Bush Administration Promises “Sprint to the Finish” in 2008

Mideast peace, Iraq, nuclear proliferation among top diplomatic priorities

“I’m going to work hard to the finish,” President Bush told White House reporters at an October 17 press conference.  “I’m going to sprint to the finish line.”

In a series of recent interviews, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice mapped out the foreign policy road ahead for 2008, the Bush administration’s final year in office.

KEEPING UP MOMENTUM IN THE MIDEAST PEACE PROCESS

Keeping up the momentum from the November 2007 Annapolis Conference will be a top priority, said Rice, and Bush will begin the year with a tour of the Middle East January 8-18 with stops in Israel and the West Bank, as well as Kuwait, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. (See Middle East Peace: A Half-Century of Engagement.)

In a December 20 interview with Germany’s Die Zeit, Rice said the United States would spend the year “actively and aggressively” supporting the peace process. Rice added that she saw many challenges ahead as Israelis and Palestinians resume talks with the goal of concluding a peace treaty by the end of 2008.

“I have never known, studied, read about, or participated in a negotiation that wasn’t pretty tough at the beginning,” Rice told the Associated Press December 12.

In addition, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Palestinian Prime Minister Salaam Fayyad will face the additional challenge of using $7.4 billion pledged to the Palestinian Authority at a donors conference in Paris to build the foundation of a future democratic Palestinian state as part of the “two-state solution” envisaged by the Bush administration since 2002.    

“The Israeli-Palestinian issue … is a very big issue,” Rice said.  “And to leave that in a much better place than it was when we came would, I think, reverberate in many important ways throughout the region.”

CONTINUING SUPPORT FOR DEMOCRACY IN LEBANON

Rice also identified continued U.S. support for democracy in Lebanon as another leading policy priority in the region, urging countries that came together to support the Annapolis Conference, especially Syria, to join in supporting Lebanon as it continues its recovery from a series of crises, including the 2006 Hezbollah-Israel conflict, assassinations of prominent leaders and political stalemate in electing a new president.  (See Lebanon Assistance.)

“All of Lebanon’s neighbors need to play a constructive role and encourage all of their allies to let that happen and, in fact, not interfere with it,” Rice said.  “This is a time of testing for Lebanon, but it’s also a test for Lebanon’s neighbors, including for Syria.”

BUILDING ON THE SURGE IN IRAQ

In Iraq, 2007 saw a decline in violence in part due to the U.S.-led coalition’s “surge strategy,” which deployed more than 20,000 additional troops, as well as the “Awakening” of Iraqi tribal leaders in Anbar province and elsewhere, who began taking back their country from the forces of extremism. 

Helping the Iraqi government build on these gains with tangible progress toward key reforms and stronger governing institutions will be another top priority for 2008, Rice said. (See Iraq Update.)

“The Iraqis are going to need the support of international partners, they’re going to need support in training their forces, they’re going to need support in guaranteeing, in effect, their territorial integrity because they live in a difficult neighborhood,” Rice said in a December 11 interview with USA Today.

Provincial Reconstruction Teams — groups of U.S. soldiers and diplomats dedicated to supporting Iraqi authorities — have made a difference in Iraq, Rice said, by helping leaders in Baghdad understand local needs and channeling resources to repair and rebuild key infrastructure more effectively and by delivering essential services to area residents. (See related article.)  

“I think over the next year, there is a way ahead in Iraq that could build significantly on the improved security situation,” Rice said, “to really have the major beginnings of a political renovation in the country.”

HALTING NUCLEAR PROGRAMS IN IRAN AND NORTH KOREA

Yet another challenge, Rice said, will be continuing diplomatic efforts to resolve questions surrounding controversial nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea.

Although the November 2007 release of a U.S. National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) indicating that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 has led some critics to downgrade Tehran as a threat, Rice said the country’s continued efforts to enrich nuclear fuel and develop missiles concern not only the United States, but also U.N. Security Council partners China, France, Russia and the United Kingdom, who with Germany make up the P5+1.

“I’ve talked to everybody engaged in the P5+1 process and we’re continuing to work on a Security Council resolution,” Rice said.  “We have not had anyone say that … we should abandon the two-track strategy because of what was in the NIE.”

In North Korea, the Six-Party Talks saw a major breakthrough with Pyongyang’s February 2007 agreement to shut down and disable nuclear facilities in exchange for humanitarian assistance, the first step toward stabilizing the Korean Peninsula.  (See The U.S. and the Korean Peninsula.)

The United States will remain committed to working with China, Japan, Russia, and South Korea to continue moving the process forward, Rice said.  

“I don’t think that there are any people in the world who are more isolated than the North Koreans and it would be a very good thing if there could be some sunshine into that world,” Rice said.

OTHER CHALLENGES

Among other U.S. foreign policy challenges in 2008, Rice identified ongoing efforts to promote stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan; resolve the status of Kosovo; and address Russia’s concerns over a proposed missile defense system based in Europe.

Messaggio di Fine d’anno di Giovanni Castellaneta, Ambasciatore d’Italia negli Stati Uniti d’America

Cari connazionali, cari Americani di origine italiana,

desidero rivolgere a tutti Voi e alle Vostre famiglie un sincero ed affettuoso augurio all’approssimarsi del Santo Natale e alla fine di quest’anno, il mio terzo negli Stati Uniti, che ha visto ancora una volta testimoniata al piu’ alto livello l’amicizia ed il rispetto che uniscono i nostri due Paesi.
Sentimenti  di stima e di ammirazione che vedono Voi come protagonisti della loro eccellenza e del loro pieno consolidamento nel tempo. Il 6 dicembre scorso ho partecipato alla  commemorazione dei nostri minatori scomparsi cent’anni fa nella tragedia mineraria di Monongah, impegnati con la loro fatica nell’edificazione di questo grande Paese di accoglienza. Pochi giorni orsono abbiamo festeggiato invece in Ambasciata l’aggiudicazione di un’importante commessa per la Difesa americana da parte di una nostra societa’, vinta grazie alla bravura e preparazione dei nostri giovani ingegneri e tecnici. Due aspetti legati a diversi periodi storici ma riconducibili ad unico comun denominatore: le nostre capacita’ e la nostra dedizione al lavoro.    
Per questo l’America continua ad apprezzare grandemente il contributo dato al suo progresso in tutti i campi dagli italiani ed italo-americani. Secondo le stime piu’ attendibili, del resto, oggi circa il 10% della popolazione statunitense ha origini italiane e si puo’ dire compiuto il processo di definitivo assorbimento dell’italianita’ quale compononente costitutiva dell’identita’ americana.      
Su questo sfondo si sono susseguite anche nel 2007 le numerose visite al piu’ alto livello di rappresentanti del nostro Governo sia a Washington che nel resto degli Stati Uniti, culminate in quella recente del Signor Presidente della Repubblica. Nel suo colloquio con il Presidente Bush, e’ stato ribadito l’eccellente stato delle relazioni bilaterali e l’affidamento che questa Amministrazione ripone sul nostro Paese in tutti i principali scacchieri internazionali, nel comune impegno per il ristabilimento della pace e della sicurezza in quelle parti del mondo dove, purtroppo, oggi esse non sono garantite. Un’orgogliosa riaffermazione delle proprie origini italiane ha poi  caratterizzato l’incontro del Presidente Napolitano con la Speaker del Congresso, signora Nancy Pelosi, “testimonial” d’eccezione della costante ascesa degli italo-americani anche ai vertici politici di questo Paese.      
Continua a crescere l’interesse della societa’ americana anche nei confronti dellla nostra lingua e cultura. Oggi l’italiano e’ la quarta lingua studiata in questo Paese da oltre 120.000 studenti a livello scolastico e 80.000 a livello universitario. Siamo al primo posto come meta per studenti americani tra i Paesi non di lingua inglese e siamo presenti con nostri Dipartimenti e docenti in oltre 250 Universita’ americane.      
Crescono altresi’ le nostre esportazioni negli Stati Uniti e il “Made in Italy” e’ sempre piu’ sinonimo di eccellenza e di qualita’ non solo piu’ nei tradizionali settori ma anche nei piu’ avanzati campi della tecnologia e della scienza.      
Si celebra in questi giorni la Giornata Internazionale dei Migranti che vede il nostro Paese protagonista ma con ruoli invertiti: da terra di emigrazione a Paese di accoglienza nell’arco di un secolo. Gli Stati Uniti rappresentano per noi un modello. Hanno accolto milioni di connazionali costretti a lasciare l’Italia e ne hanno consentito negli anni il pieno inserimento in questa societa’ storicamente multiculturale. Oggi spetta al nostro Paese il ruolo di accogliere in modo regolato e rispettoso dei diritti fondamentali chi e’ costretto dalla poverta’ ad emigrare.      
Ho proseguito anche quest’anno i miei viaggi in altre citta’ e circoscrizioni di questo vasto Paese. Ovunque ho continuato a ricevere solidi attestati di stima e simpatia nei confronti delle numerose collettivita’ italiane ivi residenti; ho raccolto Vostre testimonianze di sacrifici e successi in ogni diverso campo di attivita’; ho verificato quanto estesa e profonda e’ l’amicizia che il popolo americano nutre nei nostri confronti.      
Tutto cio’ e’ per me fonte di profonda ammirazione per quanto gli “Italiani d’America” hanno realizzato e ulteriore sprone a rappresentare il nostro Paese nel miglior modo possibile.      
E’ con questi sentimenti, che auguro a tutti Voi ed ai Vostri Cari un sereno Natale ed un Nuovo Anno di successo e salute.

Giovanni Castellaneta

Messaggio di Fine d’anno di S.E. Giovanni Castellaneta, Ambasciatore d’Italia negli Stati Uniti d’America

