those with post traumatic stress disorder, our policy will be to trust veterans’ own explanations of how it came about, without requiring corroborating evidence. And we’ve implemented a new rating system to improve how claims of traumatic brain injury are evaluated. We’re doing these things because wounded veterans should not have to plead for the care they deserve.
Two landmark pieces of legislation deserve special mention, and not just because the VFW was instrumental in both successes.
For the first time in American history, we have secured advanced appropriations to end, once and for all, the nightmare of long delays in funding for veterans’ medical treatment. And since sometimes the best care comes from family members, we passed the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act to fund and train relatives who serve as caregivers for wounded warriors.
Almost 18,000 men and women have been wounded so badly in Iraq and Afghanistan that they could not return to duty.
The good news is that medical advances and improved technology allowed so many to survive who might not have made it home from past conflicts. But it also means that many are left with injuries that will require critical care for the rest of their lives.
You know as well as I do that long after the wars are over; after the welcome home parades; after the memorials are built and the streets renamed; you and your fellow veterans organizations will still be needed out there demanding that these wounded warriors get the care they need years and decades from now.
I’m counting on you. An entire generation of veterans—my son’s generation—is counting on you. We owe them nothing less, because the warriors we sent to Iraq and Afghanistan have served as ably as any generation of fighting men and women in our nation’s history.
But the sacred obligation I mentioned earlier extends also to those who share the burden of veterans’ service. That is why First Lady Michele Obama, and my wife, Jill, are leading an unprecedented push for our nation to support and engage military families.
Over nearly a decade, military families have endured multiple deployments, and the wrenching toll that absence takes. When our son Beau was in Iraq, Jill and I came to understand what the poet John Milton meant when he wrote, and I quote: “They also serve, who only stand and wait.”
Our military families do far more than stand and wait. We owe them for their service to our country. And we must acknowledge and repay that debt. It is no secret that today more than ever, a small fraction of our citizens bear the lion’s share of the cost our wars have imposed.
The call to duty has been answered by a new generation of heroes every bit as honorable as those who came before.
Heroes like Lt. Col. Chris Kolenda, whom I met on a far-flung FOB in a remote corner of Kunar Province, Afghanistan, a few miles from the Pakistan border. With the heart of a warrior and the precision of a cultural anthropologist, he and his soldiers talked me through the myriad tribes and sub-tribes that inhabited his terrain, and the near-constant enemy fire they endured every night sitting on that exposed mountaintop.
Heroes like the seven service members who last week were awarded the Silver Star for valorous acts more awe-inspiring than anything Hollywood could have conjured.
One of them, Sergeant First Class David Nunez, was traveling through the Afghan village of Shewan on May 29, 2008, when insurgents attacked. His body engulfed in flames, he sought to save his comrades’ lives by ridding his damaged vehicle of ammunition and explosives, until he made the ultimate sacrifice.
These stories are chapters in the greatest epic of our age. They will inspire future warriors as surely as did those in this room who fought and bled in wars gone by. And our enemies should take them as irrefutable proof of our resolve in the face of the threats we now confront.
As President Obama said upon taking office: “Our spirit is strong and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.”
On behalf of a grateful nation, I thank all of our troops—and all of you here today—for giving life to those words, and for sacrificing so much for your country. God Bless you. God bless all our troops around the world. And God Bless the United States of America.
Sunday Open Thread
WSJ: The 1.6% RecoveryWashington Times: Summer sizzles, economy fizzlesCNBC: Most Executives Don?t See Recession Ending Until 2011IBD: Reform We Can UseNoah Feldman: Iraq's Road to Stability: A Very Long EngagementLAT: Marines in Afghanistan prepared for a long haul
Monday, August 30, 2010
Glenn Beck 'Restoring Honor' Rally Draws Tens of Thousands to National Mall
On the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, at the spot Martin Luther King Jr. spoke 47 years ago, conservative commentator Glenn Beck told a huge "Restoring Honor" rally Saturday that the United States has "wandered in the darkness" for too long.
Beck is a widely-watched Fox News personality and dogged critic of President Obama. But on Saturday, he drew a line from the biblical Moses to George Washington to Abraham Lincoln -- whose statue loomed behind him -- to King who gave his "I have a dream" speech in 1963, launching the modern civil rights movement. Beck's decision to schedule his rally on the anniversary angered some African America leaders, but he said it was not intentional and attributed the date to "divine providence."
New York civil rights leader Al Sharpton planned a march and counter-rally at the Tidal Basin, several long blocks away from the Beck event.
Beck said what was happening at his rally had nothing to do with politics "and everything to do with God." The crowd -- tens of thousands, many clutching American flags -- spilled from the Lincoln Memorial all way down to the Washington Monument. "Something that is beyond imagination is happening," Beck said. "America today begins to turn back to God."
Former Alaska Gov, Sarah Palin also spoke, as the "mother of a soldier." The event was billed as a "Salute to Veterans" and Palin's son Track served in the U.S. Army in Iraq. Palin said she felt the "spirit" of Martin Luther King Jr. "We must not fundamentally transform American as some would want us to do," she said.
On a comfortable, sunny day in the nation's capital, the predominantly white crowd soaked it all up and occasionally broke into change of "USA. USA." Organizers had a permit for a gathering of 300,000, the AP said.
Obama Picks Xavier University for Katrina Speech; Catholic Critics Are Mum
President Obama will make his centerpiece address on Sunday's fifth anniversary of the Hurricane Katrina disaster at Xavier University, a Catholic school in New Orleans. But unlike his highly controversial appearance at Notre Dame last year, this event appears to be generating far less outrage from bishops and the Catholic right.
All the elements for a dust-up are certainly there:
The Catholic hierarchy strongly opposes Obama's positions on abortion rights and stem cell research, for example, issues they say override the many agreements they have with him on domestic and foreign policy. Moreover, Obama is far less popular today than he was in May 2009 when he was the commencement speaker at Notre Dame, and he has taken steps that have infuriated Catholic leaders, most notably passing health care reform.
In addition, Xavier officials did not even bother to invite New Orleans Archbishop Gregory Aymond.
"He was not in any way consulted, invited -- nor will he attend the event with President Obama at Xavier," Sarah McDonald, spokesperson for Aymond, told Fox News. McDonald directed inquiries about the matter to the White House, which isn't talking.
Guests will include other prominent Louisiana Catholics, including Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal, freshman GOP Congressman Anh "Joseph" Cao," and Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu and her brother, New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu.
So what's going on?
Several factors seem to be at work in making this something other than the Obama-Catholic flashpoint many would expect.
One is that the speech is connected to the Katrina recovery more than Obama himself, and Obama's response to the disaster -- and the the Gulf Spill -- has been praised by Jindal and many others. Katrina was such a trauma to the Crescent City that even Obama's detractors are unlikely to use the occasion of his visit to criticize him and thus detract from the celebration of the city's recovery, exemplified by the remarkable strides made by Xavier University itself since 2005.
"The archbishop did note . . . that this is not a political speech, but one that is a gesture of compassion for and solidarity with the people of New Orleans, and Xavier University of New Orleans is often used by the mayor and public officials for such events," McDonald told CNSNews.org, also a conservative media outlet.
Moreover, Xavier is the nation's only historically black Roman Catholic institution of higher learning, and Obama was awarded an honorary degree and delivered the commencement address in 2006, after the bishops had adopted a 2004 policy against Catholic institutions honoring any pro-choice pols. Catholic officials seem to recognize that blasting Xavier for hosting the first African-American president now would strike a discordant note, to say the least.
Even the head of the Cardinal Newman Society, a watchdog group that often leads protests against Catholic colleges for their choice of speakers or for not promoting orthodoxy and conservative values, conceded that the context of the Katrina remembrance had tempered efforts to make the Xavier appearance controversial.
"Notre Dame was much greater of honor, happened immediately after a hotly contested election and it was Notre Dame -- much more attention to it," said Patrick Reilly, head of the society.
Press Briefing by Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton and Assistant to The President for Counterterrorism and Homeland Security John Brennan
1:00 P.M. EDT
MR. BURTON: Good afternoon. Thank you guys for coming. Welcome back to Martha’s Vineyard. Once again, the President wanted me to extend his thanks and appreciation to the folks of Martha’s Vineyard for their hospitality, for the good food here, for what nice folks run the shops, and once again, appreciates that last year there was so much respect for the First Family’s privacy, and especially the girls, as they had such a good time here.
So today I have with me John Brennan, who will talk a little bit about this first anniversary of the release of the mastermind behind the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie.
MR. BRENNAN: Good afternoon, everyone. As Bill said, today is the one-year anniversary of the unfortunate, inappropriate and wrong decision by the Scottish executive to release Abdel Basset Mohamed al-Megrahi, a Libyan national who was rightly convicted and sentenced to life in prison for his role in the bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, on 21 December 1988. That reprehensible act of terrorism claimed the lives of 270 innocent individuals, including 189 U.S. citizens.
We have made clear repeatedly that we emphatically disagree with that decision to release Megrahi. We made that position known before the decision was made by the Scottish executive, and we’ve continued to make that decision, the wrongness of that decision, clear to both Scottish and Libyan authorities.
We’ve expressed our strong conviction that al-Megrahi should serve out the remainder, the entirety, of his sentence in a Scottish prison. We will continue to reiterate this position to the Scottish and Libyan authorities. And the President extends his deepest sympathies to those affected by that reprehensible act of terrorism, especially those families and friends of the victims of that tragic act. Thank you.
I also would draw your attention to the statement that was released this morning by Secretary of State Clinton on the release of Megrahi.
MR. BURTON: All right, with that, Erica.
Q Mr. Brennan, other than making your displeasure clear repeatedly, which you’ve done since the outset, are there any concrete steps that you can take or are taking?
MR. BRENNAN: Well, as I think I said, it is our view that Megrahi should serve out the remainder of his sentence in a Scottish prison, which would require his return to Scotland. Clearly, the prognosis of his near-term demise that prompted the decision by the Scottish executive to have this compassionate release -- and we certainly take umbrage at that reference to compassion, because Megrahi did not have any compassion at all for those victims -- so we are continuing to convey our sentiments to the Scottish authorities. We’ll continue to call for his return to Scotland and that he serves out his prison sentence there.
Q But other than conveying your sentiments, is there anything concrete that you can do or are doing?