Sentimenti  di stima e di ammirazione che vedono Voi come protagonisti della loro eccellenza e del loro pieno consolidamento nel tempo. Il 6 dicembre scorso ho partecipato alla  commemorazione dei nostri minatori scomparsi cent’anni fa nella tragedia mineraria di Monongah, impegnati con la loro fatica nell’edificazione di questo grande Paese di accoglienza. Pochi giorni orsono abbiamo festeggiato invece in Ambasciata l’aggiudicazione di un’importante commessa per la Difesa americana da parte di una nostra societa’, vinta grazie alla bravura e preparazione dei nostri giovani ingegneri e tecnici. Due aspetti legati a diversi periodi storici ma riconducibili ad unico comun denominatore: le nostre capacita’ e la nostra dedizione al lavoro.
Per questo l’America continua ad apprezzare grandemente il contributo dato al suo progresso in tutti i campi dagli italiani ed italo-americani. Secondo le stime piu’ attendibili, del resto, oggi circa il 10% della popolazione statunitense ha origini italiane e si puo’ dire compiuto il processo di definitivo assorbimento dell’italianita’ quale compononente costitutiva dell’identita’ americana.  
Su questo sfondo si sono susseguite anche nel 2007 le numerose visite al piu’ alto livello di rappresentanti del nostro Governo sia a Washington che nel resto degli Stati Uniti, culminate in quella recente del Signor Presidente della Repubblica. Nel suo colloquio con il Presidente Bush, e’ stato ribadito l’eccellente stato delle relazioni bilaterali e l’affidamento che questa Amministrazione ripone sul nostro Paese in tutti i principali scacchieri internazionali, nel comune impegno per il ristabilimento della pace e della sicurezza in quelle parti del mondo dove, purtroppo, oggi esse non sono garantite. Un’orgogliosa riaffermazione delle proprie origini italiane ha poi  caratterizzato l’incontro del Presidente Napolitano con la Speaker del Congresso, signora Nancy Pelosi, “testimonial” d’eccezione della costante ascesa degli italo-americani anche ai vertici politici di questo Paese.  
Continua a crescere l’interesse della societa’ americana anche nei confronti dellla nostra lingua e cultura. Oggi l’italiano e’ la quarta lingua studiata in questo Paese da oltre 120.000 studenti a livello scolastico e 80.000 a livello universitario. Siamo al primo posto come meta per studenti americani tra i Paesi non di lingua inglese e siamo presenti con nostri Dipartimenti e docenti in oltre 250 Universita’ americane.  
Crescono altresi’ le nostre esportazioni negli Stati Uniti e il “Made in Italy” e’ sempre piu’ sinonimo di eccellenza e di qualita’ non solo piu’ nei tradizionali settori ma anche nei piu’ avanzati campi della tecnologia e della scienza.  
Si celebra in questi giorni la Giornata Internazionale dei Migranti che vede il nostro Paese protagonista ma con ruoli invertiti: da terra di emigrazione a Paese di accoglienza nell’arco di un secolo. Gli Stati Uniti rappresentano per noi un modello. Hanno accolto milioni di connazionali costretti a lasciare l’Italia e ne hanno consentito negli anni il pieno inserimento in questa societa’ storicamente multiculturale. Oggi spetta al nostro Paese il ruolo di accogliere in modo regolato e rispettoso dei diritti fondamentali chi e’ costretto dalla poverta’ ad emigrare.  
Ho proseguito anche quest’anno i miei viaggi in altre citta’ e circoscrizioni di questo vasto Paese. Ovunque ho continuato a ricevere solidi attestati di stima e simpatia nei confronti delle numerose collettivita’ italiane ivi residenti; ho raccolto Vostre testimonianze di sacrifici e successi in ogni diverso campo di attivita’; ho verificato quanto estesa e profonda e’ l’amicizia che il popolo americano nutre nei nostri confronti.  
Tutto cio’ e’ per me fonte di profonda ammirazione per quanto gli “Italiani d’America” hanno realizzato e ulteriore sprone a rappresentare il nostro Paese nel miglior modo possibile.  
E’ con questi sentimenti, che auguro a tutti Voi ed ai Vostri Cari un sereno Natale ed un Nuovo Anno di successo e salute.

Giovanni Castellaneta

American Life, Diversity Explained, Point by Data Point,

Government’s annual publication offers hundreds of statistical snapshots

Washington — America is changing in big ways.  It’s getting older, and it’s getting more racially and ethnically diverse. 

The median age of the U.S. population is roughly 38 years old, up from 30 in 1980, and will continue to inch up as the large “baby boom generation” reaches retirement age.

The total population grew by roughly 6 percent from 2000 to 2006, to reach 300 million.  But the non-Hispanic white population grew at a much slower rate (1.6 percent) during the same period while Hispanics grew by 26 percent, Asians by 24 percent and blacks by 7 percent.

These and other statistics were released December 20 by the U.S. Census Bureau in its annual Statistical Abstract of the United States, a compendium of data on American life that includes everything from how much Americans volunteer (27 percent of the population volunteers an hour per week) to how much they pay for a gallon of unleaded gasoline ($2.59) to which U.S. cities are most popular with travelers from abroad (New York wins by far).

The book’s data — 1,366 tables from government and private sources — show that U.S. households spend far less of their budgets on food than households in most other countries.  America also happens to have the largest share of fat people of any country — nearly a third of American adults are obese.

Americans consume less tobacco than Japanese or Europeans.  Compared to citizens of other countries, Americans pay a small percent of wages in taxes and are more likely to own their homes, but Americans’ cell phone usage pales in comparison to that of many European and Asian countries.

PROOF OF GROWING DIVERSITY

There are 36 million foreign-born in the United States, the majority from Central American countries, followed by a large group from Asia.  Roughly one-fifth of children in elementary and secondary schools have a foreign-born parent.  An equal share speaks a language other than English at home.

The Abstract shows the effect of such diversity on politics.  The number of Hispanics elected to public office has risen from roughly 3,000 in 1985 to 5,000 today.

These Hispanic officials represent 1 percent of the half million elected officials in the United States, according to Arturo Vargas of the National Association of Latino Elected Officials, a share he expects to rise quickly.  He said that, today, California and Texas, which have political districts where Latinos are the majority, account for more than half of Hispanic officeholders. 

“The Voting Rights Act has worked,” said Vargas, referring to the 1965 law to increase the voter registration of minorities.  “Latino-majority areas are represented by Latinos.”

Vargas said he expects to see more “crossover candidates” who can win in non-Hispanic districts.  Antonio Villaraigosa, the Hispanic mayor of Los Angeles, won in a city that is half Hispanic but in which only one-fourth of voters are Hispanic.  There are three Hispanic U.S. senators, who hail from both political parties — Robert Menendez, a Democrat from New Jersey; Mel Martinez, a Republican from Florida; and Ken Salazar, a Democrat from Colorado.  They won in states where Hispanic voters are not numerous enough to determine the outcome of an election.

NEW YORK CITY’S GLOBAL APPEAL

The Abstract also includes several tables of data regarding recreation and tourism, one of which shows that New York City remains the top U.S. destination city for overseas travelers.  It is the only city among the top 10 destinations that has surpassed its international visitor numbers from the year 2000 — the year before terrorist attacks on U.S. targets.

“After [September 11, 2001], we saw some patriotic tourism, where New York City, being the world’s ‘second home,’ saw an increase in tourists from around the world — people wanting to support the city,” said Christopher Heywood, spokesman for NYC and Company, the city’s tourism organization.  “There’s a global appeal about the city,” he said. 

In 2007, New York City launched an overseas ad campaign, which particularly targets potential visitors from the United Kingdom, Ireland and Spain.  “The international visitor stays longer and spends more money,” said Heywood.  “They represent 17 percent of the city’s visitor volume but more than half of visitor spending.”

Press Conference by the President of The United States

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. I hope you all enjoyed the holiday reception at the White House as much as Laura and I enjoyed it. We took an inventory of the silverware, and this year only a few pieces were missing — so, like, if you see Gregory, tell him to bring them back. (Laughter.) I’ve decided to come in and visit with you because you’re heading off on the holidays, and so are we, and we wish you happy holidays.

I think recent days have been a moment that the country can be proud of. In the past few days we have stopped a tax increase on the middle-class families, we improved our energy security, we delivered relief to struggling homeowners, and we funded our troops. I want to thank the members of both parties for their hard work in these areas. I’m pleased that we have been able to end this year on a high note by moving beyond our differences and achieving important results for the American people.

This week Congress passed legislation to protect middle-class families from the burden of the Alternative Minimum Tax, without raising taxes. Unfortunately, Congress passed this legislation after a lengthy delay. It’s going to — the delay is going to add time it takes to process tens of billions of dollars in refunds. And so we will work hard — now that the bill is passed, we will work hard to minimize the impact of the congressional delay so that Americans can get their refund checks as soon as possible.

Congress passed a good energy bill. The legislation I signed yesterday will reduce our country’s dependence on foreign oil by increasing the supply of alternative fuel sources and increasing fuel economy standards. It demonstrates America’s leadership in confronting climate change.

Congress also passed legislation to help homeowners struggling to make their mortgage payments. The bill I’m going to sign this afternoon increases the incentives for borrowers and lenders to work together to refinance loans. It will allow American families to secure lower mortgage payments without facing higher taxes. This is a tax reform bill. It takes away the penalty that a homeowner — a tax penalty a homeowner will receive if he or she renegotiates the loan to a lower rate, to a lower value for the house.

Finally, Congress reached agreement on a spending bill to fund the day-to-day operations of the federal government. They passed this bill without raising taxes. They eliminated many of the worst policy riders that would have never been approved through the ordinary legislative process. I appreciate that they included a down payment on the funding request for our troops on the front lines in Afghanistan and Iraq without an artificial timetable of withdrawal. These brave men and women are risking their lives to protect us and they deserve the full support of the U.S. government.

I’m disappointed that Congress resorted to passing all this spending in one massive, more than 1,400-page omnibus bill, rather than considering and passing individual spending bills in the normal process. The omnibus bill was approved at the last minute, nearly three months after the end of the fiscal year. When Congress wastes so much time and leaves its work to the final days before Christmas it is not a responsible way to run this government.

Another thing that’s not responsible is the number of earmarks that Congress included in a massive spending bill. Earmarks are special interest items that are slipped into big spending bills like this one — often at the last hour, without discussion or debate. Congressional leaders ran in the last election on a promise that they would curb earmarks. And they made some progress and there’s more transparency in the process, but they have not made enough progress. The bill they just passed includes about 9,800 earmarks. Together with the previously passed defense spending bill, that means Congress has approved about 11,900 earmarks this year. And so I’m instructing Budget Director Jim Nussle to review options for dealing with the wasteful spending in the omnibus bill.

I’m also disappointed that Congress failed to pass legislation to ensure that our intelligence professionals can continue to effectively monitor terrorist communications. Those of us in public office have no greater responsibility than stopping new attacks on our country. And this summer, Congress passed a bill that — called the “Protect America Act,” which strengthened our ability to collect foreign intelligence on terrorists overseas. The bill closed dangerous gaps in our intelligence; it was a good piece of legislation. It wasn’t perfect, but it was good. Unfortunately, Congress made this law effective until February 1st of 2008, as if the terrorist threat is going to go away on February the 1st, 2008.

The first priority of Congress when it returns in the new year must be to pass a good bill and get it to my desk promptly. They have a duty to give our professionals the tools necessary to protect the American people. The bill should include liability protection for companies that are facing multi-billion-dollar lawsuits, only because they are believed to have assisted in the efforts to defend or nation following the 9/11 attacks. And it must ensure that our intelligence professionals have all the tools they need to keep us safe.

I hope the members of Congress enjoy their holiday break; I intend to enjoy mine. We have a great deal of work in the months ahead. Next year is an election year, but that does not relieve us of our responsibility to carry out the people’s business. The American people did not elect us to govern in odd years, and campaign in even years. They expect us to get things done. That’s what we’ve accomplished over the past few weeks, and we need to carry this momentum into next year. I’m going to do my part, and I call upon the leaders of both parties on Capitol Hill to do their part.

And now I’ll be glad to answer some of your questions, starting with AP man.

Q Mr. President, there’s ambiguity in the statement that you have no recollection about the existence and destruction of the CIA interrogation tapes. Why can’t you say yes or no about the tapes and their destruction? And regardless, do you think the destruction of the tapes was a responsible thing to do?

THE PRESIDENT: It sounds pretty clear to me when I say I have — the first recollection is when Mike Hayden briefed me. That’s pretty clear. Secondly, I am confident that the preliminary inquiry conducted by the AG and the IG of the CIA, coupled with the oversight provided by the Congress, will end up enabling us all to find out what exactly happened. And therefore, over the course of these inquiries and oversight hearings, I’m going to reserve judgment until I find out the full facts.

I know I’m going to be asked about this question a lot as time goes on. I’m just going to prepare you; until these inquiries are complete, until the oversights are finished, then I will be rendering no opinion from the podium.

Q Vladimir Putin has just been named Time Magazine’s Person of the Year. And he has signaled that he intends to become prime minister. You said once that he had been wily about his intentions, but now that he’s made those clear, what does it say about the state of democracy in Russia?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, I’m looking forward to seeing him at the alumni meeting of the “men of the year,” or the “persons of the year.” I don’t know when it’s going to be, but — look, I presume — I haven’t read the article, but I presume they put him on there because he was a consequential leader. And the fundamental question is, consequential to what end? What will the country look like 10 years from now?

My hope, of course, is that Russia is a country which understands there needs to be checks and balances, and free and fair elections, and a vibrant press; that they understand Western values based upon human rights and human dignity are values that will lead to a better country. That’s my hopes.