MR. BRENNAN: Clearly, this was a decision in the license for his release, which was an act by the Scottish authorities. We have conveyed to the Scottish authorities our position, and has Prime Minister Cameron, who was here, and this was an issue that came up during his recent visit. So we are continuing to make clear our position. I’ll leave it at that.
Q And do you have any new information about any possible involvement by BP in this whole matter?
MR. BRENNAN: This act was looked at very carefully by the court that convicted Megrahi, and the culprit in this attack is very clear. And I will leave it, again, at that. Again, what we’re focused on today is the regrettable decision of the Scottish authorities to release Megrahi.
MR. BURTON: All right, we’re going to get right back after Alister.
Q Mr. Brennan, I wonder if I could ask a question about Mr. Bout, Viktor Bout. Is that a subject you can talk to?
MR. BRENNAN: Viktor Bout, yes.
Q Viktor Bout. Does the administration have any concern that his extradition may yet hit an obstacle in getting him back quickly to the United States?
MR. BRENNAN: The Thai appellate court on 20 August upheld the extradition request, or concurred that he could be extradited to the United States. We appreciate very much that decision. Viktor Bout is somebody who for two decades was responsible for arms trafficking and supporting terrorist organizations on multiple continents -- South America, in Africa and in Asia. He was arrested in March of 2008. We have sought his extradition so he could be tried in New York. We are very pleased with the cooperation of Thai authorities. And we are looking forward to his expeditious return here.
This is something that a number of governments throughout the world believe is very important so that we’re able to stop these illegal arms traffickers from carrying out their activities, which are undergirding the ability of terrorist organizations and other groups to carry out attacks worldwide.
Q Do you think there’s any problem -- do you expect there to be any obstacle in him being speedily removed back to the United States?
MR. BRENNAN: The Thai appellate court overruled the decision of a lower court, so we are very pleased and we are very hopeful that this will be able to be carried out in a very short time.
MR. BURTON: Jake.
Q I was wondering, some of the critics -- or some of the supporters of the Islamic center, the proposed Islamic center in lower Manhattan, have said that the opposition to it could fuel anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world. And I’m -- being that this has gone on now for several weeks, I’m wondering have you detected any of that? Have America’s enemies been using this as a propaganda tool -- the opposition to the Islamic center?
MR. BRENNAN: We’re staying focused on countering terrorist threats wherever they might develop. And there are a number of reasons that terrorist groups will point to, many of them unfounded. And indeed, we are continuing to prosecute the war against al Qaeda very effectively in many different parts of the world.
So we are continuing to stay focused on that. There are a number of opportunities that we have with our partners to continue to have success against al Qaeda. We really have had the opportunity over the past year to undercut a number of their capabilities, and we continue to do so.
So the debate over what’s going on in New York City is something that I’m not really focused on at this point. I’m focused on making sure that we can keep the American people safe and prevent these terrorist groups from carrying out attacks here or anywhere.
Q But I’m not asking to wade into the debate. I’m just wondering if -- because supporters of the project have said opposition to it will affect the efforts at counterterrorism by the U.S. Have you seen any evidence of that?
MR. BRENNAN: I have not seen evidence of that to date.
Q And in terms of Megrahi, I’m wondering -- there have been diplomatic efforts with Libya in the past few years -- I’m wondering if that is at all a means to urge the government, either by stepping back from the diplomatic inroads that have been made, or using the new relationship in some way to get him back in that Scottish prison.
MR. BRENNAN: We’ve continued to have effective and productive diplomatic exchanges with Libya on a variety of issues, including counterproliferation -- counterterrorism as well. We will use those diplomatic channels to convey our sentiments on a broad range of issues, to include Mr. al-Megrahi.
MR. BURTON: Chip. Oh, Jake.
Q Is there anything you wanted to say about the announcement today that Secretary of State Clinton has made about the peace talks -- the Arab and the Palestinian and Israeli --
MR. BURTON: No, nothing in particular. Obviously we’re pleased that this is something that the United States -- with President Obama, to Secretary Clinton, to George Mitchell -- have been working on for a very long time, and we’re obviously pleased it’s moving forward.
If you have anything to add?
MR. BRENNAN: No.
MR. BURTON: Chip.
Q If I could ask Mr. Brennan on that exact topic, on the Middle East. When the parties come to the table, do you see any change in the kinds of threats and the number of threats you see from around the world? Is that something that’s encouraging, from your point of view?
MR. BRENNAN: Well, I think Senator Mitchell said it quite well at his press briefing this morning, that what we can’t do is to allow extremist militants and those who are opposed to peace in the Middle East prevent these negotiations from moving forward. And for too long I think the extremists have been able to hold certain activities hostage because of their acts.
We are going forward with this with a strong sense that these talks can succeed. There is a commitment now by the Israelis to participate in it. We’re hoping that the Palestinians are going to agree shortly to participate as well. And so what we need to do is to make sure that all sides remain committed for these talks over the next year.
And there may be militant groups out there, terrorist organizations that will point to this as yet one more reason for them to carry out their cowardice acts. But I know the United States is not going to be deterred from its role in facilitating these talks, direct talks between the parties. And I certainly hope and I know the President and this administration hopes that all sides will remain committed, irrespective of what these extremist organizations or militant groups might say or even do.
Q Will you be briefing the President every day here? And do you do those in person? Is it multiple times a day, or just one time a day? How much time do you expect to spend with him every day?
MR. BRENNAN: I briefed the President this morning. I flew up with the President yesterday on the plane. Any time that I have anything that I need to convey to the President, I can do it very quickly. I can be in touch with him a number of times during the day. And I anticipate that that will be the same throughout the course of the time here on the island.
Q And most of that is face to face?
MR. BRENNAN: I was out at the farm this morning, but a lot of it is -- whatever means that I have in order to get information to him as quickly as possible, if there is a need for that, I have that ability to do so.
Q And the topics include? (Laughter.)
MR. BRENNAN: All the things that you would expect to be included in a national security briefing.
Q Can I follow on that, please?
MR. BURTON: And probably a lot you don’t expect.
Q Like what?
Q I’m completely serious -- is the threshold by which you decide, “Well, I need to talk to the President,” change at all because we’re in vacation mode here?
MR. BRENNAN: There are a number of issues that the President is following very, very closely, and expects to be kept informed about developments on those issues. I am working very closely with those who are at the White House, with our team here, to make sure that I have full visibility into those national security issues. And then I will make the determination, in consultation with others. General Jones is also involved in moving forward on national security issues. And so what I need to do is make the decision about whether something needs to get to the President immediately, or whether it’s something that I can wait until the next scheduled briefing for.
Q Abdulmutallab happened while he was on vacation in Hawaii. Is there any disadvantage to having the President on vacation when something like that happens?
MR. BRENNAN: Communication systems are very robust. We can move information at the speed of light. We can get to him very easily here. I have immediate access if I need that. So if there were to be some type of event that would require immediate engagement with the President, I am certain I can do it as quickly as I could do back in Washington.
MR. BURTON: And I would just add to your question, Mike, that along with the national security briefings that the President is receiving, he also has quite robust economic daily briefings that he’s receiving from his team. And he’s always picking up the phone and calling his advisors and folks to talk about the economy as well, especially when there’s new news to be had.
Dan.
Q There is this level of optimism that these talks, direct talks, will succeed. What is the basis for that? I mean, what’s going to be making -- what’s making it different this time around?
MR. BRENNAN: Well, as you know, Senator Mitchell has been involved of the past year plus in engaging with the parties -- the Israelis, the Palestinians and others -- to lay the groundwork and the framework for these talks to be able to take place.
There is a feeling, I think, within this administration that the parties have a strong commitment to forging peace that can endure in the region. There are a number of issues that are outstanding. It was made very clear that there are no preconditions to these talks.
But again, Senator Mitchell has worked day and night for quite a while, working with the parties involved in this, and the sense is that the time is right to move forward. I think Senator Mitchell said no time is ever perfect or right, but what we need to do is to make sure that we’re able to move forward with a sense of commitment and dedication.
And the President has made very clear that peace in the Middle East, particularly between Israel and the Palestinians, is central to U.S. interests but it’s also central to the security interests of the Palestinian people, the Israelis, as well as the region as a whole. So we are very hopeful.
MR. BURTON: Let me come back to you.
Major.
Q Mr. Brennan, a couple things. The New York Times reported this morning that the U.S. has reassured Israel on the immediacy or the timeline it believes a nuclearized Iran could pose to Israel. Can you comment on whether or not you endorse that point of view, how that point of view has been conveyed, what reaction there has been from Israeli officials?
MR. BRENNAN: I’m not going to address any Israeli assessments of the Iranian nuclear program, nor will I address in open forum here our assessments of that, other than to say that we are very concerned about Iran’s continued refusal to engage constructively with the P5-plus-1, to demonstrate through actions that its nuclear program is peaceful.
And we are continuing to move forward, applying pressure to Iran, to make sure that they’re able to see that it is in their own interest and to their benefit that they deal constructively with the international community on this very important issue.
So clearly we are very concerned about Iran’s continued activity in this area. But again, I will leave the assessments sort of off the table at this point.
Q Well, the reason I ask is when we checked at State, CIA, the Pentagon, they said you’ve got to go to the White House on this story, that this is a White House action taken on behalf of a White House assessment of either new intelligence or a new appraisal of where Iran is technologically. Is there anything the White House has detected that can be described even generically as new and important as it understands the timeline of this potential threat?
MR. BRENNAN: We are encouraged by the international support for the sanctions regime. We also, though, realize that in addition to maintaining that sanctions regime on Iran, that we need to stay focused on preventing Iran from having a nuclear capability. That is what our engagement has been with regional players, with our allies in the region and in the international community. And we’ll continue to do that.
So we are looking at this issue very carefully. We’re monitoring it carefully as well. We’re continuing to stay in very close dialogue with countries in the region, including Israel, on the status of Iran’s nuclear program. We’ll continue to do so. But again, what we need to do is to make sure that we’re able to convince Iran, with the international community, that it needs to abide by its international obligations -- something that it has to date refused to do.
Q You mentioned you’re constantly monitoring counterterrorism threats. I wondered if you’ve had time since the al-Shabaab took responsibility for the attack at the end of -- or near the end of the World Cup, what you’ve learned, if anything, more about that? And do you -- as some counterterrorism analysts now suspect that was kind of a breakout action on their part, to take them out of what would be a confined area of terrorist activities to one that’s more broadly -- that, one, makes them much more of a -- if not a regional player, perhaps a more lethal player outside of the particular confines it had operated in earlier.
MR. BRENNAN: Well, obviously we’re very concerned about the demonstrated ability of certain groups in that region -- al-Shabaab had claimed responsibility for that attack -- to carry out attacks outside of Somalia, and concern that it might indicate that there would be a broader effort on the part of some elements of al-Shabaab to carry out attacks.
We’re working very closely with Ugandan officials. The investigation is continuing. We’re working very diligently to prevent similar types of attacks. Al Qaeda has had a presence in Africa for many years. We’re concerned about the relationship that might exist between certain elements within al-Shabaab and al Qaeda. Al Qaeda carried out two attacks against U.S. embassies in Africa over a decade ago.
So clearly, what we need to do is to continue to work with our African partners to maintain pressure on militant groups within Africa that are aligning with al Qaeda. But the attack in Kampala was exceptionally tragic and unfortunate. But what we have done as a result of that is to redouble our efforts as far as working with our African partners in this area, including with the TFG, the transitional government in Somalia.
This is something that requires continued focus and efforts, and what we’re trying to do is to make sure that we’re able to focus on these issues, whether they take place in Africa or taking place in South Asia, Yemen, or other areas. Working with our partners, building capacity, allowing them to take the lead in fighting these terrorist organizations and preventing these attacks is a real priority of this administration.
Q Back to the Middle East, (inaudible) flesh out the President’s role going forward, not the role that he’s played thus far in getting the parties to the table -- going forward. I understand there’s a dinner, for example, the day before. To what extent will he be involved, hands on, in these bridging proposals or stepping in when there are disagreements, and into the direct talks themselves?
MR. BRENNAN: Well, as you said, the President will be hosting a dinner on September 1st. He also will be holding bilateral meetings with the leaders who will be coming here to participate in the talks. The talks themselves will take place on September 2nd. These will be direct talks. As we said, the United States is playing the role of facilitator in this regard. We talked about a one-year timeframe, looking at making progress in that time. And this is the relaunching of those direct talks. And so the process is now ahead of us. The engagement and involvement of the United States is going to stay strong and sustained and at a high level. And the President’s engagement and involvement in the future in these talks will be determined by developments as we go forward.
Q Can I follow on the Middle East?
MR. BURTON: Sure.
Q You say that there’s no preconditions, but has there been any kind of indication or promise from the Israelis about extending this settlement moratorium?
MR. BRENNAN: Well, I think as was said this morning by Secretary Clinton, as well as by Senator Mitchell, that the United States’ position is that we want to make sure that the environment in the region is conducive to making progress on these very fundamental issues that lie in front of us as far as being able to forge a peace between Israel and the Palestinians. The settlement issue is one that the United States government has spoken out on in the past. We have our position on that. We’ve made that position known. And as I said, what we want to do is to make sure that there is going to be an environment that is as conducive to making the progress that we need to make, and that means an environment on both sides that each side then can look to the other and gain additional trust and confidence that there is this commitment to moving forward in a very constructive and productive way
MR. BURTON: Carol.
Q To follow on Mike’s question, can you talk a little bit about what the President is going to ask of Mubarak and King Abdullah? And particularly, if you could, in regards to Hamas, does he want to see new elections --
MR. BRENNAN: President Mubarak of Egypt and King Abdullah of Jordan are the heads of state of the two Arab states that have peace treaties with Israel. And therefore, their involvement in this and encouragement of the Palestinians is important.
There has been I think extensive consultation, not just with those two leaders but also with other Arab leaders, to ensure that Palestinians feel as though they can move forward with confidence knowing that they have that support from their Arab partners.
So when the Palestinians come, and President Mubarak and King Abdullah come, it is with a sense that this is something that is important not just for the Palestinian and Israeli people but also for the region as a whole.
As far as what will be asked of them, this is something, again, that is going to move forward as direct talks between the Palestinians and the Israelis. The United States, Egypt, Jordan, others -- the Quartet -- are all going to be helping both sides to bridge the differences that exist right now. And again, it’s going to be one -- a role of encouragement, making sure that the parties are able to move forward knowing that the international community supports their efforts to reach a peace agreement.
MR. BURTON: Scott.
Q Yes. Mr. Brennan, you talked about the importance of resolving this conflict of security of the Palestinians and the Israelis. There’s also been a change of focus, I believe, by the administration, that it very much is in the United States’ national security interest, given its longstanding support of Israel, at a time when the President is reaching out to the Islamic world. How important is resolving this to -- directly to the American national security?
MR. BRENNAN: I think it’s been the United States’ position for decades that continuation of hostilities in the Middle East is inimical to U.S. interests, and that’s why we have been an active player over the years -- instrumental in the peace treaty that was reached between Israel and Egypt; heavily involved in the engagement between Israel and Jordan as well.
We recognize that it is not just in the national security interests of Israel and the Palestinians. It’s in the national security interests of the neighboring states of Lebanon, Syria, other Arab countries, as well as with the international community. It also is something that unfortunately has been used by some organizations to try to rationalize their acts of violence, which under no circumstances can be justified. But we recognize that the continuation of the Israeli-Palestinian divide and disagreements can be a source of problems in the region that are directly -- directly affect U.S. interests.
So this is something that there has been a longstanding U.S. commitment to engage with the Israelis and Palestinians on. Previous administrations have dedicated much effort and energy to this, and the Obama administration is carrying this tradition on. Senator Mitchell has done wondrous work over the last year and a half to lay the ground work so that today’s announcement and hopefully the convening of these talks can take place at the beginning of September.
Q Can you talk a little bit more about how the President is staying on top of economic issues on vacation? Who’s briefing him in person? Are these briefings longer because he’s not face to face with advisors?
MR. BURTON: I would say that most of the information that he’s getting is on paper. His economic team back in Washington is sending on memos and important updates on what’s happening on the economy as they happen. I know that he spent some time this morning with some of those economic memos in particular.
And while he’s here he’ll of course pick up the phone and call members of his economic team, and if at any point during the trip it makes sense to read them out, I’ll do that. But I would say that that’s the way key way he’s getting his information.
Q And also, the Tax Relief Coalition, this group of a thousand companies, are saying that letting tax cuts expire is going to hurt business, small businesses in particular. Do you have anything to say about that?
MR. BURTON: I can’t respond to the specific comments from this group that I’m just now hearing about. But I will say the President’s feelings on this are that the people who need relief right now are middle-class families, and what we need to do is get help to small businesses so that we’re creating an environment where those businesses can create jobs.
The Wall Street Journal yesterday had a report that the President commented on, showing that the big problem in our economy is that the people who can create the most jobs aren’t able to get the resources they need in order to bring on new folks, pay for benefits and that sort of thing.
So that’s why the President has been talking about the small business bill. That’s why he thinks that as soon as the Senate gets back, Republican obstruction needs to stop, they need to get it done, and we need to keep this economy moving in the right direction.
Jackie.
Q One more?
MR. BURTON: I’m sorry?
Q Back here?
MR. BURTON: Yes, Knoller.
Q Mr. Brennan --
MR. BURTON: Is this on the same topic?
Q Say again?
MR. BURTON: Is this on the same topic?
Q Sure.
MR. BURTON: Okay, because I’d already called on Jackie. So it’s awkward now. (Laughter.)
Q I didn’t mean to interrupt. I thought she was done.
MR. BURTON: Okay, one quick second.
Jackie.
Q What contacts, if any, have there been with Senator Kerry amid his trip to Afghanistan? Is there any reaction to the statement that Hamid Karzai has agreed to let the anti-corruption probe go forward independently?
MR. BRENNAN: Obviously the administration is staying very close in touch with Senator Kerry. We’re encouraged by the Afghan government’s and President Karzai’s continued interest in rooting out corruption in that country, which stands in the way of Afghanistan being able to realize its full potential.
So this is something that there is regular and constant interaction with our embassy inside of Kabul, but also with Senator Kerry as he has gone out to the region in Afghanistan -- as well as the situation in Pakistan, the very tragic flooding there, and the additional U.S. aid that is going to Pakistan. This is something that Senator Kerry has been also very much involved in.
Q Have you spoken to Senator Kerry?
MR. BRENNAN: I have not personally, no.
Q What is he -- who is he in touch with, with the administration?
MR. BRENNAN: A range of individuals. I would -- on any given day he would be in touch with different types of people.
Q But mostly over there in the embassy and --
MR. BRENNAN: Well, with the people out there in the region, but also he is a regular interlocutor of General Jones and other individuals at the White House to keep him fully informed and abreast of developments here, but also to make sure that we have an understanding of the engagements and discussions that he has had in the region.
MR. BURTON: All right, Mark.
Q Mr. Brennan, I know Russia is one of the Quartet. Can you describe Russia’s role in bringing about these -- relaunch of the peace talks? Is Russia playing a helpful role?
MR. BRENNAN: Well, the Quartet’s statement is -- provides some additional context for the relaunching of these direct talks. Russia also has a very strong interest in seeing the Israelis and the Palestinians reach understandings and agreements on the issues that lie between them.
So Russia has been engaged in this effort. The President and other senior officials within this administration continue to engage with the Russians. Senator Mitchell pointed out that Foreign Minister Lavrov of Russia played a very helpful role in getting to this point. So we see the Russians as partners in this effort as part of the Quartet.
Q Bill --
MR. BURTON: Yes.
Q Vice President Biden --
Q We’re not done with him, right?
MR. BURTON: We’re not. (Laughter.)
Q Okay.
Q On the last day of the general session of the DNC in St. Louis, Vice President Biden gave a speech today in which he said a couple things I want to get your reaction to, if possible. One, he projected that Democrats would retain control of the House and the Senate. He said “If it weren’t illegal,” he would “make book on it.” He also described the previous administration as “presiding over a Ponzi scheme that masqueraded as a vision.” And he also said that this is not -- “this ain’t,” rather, “your father’s Republican party.” He called it the past -- or the new Republican agenda in the midterm elections “the past on steroids.” Does the White House agree with these characterizations of the opposition party, and does it fit within the overall matrix of trying to rise above the day-to-day tit-for-tat of politics?
MR. BURTON: Well, I can tell you I didn’t see the Vice President’s speech in total.
Q Do you wish you had?
MR. BURTON: It sounds like it was a great speech, but far be it for me to comment on what the Vice President says. He obviously speaks for the administration. As it relates to -- what was the first quote that you had there?
Q “If it weren’t illegal,” he would “make book on” Democrats retaining control of both the House and the Senate.