Now, your speculation as to whether or not he’ll be the prime minister, I don’t know if he is, I haven’t talked to him about it. And until that happens, I think we better just watch and see. What will be interesting next year is how the Russian President carries on his business — the new Russian President. In other words, we’ll be together probably a couple of times next year, and it will be interesting to see how foreign policy is conducted and what the role of President Putin may be or not be. I just don’t know yet, so we’ll just wait and see how it — what happens.

John.

Q Mr. President, a year ago when you had your year-end press conference, the Democrats had just taken control of Congress; they said that one of their main goals was to end the war in Iraq, they were talking a lot about very contentious times ahead. As you just said, the Congress has now passed again, without strings, money for the war, and you’ve achieved a lot of your goals and have gotten a lot of things you wanted from Congress, without a lot of give-and-take with them by talking tough with firm veto threats. What does this say about the Democratic leadership, the way they’re running Congress and your relations with the leaders?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, I don’t view — I just don’t view life as zero-sum. I think all of us deserve credit for getting some things done. The President constantly has to make sure that the executive branch is involved in the process, and one way is to — is to use the veto. And the veto wouldn’t have been effective without close coordination and consultation with Republican leaders in the House and the Senate. And in that we made the veto effective, it then meant that negotiations could proceed, with the President involved.

And so I really don’t sit here and say, well, you know, he won, they lost, or they won, he lost — it’s just not my nature — because I think what ended up happening was good for the country. I think it’s good that we ended up with a spending bill that met 933, but also dealt with some emergencies. I think it’s good that we funded our troops without an artificial timetable for withdrawal. I think it’s good for the country that that happened.

I know it’s good that we passed an important piece of energy legislation. I proposed that in my State of the Union, but it required a Congress willing to work with the executive branch and to work among themselves to get the bill passed.

So there’s plenty of credit to go around. I know we live in an environment here in Washington where — I’m not saying you try to stir this up, but sometimes it’s beneficial to constantly harp on, well, they don’t get along here, or maybe they can’t agree here, it’s so-and-so versus so-and-so — it’s an antagonistic world from some people’s point of view. I try to make it less that way and to focus on high priorities.

And we got a lot of priorities for next year. And one of my priorities — this is — I understand this is a bone of contention, but one of the priorities is to make sure they don’t run up the taxes on people. And my attitude is, if you run them up on one area, it will become a habit that will be hard to break, and then they’ll try to run them up on other areas. And the reason I feel strongly about that is I don’t want to undermine the economy by raising taxes.

There’s some areas where we can work together, like reauthorization of No Child Left Behind, although I will warn Congress that — in that the current bill doesn’t expire, if they try to weaken the current bill, I’ll veto any attempt to weaken it. But I believe we can strengthen it. I spoke to Senator Kennedy on this issue, and Congressman Miller and Senator Enzi and Congressman Boehner about how to strengthen No Child.

I mean, there’s a lot of things we can do together, I guess what I’m saying, John. And so I leave the year feeling good about our capacity to get some important things done. And of course I’m grateful that the troops got funded. One of the — one of my concerns from the last year was that Congress initially spent a lot of time on passing resolutions and sentiment and trying to put — trying to tell our commanders how to conduct the war. And it just didn’t work. But they spent a lot of time on the subject, which meant when we came down to the end of the year, there was a lot of unfinished business. But we got it done.

Yes, Bill.

Q Mr. President, despite the military success of the surge, there’s no evidence that one of its intended benefits, making it easier for the Iraqis to form a unity government, has had any effect. Refugees won’t come home from Syria. There was an opinion poll this week which said that most of the Iraqis surveyed blamed us, said things would be better when the U.S. leaves. What benchmarks can the Iraqi government meet that would change this? What do you want them to do?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, I don’t agree with your premise that there’s no politics taking place in Iraq. There is a functioning government. They did pass a budget last year, and they’re in the process of passing their budget this year. I am pleased to report that there’s been two readings of a de-Baathification law to the Council of Assemblies.

Well, Bill, I mean, if your standard is — if you’re trying to judge the Iraqi parliament based upon our own Congress’s ability to get bills done, is that what you’re saying? I’d be a little careful. It took our Congress till the last minute to get things done. I mean, the legislative process is not all that smooth at times. And they’ve got a lot of work to do, don’t get me wrong. I mean, I am not suggesting that we shouldn’t as a government continue to press them. What I am suggesting, though, there is a functioning government. Your statement was, security didn’t provide room for a government to stand up and function. Well, it’s happening. And so, therefore — and therefore, we will continue to press them on de-Baath law, provincial election laws, power sharing with the central government and the provinces, and oil law.

But as I’ve reminded you from this podium, they are distributing oil revenues to the provinces. There is revenue-sharing, and there’s local reconciliation taking place. And a lot of times it’s local politics that will drive national politics. Are we satisfied with the progress in Baghdad? No. But to say nothing is happening is just simply not the case.

Q I understand you do not want to discuss the presidential campaign –

THE PRESIDENT: That’s true –

Q — let me ask you a question about –

THE PRESIDENT: — so, therefore, why don’t you ask me about the presidential campaign, I’ll confirm it.

Q Let me ask you about all presidential campaigns –

THE PRESIDENT: Sure. (Laughter.)

Q You’ve been in office for seven years now. You must have some pretty strong opinions about what it takes to sit in the Oval Office. What is important to you? Is experience in government important? Are a candidate’s religious views important to you?

THE PRESIDENT: It’s a good attempt to get me in the race. (Laughter.) What’s important to me will be this: the principles by which people will make decisions. People develop principles all different kinds of ways. But you can’t be the President unless you have a firm set of principles to guide you as you sort through all the problems the world faces. And I would be very hesitant to support somebody who relied upon opinion polls and focus groups to define a way forward for a President.

And so my question to — if I were asking questions to people running for office, I’d say, what are the principles that you will stand on, in good times and bad times? What will be the underpinning of your decisions? What will it be? Because a President needs to be consistent, and a President needs to understand that what may look like a non-issue today could be a big issue tomorrow.

And secondly I would say, how do you intend to get advice from people you surround yourself — who are you going to surround yourself, and what process will you have in place to ensure that you get the unvarnished opinion of advisors? Because whoever sits in that Oval Office is going to find this is a complex world, with a lot of issues coming into the Oval Office — a lot — and a great expectation in the world that the United States take the lead. And so my question would be, how do you intend to set up your Oval Office so that people will come in and give their advice?

And so those would be the two questions I’d ask. And –

Q It sounds like you think the principles are more important than experience or specific religious views.

THE PRESIDENT: No, sometimes you develop your principles as a result of experience. Sometimes you develop your principles based upon your — how you were raised, or your religious experiences. I just want to know whether or not somebody has got a sound set of principles from which they will not deviate as they make decisions that will affect the peace and security of our country.

Bret.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning. You’ve announced a review of the situation in Afghanistan. The last time the American people heard about a review of the war, it ended up in a surge of U.S. troops in Iraq. Can the U.S. expect a surge of U.S. troops in Afghanistan? And do you agree with many analysts who say that the real problem in Afghanistan, or a major problem, is that the NATO allies are not getting it done or avoiding the fight there?

THE PRESIDENT: Part of the review is to — is to assess how best to make sure our coalition partners realize there is a coherent strategy of which they are an integral part, all aiming to make sure that there is a presence that will assure the Afghan government and the Afghan people that people will be trying to help them with their security.

It is — it makes sense for us to constantly review our strategies in a variety of theaters. That’s what — that’s what good governance is: You analyze the situation a year after the previous strategy to determine whether or not — what worked and what didn’t work. What did work was the — you might remember last year, I guess there was a lot of talk about the Taliban surge or the Taliban offensive. And General McNeill informed us that the only team that’s going to be on the offense is American and NATO allies and other allies.

And we were on the offense. And the Taliban got hit hard last year. The question, of course, is, just like in Iraq, is there a follow-up to the security gains? In other words, is life changing better for the average citizen? That’s the question that we all got to be looking at. Unity governments are important, but does the average citizen realize that a free society is in his or her interest.

And I visited with President Karzai on the SVTS the other day, and it’s a question I basically asked him. I said, we were successful militarily; what’s happened in your country that you can point to that indicates that you’re taking advantage of better security in certain places?

And he pointed out some interesting things. He talked about the, I think it’s 5 million children now going to school. It was an interesting measurement for him. He says, I believe we’re taking advantage of the security because more of our children are getting educated. He told us a story — I can’t remember the exact province — about when he was part of the struggle against the Taliban, somebody got wounded, he took them to the hospital — there was nothing there. You know, it was, like, they called it a hospital, it was just kind of a rundown place where a person couldn’t get much good health care. And now, all of a sudden, he talks about an expanding health care system and the infant mortality rate dropping. He talks about the roads that are being built so that the average citizen there can get their crops to market. And we checked into his assertions and they’re true. So this is a society that is evolving.

Now, it takes a while for societies that have been brutalized by tyranny and wracked by war to meet expectations. So the questions I ask on Iraq and Afghanistan are: Is there progress? Are people feeling better about life? And of course, we press their governments to work to come together and get budgets passed, or in Iraq’s case, de-Baathification law or oil laws. And those are all important. But also what’s important is the human condition. And I believe we’re making progress on both fronts.

Yes, sir.

Q One more, I’m sorry. On the NATO allies — do you believe that they’re avoiding the fight, or at least some of them are?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I would like to praise the Brits, the Canadians, the Dutch, the Danes and other countries for their contribution — the Aussies — for their contribution of shooters, fighters, people that are willing to be on the front line of this battle. These are brave souls. They’re working side by side with the Afghan forces and U.S. forces to deal the Taliban a blow. And I’ve only got praise for them.

I understand that some countries are in a position where they can’t commit combat troops. And so the question is, are we able to leverage their position in Iraq in such a way that enables us to stay on the offense against the Taliban, help the Afghans to do so?

Any my biggest concern is that people say, well, we’re kind of tired of Afghanistan, therefore we think we’re going to leave. That would be my biggest concern. And so our objective is to help people meet a mission that they’re comfortable with achieving, and convince them that this is going to take a while, it’s going to take time for this democratic experiment there in Afghanistan to work. And I believe it will.

As you all know, I’ve said this many times from the podium, I do believe in the universality of freedom. I believe if people are given a chance to be free, they will do so. Now, I understand some don’t believe that. It’s kind of like we’re the only ones that can be free; it’s kind of the ultimate isolationism, isn’t it? And the question then is, is it in our nation’s interest to help others realize the blessings of liberty? And I — clearly, the Bush foreign policy says it is, because I believe it’s going to yield peace — and particularly important, given the fact that we’re in an ideological struggle against people who use murder to achieve political objectives.

And we’ve faced these kind of people before in our past. And the question is, does it make sense to confront them? And if we forget the lessons of September the 11th as a nation, we will be naive or blind to the realities of the world. And the best way to confront these folks in the long-term is to defeat their ideology with one based upon hope — and that’s one based upon liberty. And that’s what you’re watching unfold. It’s necessary work and it’s hard work. And it requires determination and effort and commitment. And so part of our efforts is to convince others, one, the nature of the world in which we live; two, that we’re in an ideological struggle; and three, we will prevail — because we’ve got the ultimate weapon against those who can’t see anything but terror and murder as a way forward, and that is freedom.

Yes, Holly.

Q Mr. President, prominent Republican economists, including Alan Greenspan and Marty Feldstein, are saying the government should do more to head off a recession. Greenspan is suggesting you need government money to prevent home foreclosures, and Feldstein is suggesting more tax cuts. Should the government do more, and if so, what?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we’re constantly analyzing options available to us. My view of the economy is that the fundamentals are strong, that we’ve had strong growth for a reason; that we’re competitive, we got flexible workplace, that we kept taxes low, exports are up.

Like many Americans, I’m concerned, and I’m concerned about the fact that Americans see their costs going up. I know Americans are concerned about whether or not their neighbor may stay in their house. And so we’re dealing with these issues.

On the housing front I made it clear we’re not going to bail out lenders, and we’re not going to help speculators, but we will help creditworthy people stay in their homes. And that’s what Secretary Paulson has done, along with Secretary Jackson, in putting together what’s called the HOPE NOW coalition, which has got lenders and financiers and consumer advocates, all working together to develop standards to make it more likely a creditworthy person can refinance their home.

See, the difficulty we face in the housing market is that the lender, the person who actually made the note, oftentimes doesn’t end up owning the note. That note could be — in the recent past has been bundled and sold as an asset. And so there’s no telling who owns the mortgage of the person who wants to renegotiate. And so we’re helping deal with the new realities in a way that we believe is going to be effective.

Secondly, the Congress can really help by passing a FHA modernization bill. The House passed a bill, the Senate passed a bill; they need to get together, when they get back, quickly and get it to my desk so that it makes it easier for the federal government, in this case, to help people refinance their homes.

In terms of further stimulation, we’ll consider all options. So we’re watching carefully.

Let’s see here. Baker.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Yesterday you joined together with House Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid to sign the energy legislation and talk about the importance of the bill in curbing greenhouse gases, among other goals. However, your administration then told California that it couldn’t implement its own plan to restrict tailpipe emissions. How important is fighting greenhouse gases to you? Why can’t the states try to do more? And can you tell me anything about your conversation with Vice President Gore about climate change a few weeks ago?

THE PRESIDENT: Remind me about that here. Let me finish the first part of the question and remind me you asked that.

The question is how to have an effective strategy. Is it more effective to let each state make a decision as to how to proceed in curbing greenhouse gases? Or is it more effective to have a national strategy? Director Johnson made a decision based upon the fact that we passed a piece of legislation that enables us to have a national strategy, which is the — increasing CAFE standards to 35 miles an hour [sic] by 2020, and a substantial increase of alternative fuels, 36 billion gallons by 2022.

And so the Director, in assessing this law, and assessing what would be more — more effective for the country, says, we now have a national plan. It’s one of the benefits of Congress passing this piece of legislation.

I told Vice President Gore that I take the issue seriously. And we’re developing a strategy that will deal with it, and an effective strategy. Yesterday’s bill is a part of that strategy. When you replace as much gasoline on a mandatory basis as we’re suggesting, it’s going to do a lot to improve the greenhouse gases. And by the way, the bill I signed was a little weaker than the one I suggested, but nevertheless was happy to sign it.

And one of the key components, by the way, to be successful on reformulated fuel standards is to spend research and development money on cellulosic ethanol, new ways to manufacture ethanol. We can’t rely only on corn in order to meet these standards. And I understand a lot of people in the farm belt are getting concerned — unless, of course, you’re a corn grower. But if you’re feeding cattle or feeding hogs, the cost of business has gone up. And that’s one of the tradeoffs you have to make. So what I want to assure people out there is that we’re spending a lot of taxpayers’ money in a way to figure out how to use wood chips or switchgrass in order to make ethanol. But this is a real national plan.

Secondly, in order to be effective on a global basis, countries that emit greenhouse gases need to be at the table. One of the main reasons I was against Kyoto was that China wasn’t at the table. I mean, we could do all we wanted to do, but it wouldn’t affect greenhouse gases over the long run unless a country like China had agreed to participate in a strategy.

And so we went to the Bali Conference with that in mind, and worked out a compromise that said we’re committed to a process that’s going to unfold over the next two years, but we’ve also got a parallel process working to make sure major emitters sit at the table and come together, hopefully, on a goal that we all agree to. And it’s a strategy that I laid out at the G8 in Germany; it’s a strategy that was explained to everybody there in Bali; and it’s a strategy we think will be effective.

And so, absolutely I take the issue seriously. But I want to make sure that we’re effective in what we do, and secondly, do not wreck our economy in whatever we do. See, it is hard to develop the technologies necessary to be able to make sure our standard of living remains strong and deal with greenhouse gases if you’re broke. If you don’t have any money, it is really hard to develop new technologies. And so we need to be prosperous for a lot of reasons, primarily so our citizens can have a good life; but also so that we’re wealthy enough to make the investments necessary to deal with greenhouse gases.

Finally, if you’re truly serious about dealing with greenhouse gases, then it seems like to me you ought to be a strong supporter of nuclear power. Nuclear power enables us to generate electricity without emitting one unit of greenhouse gases. I am — to me, I am amazed that our country isn’t more robust in supporting the advent of nuclear power. I certainly am, and applaud those efforts by members of the Congress to provide incentives for the construction of new plants.

But if you’re somebody that says greenhouse gases are of vital national interest, then you ought to be saying I’m for the development of nuclear power plants. It is by far the best solution to making sure we have economic growth and at the same time be good stewards of the environment.

So when you couple increasing CAFE standards with using alternative fuels, which deals with the automobile area, as well as a good strategy on electricity, then all of a sudden you begin to see a strategy unfold. And by the way, the final thing is, is that we do have 250 years of coal. And I believe we can develop technologies that will enable us to use that coal in an environmentally friendly way.

So what I’m suggesting to you is, is that we do have a strategy. Our strategy is to bring others to the table. Our strategy is to develop our own plan to meet the national goals — the international goals that I hope we’ll be able to set later on this summer. And you’ve just heard some of the components of it.

Yes, sir.

Q Mr. President, thank you. If I could return a minute to the CIA tapes. I realize you don’t want to discuss it at this point, but given your remarks about the struggle against ideology, how concerned are you that your administration once again faces criticism, questions from people around the world about the handling of a terrorist suspect?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, you’re trying to get me to prejudge the outcome of this inquiry. And let’s wait and see what happens. Let’s wait and see what the facts are. And — look, we get criticized a lot for a variety of reasons. We’re asking people to do hard things, for starters, which is intercept and find terrorists and to spread freedom. And there’s isolationist tendencies in this world. People would rather stay at home. People would rather not aggressively pursue people overseas, and aggressively pursue freedom. I understand that. We got people like that in our own country. That’s why, in my State of the Union address a couple of years ago, I talked about the perils of isolationism and protectionism. And the fundamental question facing whoever sits in the Oval Office is, will you use the influence of the United States to advance a freedom agenda to help others realize the blessings of liberty and yield peace?

So I don’t want people to get the wrong impression of our country, but I’m not surprised we get criticized on a variety of fronts. And — on the other hand, most people like to come to our country, and most people love what America stands for. And so, it’s like I say about the presidency, people in America like the presidency and sometime they like the President. Get it? (Laughter.)

Yes, ma’am.

Q Mr. President, on the Middle East, will your trip to the Middle East — I know you’re not going to Lebanon — will it help to stabilize Lebanon? As you know, President Sarkozy said that he spoke to President Assad, and he said his patience is running out –

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q Was this coordinated with you? And are you willing to speak to President Assad to end the crisis in Lebanon?

THE PRESIDENT: No, it wasn’t coordinated with me, and my patience ran out on President Assad a long time ago. And the reason why is, is because he houses Hamas, he facilitates Hezbollah, suiciders go from his country to Iraq, and he destabilizes Lebanon. And so, if he’s listening, he doesn’t need a phone call. He knows exactly what my position is.

We are — our view on Lebanon — first of all, it’s very important that Lebanon — Lebanon’s democracy succeed. Secondly, as you know, we did work with the French on 1559 to get Syria out of Lebanon, and Syria needs to stay out of Lebanon. Syria needs to let the process in Lebanon work. And if they can’t come to an agreement — I appreciate the sides trying to work on a common ground for a president, but if they can’t come for agreement, then the world ought to say this: that the March 14th Coalition can run their candidate and their parliament; majority plus one ought to determine who the president is. And when that happens, the world ought to embrace the president.

I’m looking forward to going to the Middle East. I’ve got a couple of objectives. One is to advance the Palestinian-Israeli peace process. Secondly is to continue to work with our Arab friends on reconciliation with Israel. And finally, is to assure people in the Middle East that we understand — or we’ll show a strong commitment to the security of the region, and a commitment to the security of our friends.

And it’s going to be a great trip. I hope you’re going with me.

Q I am, actually.

THE PRESIDENT: Good. (Laughter.) So, therefore, you use that as an opportunity to ask a follow-up. (Laughter.)

Q Absolutely.

THE PRESIDENT: Didn’t work. (Laughter.)

Mike.

Q Mr. President, you maybe saw that President Clinton said recently that one of the first actions of a new Clinton administration would be to send Presidents 41 and 42 on a worldwide goodwill mission to restore the country’s good name abroad.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes –

Q I wonder if you think such a thing is necessary –

THE PRESIDENT: Well, 41 didn’t think it’s necessary. It sounds like it’s going to be a one-man trip. (Laughter.)

Yes, Michael, do you want to try –

Q Mr. President, I wonder if you would consider doing such a thing during your presidency, and do you think that –

THE PRESIDENT: That’s what I do during my presidency. I go around spreading goodwill and talking about the importance of spreading freedom and peace. Go ahead. I don’t know what I’m going to do after I’m President. Michael, I’ve got an exciting 13 months ahead — and I know you’re just waiting for me to say “sprint to the finish line,” so I won’t. (Laughter.) But it’s — go ahead, Michael, try one more time.

Q Okay. Mr. President, you maybe saw that your former colleague from the National Governors Association, Mike Huckabee –

THE PRESIDENT: You’re trying to get me in the race, Mike.

Q No, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: You’re trying to drag me in the race. I know — what’s your advice? Should I do it?

Q Do it.

THE PRESIDENT: Do it?

Q Go for it. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: I plan on having some press conferences next year, and I suspect next year the questions will be even more plentiful about getting me to be the opiner-in-chief.

Yes, go ahead, Mike.

Q Mr. President, this is a question about your foreign policy. You maybe saw that your foreign policy was described as arrogant, go-it-alone. I wonder why you disagree with that, and if there’s any danger in having –

THE PRESIDENT: That’s a clever way of getting me in the race. Look, during the primaries and during the general election, I suspect my name may come up a lot, and what the American people need to do is to sort through the rhetoric and reality.

And so this is a subtle attempt to get me to start commenting about the primaries, and I’m not going to do so. I will wait, reserve judgment, be patient, and after the primaries are over, will help my party unify, because I believe we will keep the White House. I believe ours is a party that understands the nature of the world in which we live, and that the government’s primary responsibility is to protect the American citizens from harm. And I will continue to remind the American people that our professionals need to have the tools necessary to make sure that we find out who’s thinking about attacking us, and if they are, do something about it. That’s what we’re going to do.

We’re also the party that understands that you can spend your money, Michael, all that money they pay you, you can spend it better than the government can spend it. And therefore, we’re going to keep taxes low. And we’ve got an economic — a plan that will keep this economy strong.

And I’m looking forward to doing my bit. In the meantime, I’m out raising money for the Republican Party, trying to make sure that once the primaries are over, that you’re trying to drag me into, that we’re united and ready to go. And I’m confident we’ll hold the White House, and I’m confident we can pick up seats in both the Senate and the Congress.

Yes, sir.

Q So far, Republicans haven’t mentioned your name.

Q Yes, just a quick –

THE PRESIDENT: No, not you. This guy right here. USA today. Wolf.