MR. BURTON: Just on that specific point, and I’m sure that you guys could probably get a side bet going on that if you wanted to, but --
Q I’m not a betting man.
MR. BURTON: I’ve heard differently. (Laughter.) The President’s view is that --
Q About the House and Senate. (Laughter.)
MR. BURTON: These midterm elections coming up give the American people a choice about what direction they want to go in. Do they want to keep moving forward with these policies that have helped us to make progress and move the economy in the right direction, help us to make progress to make it stronger to create an environment where people are creating jobs again, or are we going to go back to the policies of the past that have got us into this crisis?
So of course the President agrees with the notion that given that choice, the American people are going to continue to want to move forward.
Q Is he comfortable with calling the Bush administration someone who presided over a Ponzi scheme that masqueraded as a vision?
MR. BURTON: Like I said, I haven’t seen the speech in and of itself, but far be it for me to comment on something the Vice President said out of context.
All right, the end?
Q For Mr. Brennan.
MR. BURTON: Okay, Chip.
Q On a different topic, there have been reports from some quarters that there is a thawing relationship between al Qaeda and Iran, and there are some concerns that the peace process and this talk of Israel attacking Iran could drag them closer together. Is that a concern of you and the White House?
MR. BRENNAN: I think we’re concerned about any efforts by al Qaeda to try to forge relationships with either other groups or with nation states. And we are concerned about certain activities in that region. Iran does border Afghanistan. There is a flow of individuals in that area. We are expressing our concerns to the countries in the region about the threat that al Qaeda poses. There clearly are, though, some confessional differences between al Qaeda, a Sunni organization, and Iran, which is mainly Shia. But that doesn’t mean that we are not looking very carefully at any types of relationships that might exist between al Qaeda and other entities, be they groups or states.
Q Is there a growing relationship between the two?
MR. BRENNAN: I wouldn’t characterize it that way. I would just underscore the importance of making sure that we’re able to maintain our monitoring of al Qaeda’s efforts to try to establish footholds in other areas of the world, as continued pressure is put on them in their safe havens.
MR. BURTON: Jake.
Q Franklin Graham told CNN that President Obama -- the reason so many Americans seem to believe President Obama is a Muslim is because he was born a Muslim, his father was Muslim, the seed of Muslim has passed through the father, he’s renounced Islam, he’s accepted Jesus, but the confusion is because his father is a Muslim. Since he’s a major religious figure in this country, I was wondering if you guys had any response to that.
MR. BURTON: Far be it for me to comment on someone’s characterization of what some people said in a poll. I can’t say why people necessarily change their mind in this poll. I can’t say why folks even answer the question when pollsters call. But the President is a committed Christian. I think that the American people know that. And Franklin Graham is certainly entitled to his opinion.
Yes.
Q Can I ask you something quick about health care, these allies of the White House that are switching their focus on how they’re presenting the discussion off of reduced costs and on to --
MR. BURTON: Sure.
Q Can you comment on that? Is that something that you -- the White House is supportive of, thinks is a good idea? Will this be the President’s message --
MR. BURTON: Is the White House supportive of the slideshow?
Q Well, the notion, the idea, the messaging.
MR. BURTON: Well, what we’ve seen at the White House is that the American people want the health care reform to be given a chance to succeed, but know that -- and we’re making sure that folks do know that -- that health care reform includes things like making sure that kids can still get health insurance, even if they have a preexisting condition; that young adults can stay on their parents’ health care for a longer time than they could previously; that consumers are protected.
There’s been a range of polling on this issue, and you see different things in different polls. But overall -- and especially when you look at the specific elements -- people want these reforms to succeed. And if people are given the choice between letting these things move forward, letting them succeed, versus what I’ve heard from the Republicans, which is that they want to repeal it, people are going to -- people will choose to make sure that this moves forward and that our health care system is in much better shape; that insurance companies aren’t in the driver’s seat, and that people are covered and have access to care.
Q Will the President be talking about it in these terms of improving upon the legislation, or are we going to see him doing that?
MR. BURTON: I mean, I haven’t seen the entire slideshow. I’ve seen the reports about it. The President is going to continue to talk about it the way that he has talked about it, which is that we settled a hundred-year-old question on whether or not we were going to have health care reform in this country, and we’re going to move forward with implementing it.
Q Bill, back on just the President and his faith in that poll, one of the reasons cited by many is that we don’t often see the President going to church on Sunday. Where is the First Family in their decision to find a congregation? Is that still an active search, or have they sort of settled into a way of worship that they do now?
MR. BURTON: Well, as -- the President has addressed this some, that by the President choosing a church, it does put undue pressure on that congregation, and it makes it a lot harder for folks to get into the church and to worship without the glare of all you guys coming along with them to be a part of that service. He prays every day. He talks to a wide range of pastors and religious leaders periodically. He’s in contact with his religious advisor every single day, Joshua DuBois. And he’s going to continue to get that kind of spiritual guidance when he can. When he’s up at Camp David he obviously attends a chapel there, as we’ve said.
And you’ll see him in church again. I mean, he’s been to church as President. He’ll go to church once again. But he is getting spiritual guidance on a regular basis.
Q Okay. And on a lighter side, he bought the Franzen novel today. What’s he reading? Did he read the corrections? What’s he interested in -- in downtime here in times we’re not seeing him?
MR. BURTON: I don’t know exactly what he’s going to read. I think that book is probably a good -- is probably a good guess. “Freedom.” But I don’t know for sure. I think that he’s -- he brought a series of books. I’m not sure which ones he’s going to read, or even all the books that he brought. But while he’s here he’s probably going to spend some time playing some basketball out where he’s staying, going to the beach. I have a feeling he’s going to get some ice cream. He’s a big fan of the ice cream on this island.
So I think it’s going to be just like last year where he’ll wake up in the morning and kind of decide what he and the family are going to do that day.
Q He also bought “The Red Pony.” Was that for him?
MR. BURTON: I appreciate the question. I’ll have to get back to you. It wasn’t.
Q Do the girls have any friends or cousins here with them?
MR. BURTON: Not that I know of.
Did you have a question?
Q I was just curious, is there any contrast between the vacation this year and last year, in your mind? I mean, is he more interested in sort of staying closer to home? He didn’t go out last night. I know that was just the first night, but the family had been separated over a period of time. Is there any sort of different aim for this vacation in comparison to last year’s?
MR. BURTON: Well, I would say the difference between last year’s vacation and this year’s is that since his vacation, the automotive industry is back on its feet, health care reform has passed, and the economy is now moving in a different direction than it was moving in before. But his goals for his time here are the same.
Q Mr. Brennan, do you get any down time, or is it all work and no play?
MR. BURTON: Look at this guy. Do you think he’s got down time? (Laughter.)
MR. BRENNAN: I don’t do down time.
Q That’s your casual outfit? (Laughter.)
Q Back on the mosque, Governor Paterson has suggested a land swap so that it could be moved further away from Ground Zero. Any reaction from the White House?
MR. BURTON: Nope.
Thank you.
END
1:38 P.M. EDT
MR. BURTON: Good afternoon. Thank you guys for coming. Welcome back to Martha’s Vineyard. Once again, the President wanted me to extend his thanks and appreciation to the folks of Martha’s Vineyard for their hospitality, for the good food here, for what nice folks run the shops, and once again, appreciates that last year there was so much respect for the First Family’s privacy, and especially the girls, as they had such a good time here.
So today I have with me John Brennan, who will talk a little bit about this first anniversary of the release of the mastermind behind the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie.
MR. BRENNAN: Good afternoon, everyone. As Bill said, today is the one-year anniversary of the unfortunate, inappropriate and wrong decision by the Scottish executive to release Abdel Basset Mohamed al-Megrahi, a Libyan national who was rightly convicted and sentenced to life in prison for his role in the bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, on 21 December 1988. That reprehensible act of terrorism claimed the lives of 270 innocent individuals, including 189 U.S. citizens.
We have made clear repeatedly that we emphatically disagree with that decision to release Megrahi. We made that position known before the decision was made by the Scottish executive, and we’ve continued to make that decision, the wrongness of that decision, clear to both Scottish and Libyan authorities.
We’ve expressed our strong conviction that al-Megrahi should serve out the remainder, the entirety, of his sentence in a Scottish prison. We will continue to reiterate this position to the Scottish and Libyan authorities. And the President extends his deepest sympathies to those affected by that reprehensible act of terrorism, especially those families and friends of the victims of that tragic act. Thank you.
I also would draw your attention to the statement that was released this morning by Secretary of State Clinton on the release of Megrahi.
MR. BURTON: All right, with that, Erica.
Q Mr. Brennan, other than making your displeasure clear repeatedly, which you’ve done since the outset, are there any concrete steps that you can take or are taking?
MR. BRENNAN: Well, as I think I said, it is our view that Megrahi should serve out the remainder of his sentence in a Scottish prison, which would require his return to Scotland. Clearly, the prognosis of his near-term demise that prompted the decision by the Scottish executive to have this compassionate release -- and we certainly take umbrage at that reference to compassion, because Megrahi did not have any compassion at all for those victims -- so we are continuing to convey our sentiments to the Scottish authorities. We’ll continue to call for his return to Scotland and that he serves out his prison sentence there.
Q But other than conveying your sentiments, is there anything concrete that you can do or are doing?
MR. BRENNAN: Clearly, this was a decision in the license for his release, which was an act by the Scottish authorities. We have conveyed to the Scottish authorities our position, and has Prime Minister Cameron, who was here, and this was an issue that came up during his recent visit. So we are continuing to make clear our position. I’ll leave it at that.
Q And do you have any new information about any possible involvement by BP in this whole matter?
MR. BRENNAN: This act was looked at very carefully by the court that convicted Megrahi, and the culprit in this attack is very clear. And I will leave it, again, at that. Again, what we’re focused on today is the regrettable decision of the Scottish authorities to release Megrahi.
MR. BURTON: All right, we’re going to get right back after Alister.
Q Mr. Brennan, I wonder if I could ask a question about Mr. Bout, Viktor Bout. Is that a subject you can talk to?
MR. BRENNAN: Viktor Bout, yes.
Q Viktor Bout. Does the administration have any concern that his extradition may yet hit an obstacle in getting him back quickly to the United States?
MR. BRENNAN: The Thai appellate court on 20 August upheld the extradition request, or concurred that he could be extradited to the United States. We appreciate very much that decision. Viktor Bout is somebody who for two decades was responsible for arms trafficking and supporting terrorist organizations on multiple continents -- South America, in Africa and in Asia. He was arrested in March of 2008. We have sought his extradition so he could be tried in New York. We are very pleased with the cooperation of Thai authorities. And we are looking forward to his expeditious return here.
This is something that a number of governments throughout the world believe is very important so that we’re able to stop these illegal arms traffickers from carrying out their activities, which are undergirding the ability of terrorist organizations and other groups to carry out attacks worldwide.
Q Do you think there’s any problem -- do you expect there to be any obstacle in him being speedily removed back to the United States?
MR. BRENNAN: The Thai appellate court overruled the decision of a lower court, so we are very pleased and we are very hopeful that this will be able to be carried out in a very short time.
MR. BURTON: Jake.
Q I was wondering, some of the critics -- or some of the supporters of the Islamic center, the proposed Islamic center in lower Manhattan, have said that the opposition to it could fuel anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world. And I’m -- being that this has gone on now for several weeks, I’m wondering have you detected any of that? Have America’s enemies been using this as a propaganda tool -- the opposition to the Islamic center?
MR. BRENNAN: We’re staying focused on countering terrorist threats wherever they might develop. And there are a number of reasons that terrorist groups will point to, many of them unfounded. And indeed, we are continuing to prosecute the war against al Qaeda very effectively in many different parts of the world.
So we are continuing to stay focused on that. There are a number of opportunities that we have with our partners to continue to have success against al Qaeda. We really have had the opportunity over the past year to undercut a number of their capabilities, and we continue to do so.
So the debate over what’s going on in New York City is something that I’m not really focused on at this point. I’m focused on making sure that we can keep the American people safe and prevent these terrorist groups from carrying out attacks here or anywhere.
Q But I’m not asking to wade into the debate. I’m just wondering if -- because supporters of the project have said opposition to it will affect the efforts at counterterrorism by the U.S. Have you seen any evidence of that?
MR. BRENNAN: I have not seen evidence of that to date.
Q And in terms of Megrahi, I’m wondering -- there have been diplomatic efforts with Libya in the past few years -- I’m wondering if that is at all a means to urge the government, either by stepping back from the diplomatic inroads that have been made, or using the new relationship in some way to get him back in that Scottish prison.
MR. BRENNAN: We’ve continued to have effective and productive diplomatic exchanges with Libya on a variety of issues, including counterproliferation -- counterterrorism as well. We will use those diplomatic channels to convey our sentiments on a broad range of issues, to include Mr. al-Megrahi.
MR. BURTON: Chip. Oh, Jake.
Q Is there anything you wanted to say about the announcement today that Secretary of State Clinton has made about the peace talks -- the Arab and the Palestinian and Israeli --
MR. BURTON: No, nothing in particular. Obviously we’re pleased that this is something that the United States -- with President Obama, to Secretary Clinton, to George Mitchell -- have been working on for a very long time, and we’re obviously pleased it’s moving forward.
If you have anything to add?
MR. BRENNAN: No.
MR. BURTON: Chip.
Q If I could ask Mr. Brennan on that exact topic, on the Middle East. When the parties come to the table, do you see any change in the kinds of threats and the number of threats you see from around the world? Is that something that’s encouraging, from your point of view?
MR. BRENNAN: Well, I think Senator Mitchell said it quite well at his press briefing this morning, that what we can’t do is to allow extremist militants and those who are opposed to peace in the Middle East prevent these negotiations from moving forward. And for too long I think the extremists have been able to hold certain activities hostage because of their acts.
We are going forward with this with a strong sense that these talks can succeed. There is a commitment now by the Israelis to participate in it. We’re hoping that the Palestinians are going to agree shortly to participate as well. And so what we need to do is to make sure that all sides remain committed for these talks over the next year.
And there may be militant groups out there, terrorist organizations that will point to this as yet one more reason for them to carry out their cowardice acts. But I know the United States is not going to be deterred from its role in facilitating these talks, direct talks between the parties. And I certainly hope and I know the President and this administration hopes that all sides will remain committed, irrespective of what these extremist organizations or militant groups might say or even do.
Q Will you be briefing the President every day here? And do you do those in person? Is it multiple times a day, or just one time a day? How much time do you expect to spend with him every day?
MR. BRENNAN: I briefed the President this morning. I flew up with the President yesterday on the plane. Any time that I have anything that I need to convey to the President, I can do it very quickly. I can be in touch with him a number of times during the day. And I anticipate that that will be the same throughout the course of the time here on the island.
Q And most of that is face to face?
MR. BRENNAN: I was out at the farm this morning, but a lot of it is -- whatever means that I have in order to get information to him as quickly as possible, if there is a need for that, I have that ability to do so.
Q And the topics include? (Laughter.)
MR. BRENNAN: All the things that you would expect to be included in a national security briefing.
Q Can I follow on that, please?
MR. BURTON: And probably a lot you don’t expect.
Q Like what?
Q I’m completely serious -- is the threshold by which you decide, “Well, I need to talk to the President,” change at all because we’re in vacation mode here?
MR. BRENNAN: There are a number of issues that the President is following very, very closely, and expects to be kept informed about developments on those issues. I am working very closely with those who are at the White House, with our team here, to make sure that I have full visibility into those national security issues. And then I will make the determination, in consultation with others. General Jones is also involved in moving forward on national security issues. And so what I need to do is make the decision about whether something needs to get to the President immediately, or whether it’s something that I can wait until the next scheduled briefing for.
Q Abdulmutallab happened while he was on vacation in Hawaii. Is there any disadvantage to having the President on vacation when something like that happens?
MR. BRENNAN: Communication systems are very robust. We can move information at the speed of light. We can get to him very easily here. I have immediate access if I need that. So if there were to be some type of event that would require immediate engagement with the President, I am certain I can do it as quickly as I could do back in Washington.
MR. BURTON: And I would just add to your question, Mike, that along with the national security briefings that the President is receiving, he also has quite robust economic daily briefings that he’s receiving from his team. And he’s always picking up the phone and calling his advisors and folks to talk about the economy as well, especially when there’s new news to be had.
Dan.
Q There is this level of optimism that these talks, direct talks, will succeed. What is the basis for that? I mean, what’s going to be making -- what’s making it different this time around?
MR. BRENNAN: Well, as you know, Senator Mitchell has been involved of the past year plus in engaging with the parties -- the Israelis, the Palestinians and others -- to lay the groundwork and the framework for these talks to be able to take place.
There is a feeling, I think, within this administration that the parties have a strong commitment to forging peace that can endure in the region. There are a number of issues that are outstanding. It was made very clear that there are no preconditions to these talks.
But again, Senator Mitchell has worked day and night for quite a while, working with the parties involved in this, and the sense is that the time is right to move forward. I think Senator Mitchell said no time is ever perfect or right, but what we need to do is to make sure that we’re able to move forward with a sense of commitment and dedication.
And the President has made very clear that peace in the Middle East, particularly between Israel and the Palestinians, is central to U.S. interests but it’s also central to the security interests of the Palestinian people, the Israelis, as well as the region as a whole. So we are very hopeful.
MR. BURTON: Let me come back to you.
Major.
Q Mr. Brennan, a couple things. The New York Times reported this morning that the U.S. has reassured Israel on the immediacy or the timeline it believes a nuclearized Iran could pose to Israel. Can you comment on whether or not you endorse that point of view, how that point of view has been conveyed, what reaction there has been from Israeli officials?
MR. BRENNAN: I’m not going to address any Israeli assessments of the Iranian nuclear program, nor will I address in open forum here our assessments of that, other than to say that we are very concerned about Iran’s continued refusal to engage constructively with the P5-plus-1, to demonstrate through actions that its nuclear program is peaceful.
And we are continuing to move forward, applying pressure to Iran, to make sure that they’re able to see that it is in their own interest and to their benefit that they deal constructively with the international community on this very important issue.
So clearly we are very concerned about Iran’s continued activity in this area. But again, I will leave the assessments sort of off the table at this point.
Q Well, the reason I ask is when we checked at State, CIA, the Pentagon, they said you’ve got to go to the White House on this story, that this is a White House action taken on behalf of a White House assessment of either new intelligence or a new appraisal of where Iran is technologically. Is there anything the White House has detected that can be described even generically as new and important as it understands the timeline of this potential threat?
MR. BRENNAN: We are encouraged by the international support for the sanctions regime. We also, though, realize that in addition to maintaining that sanctions regime on Iran, that we need to stay focused on preventing Iran from having a nuclear capability. That is what our engagement has been with regional players, with our allies in the region and in the international community. And we’ll continue to do that.
So we are looking at this issue very carefully. We’re monitoring it carefully as well. We’re continuing to stay in very close dialogue with countries in the region, including Israel, on the status of Iran’s nuclear program. We’ll continue to do so. But again, what we need to do is to make sure that we’re able to convince Iran, with the international community, that it needs to abide by its international obligations -- something that it has to date refused to do.
Q You mentioned you’re constantly monitoring counterterrorism threats. I wondered if you’ve had time since the al-Shabaab took responsibility for the attack at the end of -- or near the end of the World Cup, what you’ve learned, if anything, more about that? And do you -- as some counterterrorism analysts now suspect that was kind of a breakout action on their part, to take them out of what would be a confined area of terrorist activities to one that’s more broadly -- that, one, makes them much more of a -- if not a regional player, perhaps a more lethal player outside of the particular confines it had operated in earlier.
MR. BRENNAN: Well, obviously we’re very concerned about the demonstrated ability of certain groups in that region -- al-Shabaab had claimed responsibility for that attack -- to carry out attacks outside of Somalia, and concern that it might indicate that there would be a broader effort on the part of some elements of al-Shabaab to carry out attacks.
We’re working very closely with Ugandan officials. The investigation is continuing. We’re working very diligently to prevent similar types of attacks. Al Qaeda has had a presence in Africa for many years. We’re concerned about the relationship that might exist between certain elements within al-Shabaab and al Qaeda. Al Qaeda carried out two attacks against U.S. embassies in Africa over a decade ago.
So clearly, what we need to do is to continue to work with our African partners to maintain pressure on militant groups within Africa that are aligning with al Qaeda. But the attack in Kampala was exceptionally tragic and unfortunate. But what we have done as a result of that is to redouble our efforts as far as working with our African partners in this area, including with the TFG, the transitional government in Somalia.