Q On keeping taxes –

THE PRESIDENT: — yelled his name out — Wolf.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. On keeping taxes low, part of the way you seem to be doing it is by not paying for some of the things that passed in the last couple days — emergency spending on Iraq, the AMT fix. Can you tell us why it’s not irresponsible to pass these costs along to our kids? And I’m also tempted to ask, at the top of this you talked about the wasteful spending and an initiative that you were going to — with Director Nussle. Can you give us a little bit of a hint on how you’re going to go after –

THE PRESIDENT: No, I think we better — that will be an interesting nugget for next year. And secondly, we have been reducing the deficit. Pro-growth economic policies work. By cutting taxes, the economy grows, which yields more revenues for the treasury. And then the fundamental question is, can we bring fiscal discipline on the spending side. The argument that you’ve got to raise taxes to make sure your children don’t pay debt only works if the government doesn’t follow suit and spend that money you raised on new programs.

My view is, is that given more money, the government will find new ways to spend it. And secondly, by raising taxes, we’ll slow down the economic growth of this country, which will increase deficits over time.

And so we’re on a plan to reduce the deficit, and at the same time, fund our troops, and at the same time, keep taxes low. Pro-growth economic policies has worked. And maybe somebody else thinks you can raise taxes and keep the economy growing; I don’t. I think a sure way to hurt the economy is to run up taxes on people.

This other thing that’s interesting — and you hear these people in the campaigns — even though I’m not going to opine about the primary — but they do talk about taxing the rich. I just want people to remember that many small businesses pay tax at the individual income tax level because they’re organized not as c-corps, but as limited liability partnerships and s-corps, which means that they pay individual tax rates. And when you say you’re going to tax the rich, you’re taxing a lot of people that are hardworking people, and you’re taxing small businesses. Small businesses create most of the growth in our economy, most of the job growth. And a sure way to stop that from happening is to take money out of their treasury.

So I’m a strong believer that tax cuts work, and we need to keep taxes low.

Yes, sir. Dow Jones man. How’s the market?

Q I don’t know, I’ll check.

THE PRESIDENT: Okay, good, thanks.

Q The mortgage crisis is leading some of the nation’s biggest financial institutions to seek investments from funds that are controlled by foreign governments. Is that something that concerns you?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I like to get our money back. I think a world that is open for investment and trade is a world that will lead to overall prosperity. It’s interesting that they’re going to have to do that. My attitude is, is that Wall Street needs to put all their — put it all out there for everybody to see. They need to have the — off-balance sheet this and put out there for investors to take a look at. And if there’s some write-downs to be done, they need to do it now.

And so I’m fine with capital coming in from overseas to help bolster financial institutions. I don’t think it’s a problem. I think what will be a problem is to say we’re not going to accept foreign capital, or we’re not going to open markets, or we become protectionists. Protectionism would be a huge mistake for this country. And what’s going to be an interesting test next year on whether or not we’re going to be a country that trades with others and opens up markets is these free trade votes. I applaud the Congress for passing the Peruvian free trade deal. But we got some votes coming up with Colombia. That’s going to be an interesting test to determine whether or not we remain — that we remain an open economy and that we expect others to treat us the way we treat them.

And I spoke this morning to the President-elect of South Korea. And the people there are going to be watching very carefully as to whether or not our Congress understands the importance of the relationship and that they — they pass that free trade agreement with Korea. It’s in our interests we do so.

But, no, I understand — I understand that people are — when they write down their assets, they may need to get a little extra capital on their balance sheets. And it doesn’t trouble me at all. It doesn’t. What troubles me is the fact that they — is that some of this paper isn’t worth what people thought it was, and it’s going to have to work through the system.

Listen, thank you all. Have a wonderful holiday season. Appreciate it.

END 10:49 A.M. EST

 

Press Conference by the President of The United States

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. I hope you all enjoyed the holiday reception at the White House as much as Laura and I enjoyed it. We took an inventory of the silverware, and this year only a few pieces were missing — so, like, if you see Gregory, tell him to bring them back. (Laughter.) I’ve decided to come in and visit with you because you’re heading off on the holidays, and so are we, and we wish you happy holidays.

I think recent days have been a moment that the country can be proud of. In the past few days we have stopped a tax increase on the middle-class families, we improved our energy security, we delivered relief to struggling homeowners, and we funded our troops. I want to thank the members of both parties for their hard work in these areas. I’m pleased that we have been able to end this year on a high note by moving beyond our differences and achieving important results for the American people.

This week Congress passed legislation to protect middle-class families from the burden of the Alternative Minimum Tax, without raising taxes. Unfortunately, Congress passed this legislation after a lengthy delay. It’s going to — the delay is going to add time it takes to process tens of billions of dollars in refunds. And so we will work hard — now that the bill is passed, we will work hard to minimize the impact of the congressional delay so that Americans can get their refund checks as soon as possible.

Congress passed a good energy bill. The legislation I signed yesterday will reduce our country’s dependence on foreign oil by increasing the supply of alternative fuel sources and increasing fuel economy standards. It demonstrates America’s leadership in confronting climate change.

Congress also passed legislation to help homeowners struggling to make their mortgage payments. The bill I’m going to sign this afternoon increases the incentives for borrowers and lenders to work together to refinance loans. It will allow American families to secure lower mortgage payments without facing higher taxes. This is a tax reform bill. It takes away the penalty that a homeowner — a tax penalty a homeowner will receive if he or she renegotiates the loan to a lower rate, to a lower value for the house.

Finally, Congress reached agreement on a spending bill to fund the day-to-day operations of the federal government. They passed this bill without raising taxes. They eliminated many of the worst policy riders that would have never been approved through the ordinary legislative process. I appreciate that they included a down payment on the funding request for our troops on the front lines in Afghanistan and Iraq without an artificial timetable of withdrawal. These brave men and women are risking their lives to protect us and they deserve the full support of the U.S. government.

I’m disappointed that Congress resorted to passing all this spending in one massive, more than 1,400-page omnibus bill, rather than considering and passing individual spending bills in the normal process. The omnibus bill was approved at the last minute, nearly three months after the end of the fiscal year. When Congress wastes so much time and leaves its work to the final days before Christmas it is not a responsible way to run this government.

Another thing that’s not responsible is the number of earmarks that Congress included in a massive spending bill. Earmarks are special interest items that are slipped into big spending bills like this one — often at the last hour, without discussion or debate. Congressional leaders ran in the last election on a promise that they would curb earmarks. And they made some progress and there’s more transparency in the process, but they have not made enough progress. The bill they just passed includes about 9,800 earmarks. Together with the previously passed defense spending bill, that means Congress has approved about 11,900 earmarks this year. And so I’m instructing Budget Director Jim Nussle to review options for dealing with the wasteful spending in the omnibus bill.

I’m also disappointed that Congress failed to pass legislation to ensure that our intelligence professionals can continue to effectively monitor terrorist communications. Those of us in public office have no greater responsibility than stopping new attacks on our country. And this summer, Congress passed a bill that — called the “Protect America Act,” which strengthened our ability to collect foreign intelligence on terrorists overseas. The bill closed dangerous gaps in our intelligence; it was a good piece of legislation. It wasn’t perfect, but it was good. Unfortunately, Congress made this law effective until February 1st of 2008, as if the terrorist threat is going to go away on February the 1st, 2008.

The first priority of Congress when it returns in the new year must be to pass a good bill and get it to my desk promptly. They have a duty to give our professionals the tools necessary to protect the American people. The bill should include liability protection for companies that are facing multi-billion-dollar lawsuits, only because they are believed to have assisted in the efforts to defend or nation following the 9/11 attacks. And it must ensure that our intelligence professionals have all the tools they need to keep us safe.

I hope the members of Congress enjoy their holiday break; I intend to enjoy mine. We have a great deal of work in the months ahead. Next year is an election year, but that does not relieve us of our responsibility to carry out the people’s business. The American people did not elect us to govern in odd years, and campaign in even years. They expect us to get things done. That’s what we’ve accomplished over the past few weeks, and we need to carry this momentum into next year. I’m going to do my part, and I call upon the leaders of both parties on Capitol Hill to do their part.

And now I’ll be glad to answer some of your questions, starting with AP man.

Q Mr. President, there’s ambiguity in the statement that you have no recollection about the existence and destruction of the CIA interrogation tapes. Why can’t you say yes or no about the tapes and their destruction? And regardless, do you think the destruction of the tapes was a responsible thing to do?

THE PRESIDENT: It sounds pretty clear to me when I say I have — the first recollection is when Mike Hayden briefed me. That’s pretty clear. Secondly, I am confident that the preliminary inquiry conducted by the AG and the IG of the CIA, coupled with the oversight provided by the Congress, will end up enabling us all to find out what exactly happened. And therefore, over the course of these inquiries and oversight hearings, I’m going to reserve judgment until I find out the full facts.

I know I’m going to be asked about this question a lot as time goes on. I’m just going to prepare you; until these inquiries are complete, until the oversights are finished, then I will be rendering no opinion from the podium.

Q Vladimir Putin has just been named Time Magazine’s Person of the Year. And he has signaled that he intends to become prime minister. You said once that he had been wily about his intentions, but now that he’s made those clear, what does it say about the state of democracy in Russia?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, I’m looking forward to seeing him at the alumni meeting of the “men of the year,” or the “persons of the year.” I don’t know when it’s going to be, but — look, I presume — I haven’t read the article, but I presume they put him on there because he was a consequential leader. And the fundamental question is, consequential to what end? What will the country look like 10 years from now?

My hope, of course, is that Russia is a country which understands there needs to be checks and balances, and free and fair elections, and a vibrant press; that they understand Western values based upon human rights and human dignity are values that will lead to a better country. That’s my hopes.

Now, your speculation as to whether or not he’ll be the prime minister, I don’t know if he is, I haven’t talked to him about it. And until that happens, I think we better just watch and see. What will be interesting next year is how the Russian President carries on his business — the new Russian President. In other words, we’ll be together probably a couple of times next year, and it will be interesting to see how foreign policy is conducted and what the role of President Putin may be or not be. I just don’t know yet, so we’ll just wait and see how it — what happens.

John.

Q Mr. President, a year ago when you had your year-end press conference, the Democrats had just taken control of Congress; they said that one of their main goals was to end the war in Iraq, they were talking a lot about very contentious times ahead. As you just said, the Congress has now passed again, without strings, money for the war, and you’ve achieved a lot of your goals and have gotten a lot of things you wanted from Congress, without a lot of give-and-take with them by talking tough with firm veto threats. What does this say about the Democratic leadership, the way they’re running Congress and your relations with the leaders?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, I don’t view — I just don’t view life as zero-sum. I think all of us deserve credit for getting some things done. The President constantly has to make sure that the executive branch is involved in the process, and one way is to — is to use the veto. And the veto wouldn’t have been effective without close coordination and consultation with Republican leaders in the House and the Senate. And in that we made the veto effective, it then meant that negotiations could proceed, with the President involved.

And so I really don’t sit here and say, well, you know, he won, they lost, or they won, he lost — it’s just not my nature — because I think what ended up happening was good for the country. I think it’s good that we ended up with a spending bill that met 933, but also dealt with some emergencies. I think it’s good that we funded our troops without an artificial timetable for withdrawal. I think it’s good for the country that that happened.

I know it’s good that we passed an important piece of energy legislation. I proposed that in my State of the Union, but it required a Congress willing to work with the executive branch and to work among themselves to get the bill passed.

So there’s plenty of credit to go around. I know we live in an environment here in Washington where — I’m not saying you try to stir this up, but sometimes it’s beneficial to constantly harp on, well, they don’t get along here, or maybe they can’t agree here, it’s so-and-so versus so-and-so — it’s an antagonistic world from some people’s point of view. I try to make it less that way and to focus on high priorities.