This is something that requires continued focus and efforts, and what we’re trying to do is to make sure that we’re able to focus on these issues, whether they take place in Africa or taking place in South Asia, Yemen, or other areas. Working with our partners, building capacity, allowing them to take the lead in fighting these terrorist organizations and preventing these attacks is a real priority of this administration.
Q Back to the Middle East, (inaudible) flesh out the President’s role going forward, not the role that he’s played thus far in getting the parties to the table -- going forward. I understand there’s a dinner, for example, the day before. To what extent will he be involved, hands on, in these bridging proposals or stepping in when there are disagreements, and into the direct talks themselves?
MR. BRENNAN: Well, as you said, the President will be hosting a dinner on September 1st. He also will be holding bilateral meetings with the leaders who will be coming here to participate in the talks. The talks themselves will take place on September 2nd. These will be direct talks. As we said, the United States is playing the role of facilitator in this regard. We talked about a one-year timeframe, looking at making progress in that time. And this is the relaunching of those direct talks. And so the process is now ahead of us. The engagement and involvement of the United States is going to stay strong and sustained and at a high level. And the President’s engagement and involvement in the future in these talks will be determined by developments as we go forward.
Q Can I follow on the Middle East?
MR. BURTON: Sure.
Q You say that there’s no preconditions, but has there been any kind of indication or promise from the Israelis about extending this settlement moratorium?
MR. BRENNAN: Well, I think as was said this morning by Secretary Clinton, as well as by Senator Mitchell, that the United States’ position is that we want to make sure that the environment in the region is conducive to making progress on these very fundamental issues that lie in front of us as far as being able to forge a peace between Israel and the Palestinians. The settlement issue is one that the United States government has spoken out on in the past. We have our position on that. We’ve made that position known. And as I said, what we want to do is to make sure that there is going to be an environment that is as conducive to making the progress that we need to make, and that means an environment on both sides that each side then can look to the other and gain additional trust and confidence that there is this commitment to moving forward in a very constructive and productive way
MR. BURTON: Carol.
Q To follow on Mike’s question, can you talk a little bit about what the President is going to ask of Mubarak and King Abdullah? And particularly, if you could, in regards to Hamas, does he want to see new elections --
MR. BRENNAN: President Mubarak of Egypt and King Abdullah of Jordan are the heads of state of the two Arab states that have peace treaties with Israel. And therefore, their involvement in this and encouragement of the Palestinians is important.
There has been I think extensive consultation, not just with those two leaders but also with other Arab leaders, to ensure that Palestinians feel as though they can move forward with confidence knowing that they have that support from their Arab partners.
So when the Palestinians come, and President Mubarak and King Abdullah come, it is with a sense that this is something that is important not just for the Palestinian and Israeli people but also for the region as a whole.
As far as what will be asked of them, this is something, again, that is going to move forward as direct talks between the Palestinians and the Israelis. The United States, Egypt, Jordan, others -- the Quartet -- are all going to be helping both sides to bridge the differences that exist right now. And again, it’s going to be one -- a role of encouragement, making sure that the parties are able to move forward knowing that the international community supports their efforts to reach a peace agreement.
MR. BURTON: Scott.
Q Yes. Mr. Brennan, you talked about the importance of resolving this conflict of security of the Palestinians and the Israelis. There’s also been a change of focus, I believe, by the administration, that it very much is in the United States’ national security interest, given its longstanding support of Israel, at a time when the President is reaching out to the Islamic world. How important is resolving this to -- directly to the American national security?
MR. BRENNAN: I think it’s been the United States’ position for decades that continuation of hostilities in the Middle East is inimical to U.S. interests, and that’s why we have been an active player over the years -- instrumental in the peace treaty that was reached between Israel and Egypt; heavily involved in the engagement between Israel and Jordan as well.
We recognize that it is not just in the national security interests of Israel and the Palestinians. It’s in the national security interests of the neighboring states of Lebanon, Syria, other Arab countries, as well as with the international community. It also is something that unfortunately has been used by some organizations to try to rationalize their acts of violence, which under no circumstances can be justified. But we recognize that the continuation of the Israeli-Palestinian divide and disagreements can be a source of problems in the region that are directly -- directly affect U.S. interests.
So this is something that there has been a longstanding U.S. commitment to engage with the Israelis and Palestinians on. Previous administrations have dedicated much effort and energy to this, and the Obama administration is carrying this tradition on. Senator Mitchell has done wondrous work over the last year and a half to lay the ground work so that today’s announcement and hopefully the convening of these talks can take place at the beginning of September.
Q Can you talk a little bit more about how the President is staying on top of economic issues on vacation? Who’s briefing him in person? Are these briefings longer because he’s not face to face with advisors?
MR. BURTON: I would say that most of the information that he’s getting is on paper. His economic team back in Washington is sending on memos and important updates on what’s happening on the economy as they happen. I know that he spent some time this morning with some of those economic memos in particular.
And while he’s here he’ll of course pick up the phone and call members of his economic team, and if at any point during the trip it makes sense to read them out, I’ll do that. But I would say that that’s the way key way he’s getting his information.
Q And also, the Tax Relief Coalition, this group of a thousand companies, are saying that letting tax cuts expire is going to hurt business, small businesses in particular. Do you have anything to say about that?
MR. BURTON: I can’t respond to the specific comments from this group that I’m just now hearing about. But I will say the President’s feelings on this are that the people who need relief right now are middle-class families, and what we need to do is get help to small businesses so that we’re creating an environment where those businesses can create jobs.
The Wall Street Journal yesterday had a report that the President commented on, showing that the big problem in our economy is that the people who can create the most jobs aren’t able to get the resources they need in order to bring on new folks, pay for benefits and that sort of thing.
So that’s why the President has been talking about the small business bill. That’s why he thinks that as soon as the Senate gets back, Republican obstruction needs to stop, they need to get it done, and we need to keep this economy moving in the right direction.
Jackie.
Q One more?
MR. BURTON: I’m sorry?
Q Back here?
MR. BURTON: Yes, Knoller.
Q Mr. Brennan --
MR. BURTON: Is this on the same topic?
Q Say again?
MR. BURTON: Is this on the same topic?
Q Sure.
MR. BURTON: Okay, because I’d already called on Jackie. So it’s awkward now. (Laughter.)
Q I didn’t mean to interrupt. I thought she was done.
MR. BURTON: Okay, one quick second.
Jackie.
Q What contacts, if any, have there been with Senator Kerry amid his trip to Afghanistan? Is there any reaction to the statement that Hamid Karzai has agreed to let the anti-corruption probe go forward independently?
MR. BRENNAN: Obviously the administration is staying very close in touch with Senator Kerry. We’re encouraged by the Afghan government’s and President Karzai’s continued interest in rooting out corruption in that country, which stands in the way of Afghanistan being able to realize its full potential.
So this is something that there is regular and constant interaction with our embassy inside of Kabul, but also with Senator Kerry as he has gone out to the region in Afghanistan -- as well as the situation in Pakistan, the very tragic flooding there, and the additional U.S. aid that is going to Pakistan. This is something that Senator Kerry has been also very much involved in.
Q Have you spoken to Senator Kerry?
MR. BRENNAN: I have not personally, no.
Q What is he -- who is he in touch with, with the administration?
MR. BRENNAN: A range of individuals. I would -- on any given day he would be in touch with different types of people.
Q But mostly over there in the embassy and --
MR. BRENNAN: Well, with the people out there in the region, but also he is a regular interlocutor of General Jones and other individuals at the White House to keep him fully informed and abreast of developments here, but also to make sure that we have an understanding of the engagements and discussions that he has had in the region.
MR. BURTON: All right, Mark.
Q Mr. Brennan, I know Russia is one of the Quartet. Can you describe Russia’s role in bringing about these -- relaunch of the peace talks? Is Russia playing a helpful role?
MR. BRENNAN: Well, the Quartet’s statement is -- provides some additional context for the relaunching of these direct talks. Russia also has a very strong interest in seeing the Israelis and the Palestinians reach understandings and agreements on the issues that lie between them.
So Russia has been engaged in this effort. The President and other senior officials within this administration continue to engage with the Russians. Senator Mitchell pointed out that Foreign Minister Lavrov of Russia played a very helpful role in getting to this point. So we see the Russians as partners in this effort as part of the Quartet.
Q Bill --
MR. BURTON: Yes.
Q Vice President Biden --
Q We’re not done with him, right?
MR. BURTON: We’re not. (Laughter.)
Q Okay.
Q On the last day of the general session of the DNC in St. Louis, Vice President Biden gave a speech today in which he said a couple things I want to get your reaction to, if possible. One, he projected that Democrats would retain control of the House and the Senate. He said “If it weren’t illegal,” he would “make book on it.” He also described the previous administration as “presiding over a Ponzi scheme that masqueraded as a vision.” And he also said that this is not -- “this ain’t,” rather, “your father’s Republican party.” He called it the past -- or the new Republican agenda in the midterm elections “the past on steroids.” Does the White House agree with these characterizations of the opposition party, and does it fit within the overall matrix of trying to rise above the day-to-day tit-for-tat of politics?
MR. BURTON: Well, I can tell you I didn’t see the Vice President’s speech in total.
Q Do you wish you had?
MR. BURTON: It sounds like it was a great speech, but far be it for me to comment on what the Vice President says. He obviously speaks for the administration. As it relates to -- what was the first quote that you had there?
Q “If it weren’t illegal,” he would “make book on” Democrats retaining control of both the House and the Senate.
MR. BURTON: Just on that specific point, and I’m sure that you guys could probably get a side bet going on that if you wanted to, but --
Q I’m not a betting man.
MR. BURTON: I’ve heard differently. (Laughter.) The President’s view is that --
Q About the House and Senate. (Laughter.)
MR. BURTON: These midterm elections coming up give the American people a choice about what direction they want to go in. Do they want to keep moving forward with these policies that have helped us to make progress and move the economy in the right direction, help us to make progress to make it stronger to create an environment where people are creating jobs again, or are we going to go back to the policies of the past that have got us into this crisis?
So of course the President agrees with the notion that given that choice, the American people are going to continue to want to move forward.
Q Is he comfortable with calling the Bush administration someone who presided over a Ponzi scheme that masqueraded as a vision?
MR. BURTON: Like I said, I haven’t seen the speech in and of itself, but far be it for me to comment on something the Vice President said out of context.
All right, the end?
Q For Mr. Brennan.
MR. BURTON: Okay, Chip.