And we got a lot of priorities for next year. And one of my priorities — this is — I understand this is a bone of contention, but one of the priorities is to make sure they don’t run up the taxes on people. And my attitude is, if you run them up on one area, it will become a habit that will be hard to break, and then they’ll try to run them up on other areas. And the reason I feel strongly about that is I don’t want to undermine the economy by raising taxes.

There’s some areas where we can work together, like reauthorization of No Child Left Behind, although I will warn Congress that — in that the current bill doesn’t expire, if they try to weaken the current bill, I’ll veto any attempt to weaken it. But I believe we can strengthen it. I spoke to Senator Kennedy on this issue, and Congressman Miller and Senator Enzi and Congressman Boehner about how to strengthen No Child.

I mean, there’s a lot of things we can do together, I guess what I’m saying, John. And so I leave the year feeling good about our capacity to get some important things done. And of course I’m grateful that the troops got funded. One of the — one of my concerns from the last year was that Congress initially spent a lot of time on passing resolutions and sentiment and trying to put — trying to tell our commanders how to conduct the war. And it just didn’t work. But they spent a lot of time on the subject, which meant when we came down to the end of the year, there was a lot of unfinished business. But we got it done.

Yes, Bill.

Q Mr. President, despite the military success of the surge, there’s no evidence that one of its intended benefits, making it easier for the Iraqis to form a unity government, has had any effect. Refugees won’t come home from Syria. There was an opinion poll this week which said that most of the Iraqis surveyed blamed us, said things would be better when the U.S. leaves. What benchmarks can the Iraqi government meet that would change this? What do you want them to do?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, I don’t agree with your premise that there’s no politics taking place in Iraq. There is a functioning government. They did pass a budget last year, and they’re in the process of passing their budget this year. I am pleased to report that there’s been two readings of a de-Baathification law to the Council of Assemblies.

Well, Bill, I mean, if your standard is — if you’re trying to judge the Iraqi parliament based upon our own Congress’s ability to get bills done, is that what you’re saying? I’d be a little careful. It took our Congress till the last minute to get things done. I mean, the legislative process is not all that smooth at times. And they’ve got a lot of work to do, don’t get me wrong. I mean, I am not suggesting that we shouldn’t as a government continue to press them. What I am suggesting, though, there is a functioning government. Your statement was, security didn’t provide room for a government to stand up and function. Well, it’s happening. And so, therefore — and therefore, we will continue to press them on de-Baath law, provincial election laws, power sharing with the central government and the provinces, and oil law.

But as I’ve reminded you from this podium, they are distributing oil revenues to the provinces. There is revenue-sharing, and there’s local reconciliation taking place. And a lot of times it’s local politics that will drive national politics. Are we satisfied with the progress in Baghdad? No. But to say nothing is happening is just simply not the case.

Q I understand you do not want to discuss the presidential campaign –

THE PRESIDENT: That’s true –

Q — let me ask you a question about –

THE PRESIDENT: — so, therefore, why don’t you ask me about the presidential campaign, I’ll confirm it.

Q Let me ask you about all presidential campaigns –

THE PRESIDENT: Sure. (Laughter.)

Q You’ve been in office for seven years now. You must have some pretty strong opinions about what it takes to sit in the Oval Office. What is important to you? Is experience in government important? Are a candidate’s religious views important to you?

THE PRESIDENT: It’s a good attempt to get me in the race. (Laughter.) What’s important to me will be this: the principles by which people will make decisions. People develop principles all different kinds of ways. But you can’t be the President unless you have a firm set of principles to guide you as you sort through all the problems the world faces. And I would be very hesitant to support somebody who relied upon opinion polls and focus groups to define a way forward for a President.

And so my question to — if I were asking questions to people running for office, I’d say, what are the principles that you will stand on, in good times and bad times? What will be the underpinning of your decisions? What will it be? Because a President needs to be consistent, and a President needs to understand that what may look like a non-issue today could be a big issue tomorrow.

And secondly I would say, how do you intend to get advice from people you surround yourself — who are you going to surround yourself, and what process will you have in place to ensure that you get the unvarnished opinion of advisors? Because whoever sits in that Oval Office is going to find this is a complex world, with a lot of issues coming into the Oval Office — a lot — and a great expectation in the world that the United States take the lead. And so my question would be, how do you intend to set up your Oval Office so that people will come in and give their advice?

And so those would be the two questions I’d ask. And –

Q It sounds like you think the principles are more important than experience or specific religious views.

THE PRESIDENT: No, sometimes you develop your principles as a result of experience. Sometimes you develop your principles based upon your — how you were raised, or your religious experiences. I just want to know whether or not somebody has got a sound set of principles from which they will not deviate as they make decisions that will affect the peace and security of our country.

Bret.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning. You’ve announced a review of the situation in Afghanistan. The last time the American people heard about a review of the war, it ended up in a surge of U.S. troops in Iraq. Can the U.S. expect a surge of U.S. troops in Afghanistan? And do you agree with many analysts who say that the real problem in Afghanistan, or a major problem, is that the NATO allies are not getting it done or avoiding the fight there?

THE PRESIDENT: Part of the review is to — is to assess how best to make sure our coalition partners realize there is a coherent strategy of which they are an integral part, all aiming to make sure that there is a presence that will assure the Afghan government and the Afghan people that people will be trying to help them with their security.

It is — it makes sense for us to constantly review our strategies in a variety of theaters. That’s what — that’s what good governance is: You analyze the situation a year after the previous strategy to determine whether or not — what worked and what didn’t work. What did work was the — you might remember last year, I guess there was a lot of talk about the Taliban surge or the Taliban offensive. And General McNeill informed us that the only team that’s going to be on the offense is American and NATO allies and other allies.

And we were on the offense. And the Taliban got hit hard last year. The question, of course, is, just like in Iraq, is there a follow-up to the security gains? In other words, is life changing better for the average citizen? That’s the question that we all got to be looking at. Unity governments are important, but does the average citizen realize that a free society is in his or her interest.

And I visited with President Karzai on the SVTS the other day, and it’s a question I basically asked him. I said, we were successful militarily; what’s happened in your country that you can point to that indicates that you’re taking advantage of better security in certain places?

And he pointed out some interesting things. He talked about the, I think it’s 5 million children now going to school. It was an interesting measurement for him. He says, I believe we’re taking advantage of the security because more of our children are getting educated. He told us a story — I can’t remember the exact province — about when he was part of the struggle against the Taliban, somebody got wounded, he took them to the hospital — there was nothing there. You know, it was, like, they called it a hospital, it was just kind of a rundown place where a person couldn’t get much good health care. And now, all of a sudden, he talks about an expanding health care system and the infant mortality rate dropping. He talks about the roads that are being built so that the average citizen there can get their crops to market. And we checked into his assertions and they’re true. So this is a society that is evolving.

Now, it takes a while for societies that have been brutalized by tyranny and wracked by war to meet expectations. So the questions I ask on Iraq and Afghanistan are: Is there progress? Are people feeling better about life? And of course, we press their governments to work to come together and get budgets passed, or in Iraq’s case, de-Baathification law or oil laws. And those are all important. But also what’s important is the human condition. And I believe we’re making progress on both fronts.

Yes, sir.

Q One more, I’m sorry. On the NATO allies — do you believe that they’re avoiding the fight, or at least some of them are?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I would like to praise the Brits, the Canadians, the Dutch, the Danes and other countries for their contribution — the Aussies — for their contribution of shooters, fighters, people that are willing to be on the front line of this battle. These are brave souls. They’re working side by side with the Afghan forces and U.S. forces to deal the Taliban a blow. And I’ve only got praise for them.

I understand that some countries are in a position where they can’t commit combat troops. And so the question is, are we able to leverage their position in Iraq in such a way that enables us to stay on the offense against the Taliban, help the Afghans to do so?

Any my biggest concern is that people say, well, we’re kind of tired of Afghanistan, therefore we think we’re going to leave. That would be my biggest concern. And so our objective is to help people meet a mission that they’re comfortable with achieving, and convince them that this is going to take a while, it’s going to take time for this democratic experiment there in Afghanistan to work. And I believe it will.

As you all know, I’ve said this many times from the podium, I do believe in the universality of freedom. I believe if people are given a chance to be free, they will do so. Now, I understand some don’t believe that. It’s kind of like we’re the only ones that can be free; it’s kind of the ultimate isolationism, isn’t it? And the question then is, is it in our nation’s interest to help others realize the blessings of liberty? And I — clearly, the Bush foreign policy says it is, because I believe it’s going to yield peace — and particularly important, given the fact that we’re in an ideological struggle against people who use murder to achieve political objectives.

And we’ve faced these kind of people before in our past. And the question is, does it make sense to confront them? And if we forget the lessons of September the 11th as a nation, we will be naive or blind to the realities of the world. And the best way to confront these folks in the long-term is to defeat their ideology with one based upon hope — and that’s one based upon liberty. And that’s what you’re watching unfold. It’s necessary work and it’s hard work. And it requires determination and effort and commitment. And so part of our efforts is to convince others, one, the nature of the world in which we live; two, that we’re in an ideological struggle; and three, we will prevail — because we’ve got the ultimate weapon against those who can’t see anything but terror and murder as a way forward, and that is freedom.

Yes, Holly.

Q Mr. President, prominent Republican economists, including Alan Greenspan and Marty Feldstein, are saying the government should do more to head off a recession. Greenspan is suggesting you need government money to prevent home foreclosures, and Feldstein is suggesting more tax cuts. Should the government do more, and if so, what?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we’re constantly analyzing options available to us. My view of the economy is that the fundamentals are strong, that we’ve had strong growth for a reason; that we’re competitive, we got flexible workplace, that we kept taxes low, exports are up.

Like many Americans, I’m concerned, and I’m concerned about the fact that Americans see their costs going up. I know Americans are concerned about whether or not their neighbor may stay in their house. And so we’re dealing with these issues.

On the housing front I made it clear we’re not going to bail out lenders, and we’re not going to help speculators, but we will help creditworthy people stay in their homes. And that’s what Secretary Paulson has done, along with Secretary Jackson, in putting together what’s called the HOPE NOW coalition, which has got lenders and financiers and consumer advocates, all working together to develop standards to make it more likely a creditworthy person can refinance their home.

See, the difficulty we face in the housing market is that the lender, the person who actually made the note, oftentimes doesn’t end up owning the note. That note could be — in the recent past has been bundled and sold as an asset. And so there’s no telling who owns the mortgage of the person who wants to renegotiate. And so we’re helping deal with the new realities in a way that we believe is going to be effective.

Secondly, the Congress can really help by passing a FHA modernization bill. The House passed a bill, the Senate passed a bill; they need to get together, when they get back, quickly and get it to my desk so that it makes it easier for the federal government, in this case, to help people refinance their homes.

In terms of further stimulation, we’ll consider all options. So we’re watching carefully.

Let’s see here. Baker.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Yesterday you joined together with House Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid to sign the energy legislation and talk about the importance of the bill in curbing greenhouse gases, among other goals. However, your administration then told California that it couldn’t implement its own plan to restrict tailpipe emissions. How important is fighting greenhouse gases to you? Why can’t the states try to do more? And can you tell me anything about your conversation with Vice President Gore about climate change a few weeks ago?

THE PRESIDENT: Remind me about that here. Let me finish the first part of the question and remind me you asked that.

The question is how to have an effective strategy. Is it more effective to let each state make a decision as to how to proceed in curbing greenhouse gases? Or is it more effective to have a national strategy? Director Johnson made a decision based upon the fact that we passed a piece of legislation that enables us to have a national strategy, which is the — increasing CAFE standards to 35 miles an hour [sic] by 2020, and a substantial increase of alternative fuels, 36 billion gallons by 2022.