Q On a different topic, there have been reports from some quarters that there is a thawing relationship between al Qaeda and Iran, and there are some concerns that the peace process and this talk of Israel attacking Iran could drag them closer together. Is that a concern of you and the White House?
MR. BRENNAN: I think we’re concerned about any efforts by al Qaeda to try to forge relationships with either other groups or with nation states. And we are concerned about certain activities in that region. Iran does border Afghanistan. There is a flow of individuals in that area. We are expressing our concerns to the countries in the region about the threat that al Qaeda poses. There clearly are, though, some confessional differences between al Qaeda, a Sunni organization, and Iran, which is mainly Shia. But that doesn’t mean that we are not looking very carefully at any types of relationships that might exist between al Qaeda and other entities, be they groups or states.
Q Is there a growing relationship between the two?
MR. BRENNAN: I wouldn’t characterize it that way. I would just underscore the importance of making sure that we’re able to maintain our monitoring of al Qaeda’s efforts to try to establish footholds in other areas of the world, as continued pressure is put on them in their safe havens.
MR. BURTON: Jake.
Q Franklin Graham told CNN that President Obama -- the reason so many Americans seem to believe President Obama is a Muslim is because he was born a Muslim, his father was Muslim, the seed of Muslim has passed through the father, he’s renounced Islam, he’s accepted Jesus, but the confusion is because his father is a Muslim. Since he’s a major religious figure in this country, I was wondering if you guys had any response to that.
MR. BURTON: Far be it for me to comment on someone’s characterization of what some people said in a poll. I can’t say why people necessarily change their mind in this poll. I can’t say why folks even answer the question when pollsters call. But the President is a committed Christian. I think that the American people know that. And Franklin Graham is certainly entitled to his opinion.
Yes.
Q Can I ask you something quick about health care, these allies of the White House that are switching their focus on how they’re presenting the discussion off of reduced costs and on to --
MR. BURTON: Sure.
Q Can you comment on that? Is that something that you -- the White House is supportive of, thinks is a good idea? Will this be the President’s message --
MR. BURTON: Is the White House supportive of the slideshow?
Q Well, the notion, the idea, the messaging.
MR. BURTON: Well, what we’ve seen at the White House is that the American people want the health care reform to be given a chance to succeed, but know that -- and we’re making sure that folks do know that -- that health care reform includes things like making sure that kids can still get health insurance, even if they have a preexisting condition; that young adults can stay on their parents’ health care for a longer time than they could previously; that consumers are protected.
There’s been a range of polling on this issue, and you see different things in different polls. But overall -- and especially when you look at the specific elements -- people want these reforms to succeed. And if people are given the choice between letting these things move forward, letting them succeed, versus what I’ve heard from the Republicans, which is that they want to repeal it, people are going to -- people will choose to make sure that this moves forward and that our health care system is in much better shape; that insurance companies aren’t in the driver’s seat, and that people are covered and have access to care.
Q Will the President be talking about it in these terms of improving upon the legislation, or are we going to see him doing that?
MR. BURTON: I mean, I haven’t seen the entire slideshow. I’ve seen the reports about it. The President is going to continue to talk about it the way that he has talked about it, which is that we settled a hundred-year-old question on whether or not we were going to have health care reform in this country, and we’re going to move forward with implementing it.
Q Bill, back on just the President and his faith in that poll, one of the reasons cited by many is that we don’t often see the President going to church on Sunday. Where is the First Family in their decision to find a congregation? Is that still an active search, or have they sort of settled into a way of worship that they do now?
MR. BURTON: Well, as -- the President has addressed this some, that by the President choosing a church, it does put undue pressure on that congregation, and it makes it a lot harder for folks to get into the church and to worship without the glare of all you guys coming along with them to be a part of that service. He prays every day. He talks to a wide range of pastors and religious leaders periodically. He’s in contact with his religious advisor every single day, Joshua DuBois. And he’s going to continue to get that kind of spiritual guidance when he can. When he’s up at Camp David he obviously attends a chapel there, as we’ve said.
And you’ll see him in church again. I mean, he’s been to church as President. He’ll go to church once again. But he is getting spiritual guidance on a regular basis.
Q Okay. And on a lighter side, he bought the Franzen novel today. What’s he reading? Did he read the corrections? What’s he interested in -- in downtime here in times we’re not seeing him?
MR. BURTON: I don’t know exactly what he’s going to read. I think that book is probably a good -- is probably a good guess. “Freedom.” But I don’t know for sure. I think that he’s -- he brought a series of books. I’m not sure which ones he’s going to read, or even all the books that he brought. But while he’s here he’s probably going to spend some time playing some basketball out where he’s staying, going to the beach. I have a feeling he’s going to get some ice cream. He’s a big fan of the ice cream on this island.
So I think it’s going to be just like last year where he’ll wake up in the morning and kind of decide what he and the family are going to do that day.
Q He also bought “The Red Pony.” Was that for him?
MR. BURTON: I appreciate the question. I’ll have to get back to you. It wasn’t.
Q Do the girls have any friends or cousins here with them?
MR. BURTON: Not that I know of.
Did you have a question?
Q I was just curious, is there any contrast between the vacation this year and last year, in your mind? I mean, is he more interested in sort of staying closer to home? He didn’t go out last night. I know that was just the first night, but the family had been separated over a period of time. Is there any sort of different aim for this vacation in comparison to last year’s?
MR. BURTON: Well, I would say the difference between last year’s vacation and this year’s is that since his vacation, the automotive industry is back on its feet, health care reform has passed, and the economy is now moving in a different direction than it was moving in before. But his goals for his time here are the same.
Q Mr. Brennan, do you get any down time, or is it all work and no play?
MR. BURTON: Look at this guy. Do you think he’s got down time? (Laughter.)
MR. BRENNAN: I don’t do down time.
Q That’s your casual outfit? (Laughter.)
Q Back on the mosque, Governor Paterson has suggested a land swap so that it could be moved further away from Ground Zero. Any reaction from the White House?
MR. BURTON: Nope.
Thank you.
END
1:38 P.M. EDT
Rep. Rangel Affirms Support for Obama at NY Debate
New York Congressman Charlie Rangel wants voters to know he's a big supporter of President Barack Obama.In a televised debate with Democratic primary rivals Thursday, Rangel went out of his way to praise Obama, saying the country has never had a more exciting president.A House ethics panel has charged Rangel with 13 ethics violations, and Obama has suggested the 40-year veteran might want to consider ending his career. Rangel has responded testily to the president's suggestion in previous forums.But at the latest, Rangel said he looked forward to continue working with Obama, whom he called a great president.Five challengers are hoping to defeat Rangel in the state's Sept. 14 primary. There was general agreement among the candidates on most issues discussed during the debate.
� Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Letter from the President to the Secretary of State Regarding Kyrgyzstan
Presidential Determination No. 2010-12
SUBJECT: Unexpected Urgent Refugee and Migration Needs Resulting from Violence in Kyrgyzstan
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including section 2(c)(1) of the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962 (the "Act"), as amended (22 U.S.C. 2601(c)(1)), I hereby determine, pursuant to section 2(c)(1) of the Act, that it is important to the national interest to furnish assistance under the Act in an amount not to exceed $9.5 million from the United States Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund for the purpose of meeting unexpected and urgent refugee and migration needs, including by contributions to international, governmental, and nongovernmental organizations and payment of administrative expenses of the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration of the Department of State, related to humanitarian needs resulting from recent violence in Kyrgyzstan.
You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.
BARACK OBAMA
SUBJECT: Unexpected Urgent Refugee and Migration Needs Resulting from Violence in Kyrgyzstan
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including section 2(c)(1) of the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962 (the "Act"), as amended (22 U.S.C. 2601(c)(1)), I hereby determine, pursuant to section 2(c)(1) of the Act, that it is important to the national interest to furnish assistance under the Act in an amount not to exceed $9.5 million from the United States Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund for the purpose of meeting unexpected and urgent refugee and migration needs, including by contributions to international, governmental, and nongovernmental organizations and payment of administrative expenses of the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration of the Department of State, related to humanitarian needs resulting from recent violence in Kyrgyzstan.
You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.
BARACK OBAMA
Governor Palin was Right About John Bitney's Incompetence
A good synopsis from Dan Riehl. If Lisa Murkowski read Governor Palin's book, she may still be an elected Republican Party hack.In a surprising, and for some, hilarious bit of irony concerning the Alaska GOP primary, it seems as though if Senator Lisa Murkowski had read and paid attention to Sarah Palin's Going Rogue, she may not have found herself now fighting for her political life.Roll Call looks back to try to pinpoint why Murkowski is in this mess, but they use an awful lot of anonymous sources to do so. The theories advanced by various unnamed "Alaska insiders" include John Bitney, Murkowski's campaign manager, being "in over his head" and an underwhelming performance by two general consultants Murkowski hired.News reports, as well as my own sources, suggest it was Bitney's incompetence that may have been the single most significant factor in Murkowski potentially blowing the race. While Palin didn't use his name in the book, only his title, out of courtesy, as I understand it, Bitney was furious at Palin's portrayal of him as an incompetent, often unkempt video game addicted aide who often dropped the ball, leading to many of Palin's early problems as Alaska Governor. Oh, and he seemed to have a real problem keeping his clothing out of his food.Bitney joins a list of people slammed in the book who are calling it fiction, including McCain's former campaign manager, Steve Schmidt.Hey, Murkowski, who you gonna believe, now - Palin's book, or your own eyes? Or, you know, maybe she tried to warn you, but you opted for GOP establishment cronyism over competence? That doesn't sound like the kind of Senator Alaska needs to me....But, instead of reading Palin's book and going rogue, or for reform, Murkowski went the usual GOP establishment route - incompetent cronyism. And now she's fighting for her political life, while showing no signs of giving up.One of the most laughable narratives about Governor Palin's political career is the idea that a hack like John Bitney was responsible for her getting elected Governor in 2006. The evidence from this race puts that narrative to rest.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Dem. Runner-Up Wants Recount in Vt. Gov. Primary
First, it was too close to call. Then it was called. Now, the second-place finisher is second-guessing the call.Vermont's unsettled Democratic gubernatorial primary got even less settled Friday, with an official vote tally confirming state Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin's victory and also-ran Doug Racine responding by announcing he'll seek a recount."We want to know for sure," said Racine, a 57-year-old state senator. "I want to know for sure. He does as well."Shumlin had a 192-vote lead in unofficial results from Tuesday's five-way race. In official results released Friday after a vote tally by the Secretary of State's office, his lead grew to 197 votes, while Racine picked up 79.Shumlin, who said he was encouraged by the new vote totals, nonetheless said he respected Racine's decision to seek the recount.Under Vermont law, a losing candidate can seek a recount if the margin of victory is 2 percent of the total votes cast in the race ? in this case, 1,492 votes or less than the 74,634 ballots cast.In fact, two candidates could seek the recount. Secretary of State Deb Markowitz finished with 696 votes less than Shumlin, which is within the margin. But she said she had no plans to ask for a recount.Racine can't file his petition for the recount until after a canvassing board meets Tuesday to certify the vote results, which is a formality. Once he files, ballots from all 14 of Vermont's counties will be examined one by one under the supervision of a judge.The last time Vermont had a recount in a statewide election, the result was overturned. That was in the state auditor's race in 2006, when a 239-vote swing in the recount gave the office to Thomas Salmon, who had apparently lost to incumbent Randy Brock on election night.That played into Racine's decision, as did the fact that town clerks told him there was room for error in the vote-counting process and encouraged him to challenge the result, he said, noting that picking up even one vote in each of Vermont's 246 cities and towns could be enough to change the outcome.Shumlin, who spoke with Racine before Racine announced he'd seek the recount, had nothing bad to say about the decision."I am encouraged by the unofficial certified numbers released by the Secretary of State today, which show me receiving more votes than the other contenders. Doug is a great candidate who ran a great race. I understand that Doug is going to exercise his legal right to a recount and I respect his decision."In the 2006 recount, it took six days to count about 260,000 ballots. Since this election had far fewer votes, it could take only about three days to complete, according to Markowitz.Racine acknowledged that the odds of overturning the result were probably against him.He said he would do all he could to expedite the process, including allowing optical scanning machines to count votes instead of hand counts, when possible."The overwhelming sentiment of my supporters the last several days has been to ask for a recount. They want to know for sure. And I think I owe it to them and I think I owe it to Vermonters, to know that this is indeed the right outcome that the numbers show us today," Racine said.
� Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
President Obama to Deliver Back to School Speech September 14
WASHINGTON, D.C. – As students begin their school year, President Barack Obama will deliver his second annual Back to School speech on Tuesday, September 14. The President’s Back to School Speech is an opportunity to speak directly to students across the country. Last year, President Obama encouraged students to study hard, stay in school, and take responsibility for their education.
“Every single one of you has something you’re good at. Every single one of you has something to offer. And you have a responsibility to yourself to discover what that is. That’s the opportunity an education can provide,” President Obama said to students last year.
President Obama’s Back to School remarks will be broadcast in schools and online nationwide. More details on the President’s speech will be announced soon.
“Every single one of you has something you’re good at. Every single one of you has something to offer. And you have a responsibility to yourself to discover what that is. That’s the opportunity an education can provide,” President Obama said to students last year.
President Obama’s Back to School remarks will be broadcast in schools and online nationwide. More details on the President’s speech will be announced soon.
Palin is a Hit in Hershey and Is Scheduled to Speak at 10:40 AM ET Tomorrow at Restoring Honor Rally
The "Restoring Honor" rally begins at 10 AM EST tomorrow morning and she is scheduled to speak at 10:40 AM EST. You can watch it on C-Span.Meanwhile, she finished speaking in Hershey, PA a couple of hours ago. It was a hit. You can read more about what she said at the event here and here. You can watch more snippets of her speech here.
Blagojevich retrial likely to start early January (Reuters)
By Nick Carey
CHICAGO |
Thu Aug 26, 2010 2:52pm EDT
CHICAGO (Reuters) - The retrial of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich on corruption charges will likely begin in the first week of January, U.S. District Judge James Zagel said on Thursday.
This month Blagojevich was found guilty of making false statements, but jurors were unable to reach a unanimous verdict on 23 other charges against him.Assistant U.S. Attorney Reid Schar said in court that the government was dropping charges against the former governor's brother Robert Blagojevich given the "disparity in the roles" of the two defendants."But we absolutely intend to proceed with the retrial of ... Rod Blagojevich," he added.The former governor faced 24 counts in the wide-ranging corruption case including racketeering, conspiracy, mail fraud and attempted extortion. The allegations against Blagojevich included an attempt to sell or barter the U.S. Senate seat vacated by President Barack Obama.Zagel asked Blagojevich's defense lawyers to compile a list of the defendant's assets and liabilities to see if he can afford a retrial. If he is found indigent, Zagel said the law would allow the court to pay for two lawyers and a paralegal, which the judge said should be enough since the case probably will be largely a rehash of the first trial.Blagojevich lawyer Sheldon Sorosky argued that even with a larger team of lawyers, the former governor's case in the first trial against the government was a battle akin to "David versus Goliath.""Instead of a slingshot, this David had his band of lawyers," he said.Judge Zagel responded dryly that with his large team of defense lawyers, Blagojevich, 53, a Democrat ousted from office last year during his second term by the state Legislature, "looked more like Goliath."Prosecutors have said Blagojevich and his aides operated the state as a money machine by wringing campaign donations out of people doing business with the state.His defense lawyers portrayed him as a talkative bumbler who was given bad advice but never received any illegal funds. In a surprise decision during the trial, Blagojevich opted not testify even after months of loudly declaring that he would take the stand in his own defense.Obama and some senior White House staffers played a peripheral role in the case, which was built on FBI wiretaps.After the hearing on Thursday, Blagojevich lawyer Sam AdamSr said the defense team would decide what to do after conferring with Blagojevich."We're going to do whatever the governor thinks best," he said, adding that with a team of just two lawyers compared to 15 the first time around, this would be a very different case.The next hearing in the case is set for Sept 9.(Editing by Jackie Frank)
CHICAGO |
Thu Aug 26, 2010 2:52pm EDT
CHICAGO (Reuters) - The retrial of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich on corruption charges will likely begin in the first week of January, U.S. District Judge James Zagel said on Thursday.
This month Blagojevich was found guilty of making false statements, but jurors were unable to reach a unanimous verdict on 23 other charges against him.Assistant U.S. Attorney Reid Schar said in court that the government was dropping charges against the former governor's brother Robert Blagojevich given the "disparity in the roles" of the two defendants."But we absolutely intend to proceed with the retrial of ... Rod Blagojevich," he added.The former governor faced 24 counts in the wide-ranging corruption case including racketeering, conspiracy, mail fraud and attempted extortion. The allegations against Blagojevich included an attempt to sell or barter the U.S. Senate seat vacated by President Barack Obama.Zagel asked Blagojevich's defense lawyers to compile a list of the defendant's assets and liabilities to see if he can afford a retrial. If he is found indigent, Zagel said the law would allow the court to pay for two lawyers and a paralegal, which the judge said should be enough since the case probably will be largely a rehash of the first trial.Blagojevich lawyer Sheldon Sorosky argued that even with a larger team of lawyers, the former governor's case in the first trial against the government was a battle akin to "David versus Goliath.""Instead of a slingshot, this David had his band of lawyers," he said.Judge Zagel responded dryly that with his large team of defense lawyers, Blagojevich, 53, a Democrat ousted from office last year during his second term by the state Legislature, "looked more like Goliath."Prosecutors have said Blagojevich and his aides operated the state as a money machine by wringing campaign donations out of people doing business with the state.His defense lawyers portrayed him as a talkative bumbler who was given bad advice but never received any illegal funds. In a surprise decision during the trial, Blagojevich opted not testify even after months of loudly declaring that he would take the stand in his own defense.Obama and some senior White House staffers played a peripheral role in the case, which was built on FBI wiretaps.After the hearing on Thursday, Blagojevich lawyer Sam AdamSr said the defense team would decide what to do after conferring with Blagojevich."We're going to do whatever the governor thinks best," he said, adding that with a team of just two lawyers compared to 15 the first time around, this would be a very different case.The next hearing in the case is set for Sept 9.(Editing by Jackie Frank)
Dem. Runner-Up Wants Recount in Vt. Gov. Primary
First, it was too close to call. Then it was called. Now, the second-place finisher is second-guessing the call.Vermont's unsettled Democratic gubernatorial primary got even less settled Friday, with an official vote tally confirming state Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin's victory and also-ran Doug Racine responding by announcing he'll seek a recount."We want to know for sure," said Racine, a 57-year-old state senator. "I want to know for sure. He does as well."Shumlin had a 192-vote lead in unofficial results from Tuesday's five-way race. In official results released Friday after a vote tally by the Secretary of State's office, his lead grew to 197 votes, while Racine picked up 79.Shumlin, who said he was encouraged by the new vote totals, nonetheless said he respected Racine's decision to seek the recount.Under Vermont law, a losing candidate can seek a recount if the margin of victory is 2 percent of the total votes cast in the race ? in this case, 1,492 votes or less than the 74,634 ballots cast.In fact, two candidates could seek the recount. Secretary of State Deb Markowitz finished with 696 votes less than Shumlin, which is within the margin. But she said she had no plans to ask for a recount.Racine can't file his petition for the recount until after a canvassing board meets Tuesday to certify the vote results, which is a formality. Once he files, ballots from all 14 of Vermont's counties will be examined one by one under the supervision of a judge.The last time Vermont had a recount in a statewide election, the result was overturned. That was in the state auditor's race in 2006, when a 239-vote swing in the recount gave the office to Thomas Salmon, who had apparently lost to incumbent Randy Brock on election night.That played into Racine's decision, as did the fact that town clerks told him there was room for error in the vote-counting process and encouraged him to challenge the result, he said, noting that picking up even one vote in each of Vermont's 246 cities and towns could be enough to change the outcome.Shumlin, who spoke with Racine before Racine announced he'd seek the recount, had nothing bad to say about the decision."I am encouraged by the unofficial certified numbers released by the Secretary of State today, which show me receiving more votes than the other contenders. Doug is a great candidate who ran a great race. I understand that Doug is going to exercise his legal right to a recount and I respect his decision."In the 2006 recount, it took six days to count about 260,000 ballots. Since this election had far fewer votes, it could take only about three days to complete, according to Markowitz.Racine acknowledged that the odds of overturning the result were probably against him.He said he would do all he could to expedite the process, including allowing optical scanning machines to count votes instead of hand counts, when possible."The overwhelming sentiment of my supporters the last several days has been to ask for a recount. They want to know for sure. And I think I owe it to them and I think I owe it to Vermonters, to know that this is indeed the right outcome that the numbers show us today," Racine said.
� Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)