And so the Director, in assessing this law, and assessing what would be more — more effective for the country, says, we now have a national plan. It’s one of the benefits of Congress passing this piece of legislation.

I told Vice President Gore that I take the issue seriously. And we’re developing a strategy that will deal with it, and an effective strategy. Yesterday’s bill is a part of that strategy. When you replace as much gasoline on a mandatory basis as we’re suggesting, it’s going to do a lot to improve the greenhouse gases. And by the way, the bill I signed was a little weaker than the one I suggested, but nevertheless was happy to sign it.

And one of the key components, by the way, to be successful on reformulated fuel standards is to spend research and development money on cellulosic ethanol, new ways to manufacture ethanol. We can’t rely only on corn in order to meet these standards. And I understand a lot of people in the farm belt are getting concerned — unless, of course, you’re a corn grower. But if you’re feeding cattle or feeding hogs, the cost of business has gone up. And that’s one of the tradeoffs you have to make. So what I want to assure people out there is that we’re spending a lot of taxpayers’ money in a way to figure out how to use wood chips or switchgrass in order to make ethanol. But this is a real national plan.

Secondly, in order to be effective on a global basis, countries that emit greenhouse gases need to be at the table. One of the main reasons I was against Kyoto was that China wasn’t at the table. I mean, we could do all we wanted to do, but it wouldn’t affect greenhouse gases over the long run unless a country like China had agreed to participate in a strategy.

And so we went to the Bali Conference with that in mind, and worked out a compromise that said we’re committed to a process that’s going to unfold over the next two years, but we’ve also got a parallel process working to make sure major emitters sit at the table and come together, hopefully, on a goal that we all agree to. And it’s a strategy that I laid out at the G8 in Germany; it’s a strategy that was explained to everybody there in Bali; and it’s a strategy we think will be effective.

And so, absolutely I take the issue seriously. But I want to make sure that we’re effective in what we do, and secondly, do not wreck our economy in whatever we do. See, it is hard to develop the technologies necessary to be able to make sure our standard of living remains strong and deal with greenhouse gases if you’re broke. If you don’t have any money, it is really hard to develop new technologies. And so we need to be prosperous for a lot of reasons, primarily so our citizens can have a good life; but also so that we’re wealthy enough to make the investments necessary to deal with greenhouse gases.

Finally, if you’re truly serious about dealing with greenhouse gases, then it seems like to me you ought to be a strong supporter of nuclear power. Nuclear power enables us to generate electricity without emitting one unit of greenhouse gases. I am — to me, I am amazed that our country isn’t more robust in supporting the advent of nuclear power. I certainly am, and applaud those efforts by members of the Congress to provide incentives for the construction of new plants.

But if you’re somebody that says greenhouse gases are of vital national interest, then you ought to be saying I’m for the development of nuclear power plants. It is by far the best solution to making sure we have economic growth and at the same time be good stewards of the environment.

So when you couple increasing CAFE standards with using alternative fuels, which deals with the automobile area, as well as a good strategy on electricity, then all of a sudden you begin to see a strategy unfold. And by the way, the final thing is, is that we do have 250 years of coal. And I believe we can develop technologies that will enable us to use that coal in an environmentally friendly way.

So what I’m suggesting to you is, is that we do have a strategy. Our strategy is to bring others to the table. Our strategy is to develop our own plan to meet the national goals — the international goals that I hope we’ll be able to set later on this summer. And you’ve just heard some of the components of it.

Yes, sir.

Q Mr. President, thank you. If I could return a minute to the CIA tapes. I realize you don’t want to discuss it at this point, but given your remarks about the struggle against ideology, how concerned are you that your administration once again faces criticism, questions from people around the world about the handling of a terrorist suspect?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, you’re trying to get me to prejudge the outcome of this inquiry. And let’s wait and see what happens. Let’s wait and see what the facts are. And — look, we get criticized a lot for a variety of reasons. We’re asking people to do hard things, for starters, which is intercept and find terrorists and to spread freedom. And there’s isolationist tendencies in this world. People would rather stay at home. People would rather not aggressively pursue people overseas, and aggressively pursue freedom. I understand that. We got people like that in our own country. That’s why, in my State of the Union address a couple of years ago, I talked about the perils of isolationism and protectionism. And the fundamental question facing whoever sits in the Oval Office is, will you use the influence of the United States to advance a freedom agenda to help others realize the blessings of liberty and yield peace?

So I don’t want people to get the wrong impression of our country, but I’m not surprised we get criticized on a variety of fronts. And — on the other hand, most people like to come to our country, and most people love what America stands for. And so, it’s like I say about the presidency, people in America like the presidency and sometime they like the President. Get it? (Laughter.)

Yes, ma’am.

Q Mr. President, on the Middle East, will your trip to the Middle East — I know you’re not going to Lebanon — will it help to stabilize Lebanon? As you know, President Sarkozy said that he spoke to President Assad, and he said his patience is running out –

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q Was this coordinated with you? And are you willing to speak to President Assad to end the crisis in Lebanon?

THE PRESIDENT: No, it wasn’t coordinated with me, and my patience ran out on President Assad a long time ago. And the reason why is, is because he houses Hamas, he facilitates Hezbollah, suiciders go from his country to Iraq, and he destabilizes Lebanon. And so, if he’s listening, he doesn’t need a phone call. He knows exactly what my position is.

We are — our view on Lebanon — first of all, it’s very important that Lebanon — Lebanon’s democracy succeed. Secondly, as you know, we did work with the French on 1559 to get Syria out of Lebanon, and Syria needs to stay out of Lebanon. Syria needs to let the process in Lebanon work. And if they can’t come to an agreement — I appreciate the sides trying to work on a common ground for a president, but if they can’t come for agreement, then the world ought to say this: that the March 14th Coalition can run their candidate and their parliament; majority plus one ought to determine who the president is. And when that happens, the world ought to embrace the president.

I’m looking forward to going to the Middle East. I’ve got a couple of objectives. One is to advance the Palestinian-Israeli peace process. Secondly is to continue to work with our Arab friends on reconciliation with Israel. And finally, is to assure people in the Middle East that we understand — or we’ll show a strong commitment to the security of the region, and a commitment to the security of our friends.

And it’s going to be a great trip. I hope you’re going with me.

Q I am, actually.

THE PRESIDENT: Good. (Laughter.) So, therefore, you use that as an opportunity to ask a follow-up. (Laughter.)

Q Absolutely.

THE PRESIDENT: Didn’t work. (Laughter.)

Mike.

Q Mr. President, you maybe saw that President Clinton said recently that one of the first actions of a new Clinton administration would be to send Presidents 41 and 42 on a worldwide goodwill mission to restore the country’s good name abroad.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes –

Q I wonder if you think such a thing is necessary –

THE PRESIDENT: Well, 41 didn’t think it’s necessary. It sounds like it’s going to be a one-man trip. (Laughter.)

Yes, Michael, do you want to try –

Q Mr. President, I wonder if you would consider doing such a thing during your presidency, and do you think that –

THE PRESIDENT: That’s what I do during my presidency. I go around spreading goodwill and talking about the importance of spreading freedom and peace. Go ahead. I don’t know what I’m going to do after I’m President. Michael, I’ve got an exciting 13 months ahead — and I know you’re just waiting for me to say “sprint to the finish line,” so I won’t. (Laughter.) But it’s — go ahead, Michael, try one more time.

Q Okay. Mr. President, you maybe saw that your former colleague from the National Governors Association, Mike Huckabee –

THE PRESIDENT: You’re trying to get me in the race, Mike.

Q No, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: You’re trying to drag me in the race. I know — what’s your advice? Should I do it?

Q Do it.

THE PRESIDENT: Do it?

Q Go for it. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: I plan on having some press conferences next year, and I suspect next year the questions will be even more plentiful about getting me to be the opiner-in-chief.

Yes, go ahead, Mike.

Q Mr. President, this is a question about your foreign policy. You maybe saw that your foreign policy was described as arrogant, go-it-alone. I wonder why you disagree with that, and if there’s any danger in having –

THE PRESIDENT: That’s a clever way of getting me in the race. Look, during the primaries and during the general election, I suspect my name may come up a lot, and what the American people need to do is to sort through the rhetoric and reality.

And so this is a subtle attempt to get me to start commenting about the primaries, and I’m not going to do so. I will wait, reserve judgment, be patient, and after the primaries are over, will help my party unify, because I believe we will keep the White House. I believe ours is a party that understands the nature of the world in which we live, and that the government’s primary responsibility is to protect the American citizens from harm. And I will continue to remind the American people that our professionals need to have the tools necessary to make sure that we find out who’s thinking about attacking us, and if they are, do something about it. That’s what we’re going to do.

We’re also the party that understands that you can spend your money, Michael, all that money they pay you, you can spend it better than the government can spend it. And therefore, we’re going to keep taxes low. And we’ve got an economic — a plan that will keep this economy strong.

And I’m looking forward to doing my bit. In the meantime, I’m out raising money for the Republican Party, trying to make sure that once the primaries are over, that you’re trying to drag me into, that we’re united and ready to go. And I’m confident we’ll hold the White House, and I’m confident we can pick up seats in both the Senate and the Congress.

Yes, sir.

Q So far, Republicans haven’t mentioned your name.

Q Yes, just a quick –

THE PRESIDENT: No, not you. This guy right here. USA today. Wolf.

Q On keeping taxes –

THE PRESIDENT: — yelled his name out — Wolf.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. On keeping taxes low, part of the way you seem to be doing it is by not paying for some of the things that passed in the last couple days — emergency spending on Iraq, the AMT fix. Can you tell us why it’s not irresponsible to pass these costs along to our kids? And I’m also tempted to ask, at the top of this you talked about the wasteful spending and an initiative that you were going to — with Director Nussle. Can you give us a little bit of a hint on how you’re going to go after –

THE PRESIDENT: No, I think we better — that will be an interesting nugget for next year. And secondly, we have been reducing the deficit. Pro-growth economic policies work. By cutting taxes, the economy grows, which yields more revenues for the treasury. And then the fundamental question is, can we bring fiscal discipline on the spending side. The argument that you’ve got to raise taxes to make sure your children don’t pay debt only works if the government doesn’t follow suit and spend that money you raised on new programs.

My view is, is that given more money, the government will find new ways to spend it. And secondly, by raising taxes, we’ll slow down the economic growth of this country, which will increase deficits over time.

And so we’re on a plan to reduce the deficit, and at the same time, fund our troops, and at the same time, keep taxes low. Pro-growth economic policies has worked. And maybe somebody else thinks you can raise taxes and keep the economy growing; I don’t. I think a sure way to hurt the economy is to run up taxes on people.

This other thing that’s interesting — and you hear these people in the campaigns — even though I’m not going to opine about the primary — but they do talk about taxing the rich. I just want people to remember that many small businesses pay tax at the individual income tax level because they’re organized not as c-corps, but as limited liability partnerships and s-corps, which means that they pay individual tax rates. And when you say you’re going to tax the rich, you’re taxing a lot of people that are hardworking people, and you’re taxing small businesses. Small businesses create most of the growth in our economy, most of the job growth. And a sure way to stop that from happening is to take money out of their treasury.

So I’m a strong believer that tax cuts work, and we need to keep taxes low.

Yes, sir. Dow Jones man. How’s the market?

Q I don’t know, I’ll check.

THE PRESIDENT: Okay, good, thanks.

Q The mortgage crisis is leading some of the nation’s biggest financial institutions to seek investments from funds that are controlled by foreign governments. Is that something that concerns you?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I like to get our money back. I think a world that is open for investment and trade is a world that will lead to overall prosperity. It’s interesting that they’re going to have to do that. My attitude is, is that Wall Street needs to put all their — put it all out there for everybody to see. They need to have the — off-balance sheet this and put out there for investors to take a look at. And if there’s some write-downs to be done, they need to do it now.

And so I’m fine with capital coming in from overseas to help bolster financial institutions. I don’t think it’s a problem. I think what will be a problem is to say we’re not going to accept foreign capital, or we’re not going to open markets, or we become protectionists. Protectionism would be a huge mistake for this country. And what’s going to be an interesting test next year on whether or not we’re going to be a country that trades with others and opens up markets is these free trade votes. I applaud the Congress for passing the Peruvian free trade deal. But we got some votes coming up with Colombia. That’s going to be an interesting test to determine whether or not we remain — that we remain an open economy and that we expect others to treat us the way we treat them.

And I spoke this morning to the President-elect of South Korea. And the people there are going to be watching very carefully as to whether or not our Congress understands the importance of the relationship and that they — they pass that free trade agreement with Korea. It’s in our interests we do so.

But, no, I understand — I understand that people are — when they write down their assets, they may need to get a little extra capital on their balance sheets. And it doesn’t trouble me at all. It doesn’t. What troubles me is the fact that they — is that some of this paper isn’t worth what people thought it was, and it’s going to have to work through the system.

Listen, thank you all. Have a wonderful holiday season. Appreciate it.

END 10:49 A.M. EST

 

Metropolitan Museum Acquires Diane Arbus Archive

The Estate of Diane Arbus has selected the Museum to be the permanent repository of the artist’s negatives, papers, correspondence, and library.  The Museum will collaborate with the Estate to preserve Arbus’s legacy and to ensure that her work will continue to be seen in the context of responsible scholarship and in a manner that honors the subjects of the photographs and the intentions of the artist. 

The Estate’s gifts and promised gifts to the Museum include hundreds of early and unique photographs by Arbus, negatives and contact prints of 7,500 rolls of film, glassine print sleeves annotated by the artist, as well as her photography collection, library, and personal papers including appointment books, notebooks, correspondence, writings, and ephemera.  The entire collection - which will be preserved, fully catalogued, and eventually made available for research to scholars, artists, and the general public – will be known as The Diane Arbus Archive. 

The Museum has also purchased twenty of Diane Arbus’s most iconic photographs, including such masterpieces as Russian midget friends in a living room on 100th Street, N.Y.C., 1963, and Woman with a veil on Fifth Avenue, N.Y.C., 1968. 

                                                                               

Chosen to complement the Metropolitan’s noteworthy photography collection, the prints range in date from her earliest 35mm street photographs – such as Masked boy with friends, Coney Island, N.Y., 1956 – to one of her last pictures, Blind couple in their bedroom, Queens, N.Y., 1971.

Philippe de Montebello, Director of the Metropolitan Museum, stated: “These remarkable acquisitions will establish the Museum as the center for scholarship on Diane Arbus, and go to the heart of our mission to collect, preserve, study, and exhibit the highest achievements of artists from antiquity to our own age.  The Museum is grateful that the artist’s estate has entrusted the Metropolitan with the stewardship of Diane Arbus’s legacy.” 

Many of the original materials in The Diane Arbus Archive were featured in Diane Arbus Revelations, the traveling exhibition (2003-2006) that was organized by the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art with the artist’s estate and presented at the Metropolitan Museum in spring 2005.  As Doon Arbus, the artist’s elder daughter, wrote in the accompanying publication’s afterword, she and her sister Amy “kept an awful lot of stuff, partly out of diligence, or superstition, partly out of reverence for the kind of history that survives more or less intact in objects.”  These items, the residue of the artist’s life, will be used by this and future generations to trace the evolution of the photographer’s visual ideas through a parallel understanding of the individuals and cultural conditions that molded and stimulated that development.

Jeff L. Rosenheim, Curator in the Museum’s Department of Photographs, will oversee the long-term effort to fully catalogue and preserve the collection, and to develop plans for future exhibitions and publications.  He noted: “It is rare in any field that one of its greatest practitioners should leave behind her entire output. 

Because this is the case with Diane Arbus, as it was with Walker Evans, whose personal archive came to the Museum in 1994, the Metropolitan will now have the opportunity to map the creativity of two great artists in the most complete way.  The Diane Arbus Archive will provide a contextual understanding of Arbus’s stunning achievement with the camera, and simultaneously offer fundamental insight into what it means to be an artist in modern times.”

 

President Bush Meets with President Giorgio Napolitano of Italy

PRESIDENT BUSH: Mr. President, it’s my honor to welcome you to the Oval Office. We just had a very substantive meeting. And it will be my honor to feed you lunch. I doubt it is going to be — the food is going to be as good as the food I had when I visited your beautiful country.

Bilateral relations with the United States and Italy are very good. We have a lot of interchange between our countries, with business as well as travel. And there are millions of Italian Americans who will be pleased, Mr. President, to know we’ve got good relations.

Secondly, we just had a really around-the-world trip, as we discussed problem areas and our mutual desire to work together to help solve those problems.

We discussed Afghanistan, Lebanon, Kosovo. I briefed the President on the recent Annapolis conference that we hosted to help get the peace process started between the Palestinians and Israelis. We had a very compatible relation — discussion, because by and large, we’re in agreement on how to advance the solutions to these issues.

And finally, I’m — have expressed and will continue to dialogue with the President about my deep concern about Iran. Iran is dangerous. Iran — we believe Iran had a secret military weapons program. And Iran must explain to the world why they had a program. Iran has an obligation to explain to the IAEA why they hid this program from them. Iran is dangerous, and they’ll be even more dangerous if they learn how to enrich uranium.

And so I look forward to working with the President to explain our strategy and figure out ways we can work together to prevent this from happening for the sake of world peace.

So I’m sure proud to have you here, Mr. President, and welcome.

PRESIDENT NAPOLITANO: Thank you very much, Mr. President. It has been a great pleasure for me to accept your invitation. You kindly addressed me six months ago when you were in Rome, and we had already then very positive talks.

And in the past few months, there have been important and rather positive developments in the international situation. First of all, I wanted to express to President Bush my deep appreciation for the responsibility he wanted to take to foster negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian authorities in view of a peace treaty.

Italy is present in several areas of crisis. In this moment, it is an Italian general who is taking the command of the Kabul region in Afghanistan. In Iraq, we give our contribution to the stabilization of the country, participating in NATO training activities, and as a matter of fact, there has been an undeniable improvement in the security conditions in Iraq in the past few months.

In fact, generally speaking, we share the same concerns and we express a common commitment. Speaking particularly of Kosovo, we could verify how close are our positions on the way to deal with the independence of Kosovo, taking into account the difficult overall situation in the region.

We want to discuss constructively our positions on all questions and all threats. We just want to give our contribution and our idea how to face successfully all threats, including the relative threat of nuclear weaponization of Iran.

I just want to add a word about Europe, because in the past few months, there has been something important. Europe was able — the European Union was able to overcome a stalemate, a very dangerous institutional stalemate. The constitutional treaty has been put aside, but a new treaty has been outlined unanimously, and the day after tomorrow it will be signed in Lisbon. And on the basis of this new treaty — which has to be ratified by the signed, I am sure it will be ratified by all 27 member states — we’ll have new figures, we’ll have new institutions more capable to affirm the role of a united Europe on the international scene.

Italy and Europe both must think there is possibilities for international security and peace, for the cause of liberty and democracy. And the more Europe will be united and will be effective, I think the better we can reach these goals.

We cannot ask the United States to take care of our security. International security is a common duty. And Europe must be up to this challenge.

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Thank you, sir. Glad you’re here.

“blog.mode: addressing fashion” Sparks Dialogue at Metropolitan Museum’s Costume Institute

 

As a living art, fashion is open to multiple readings, and blog.mode: addressing fashion at The Metropolitan Museum of Art from December 18, 2007, through April 13, 2008, presents approximately 65 costumes and accessories dating from the 18th century to the present — all recent Metropolitan Museum acquisitions — and invites the public to share their reactions via a blog on the Museum’s website. Over the duration of the exhibition, which will take place in The Costume Institute galleries, individual costumes and accessories will be posted on the blog periodically with commentary from curators Harold Koda and Andrew Bolton, and, where relevant, from contemporary designers.
The blog is the Metropolitan Museum’s first foray into the blogosphere, and can be accessed from the “Special Exhibitions” page of the Museum’s website (www.metmuseum.org). Visitors can respond to the postings from anywhere
during the run of the exhibition, including a “blogbar” of eight computer terminals in the exhibition galleries.
”Fashion, both a reflection and an expression of the zeitgeist, is open to a wide range of interpretations,” said Harold Koda, Curator in Charge of The Costume  Institute. “While painting and sculpture can sometimes seem to be at an intimidating conceptual remove, fashion is so familiar, so ubiquitous to our experience that it is inherently and immediately accessible. Individuals who might shy away from commenting on the merits of a Juan Gris or Henry Moore will readily disclose their thoughts on a gown by John Galliano or a mule by Manolo Blahnik. Unlike its ‘high art’ siblings, fashion, even in its most extreme and avantgardist expression, draws us in with its personal relevance.”
Garments acquired during the past seven years — from a 1730s English man’s suit of red wool lavishly embroidered with gilt paillettes to a 2005 John Galliano for Christian Dior deconstructed ball gown — will be presented in chronological order to stimulate debate about the vicissitudes of fashion. Acquisitions of note come from such houses as Adrian, Azzedine Alaïa, Miguel Adrover, Geoffrey Beene, Manolo Blahnik, Hussein Chalayan, Gabrielle ‘Coco’ Chanel, Comme des Garçons, Simon Costin, Christian Dior, John Galliano, Jean Paul Gaultier, Rudi Gernreich,
Michele Oka Doner and Nancy Gonzalez, Odile Gilbert, Madame Grès, Charles James, Donna Karan, Helmut Lang, Alexander McQueen, Issey Miyake, Hamish Morrow, Paul Poiret, Rodarte, Yves Saint Laurent, Elsa Schiaparelli, Tao, Yeohlee Teng, Olivier Theyskens for Nina Ricci, Junya Watanabe, Vivienne Westwood,Charles Frederick Worth, and Yohji Yamamoto.
Notable objects include a Miguel Adrover ensemble from 2001 made from Quentin Crisp’s old mattress, which Adrover found discarded outside the writer’s Lower East Side apartment. A fashionable aristocrat’s opulently beaded dress from 1910, at the end of the Austro-Hungarian Empire — which the Museum purchased in 2003 from a London auction house — was later discovered by The Costume Institute’s conservator to have a 24-carat-gold lining inside each bead. This dress represents the end of an era: a pre-modern moment before women’s bodies were liberated from the constraints of corsets. In an avant-garde ode to the corset, Jean Paul Gaultier’s 2001 “Des Robes qui se Dérobent,” a strapless palepink silk satin corset dress with a silk tulle overlay embroidered with seed pearls,
has laces that crisscross down an open back, pooling into a train of ribbons. The haute couture beadwork contrasts with the near-naked back, with its shocking rear view.
A jersey dress — from Comme des Garçons’s all-black Paris debut collection of 1983 — was donated by Muriel Kallis Steinberg Newman, whose preeminent collection of Abstract Expressionist art is now on display at the Metropolitan
Museum through February 3, 2008. With its reference to Chanel’s “little black dress” and its denial of an overt female sexuality, the dress epitomizes the art collector’s movement away from the haute couture toward an increasing originality and experimentalism, and suggests the gutsiness of both client and designer. A 1947 dress by Adrian provides an ideal example of Surrealism on two levels – first in the textile Salvador Dalí created for Wesley Simpson that is printed with Surrealist rocks and boulders, and also in the black shoulder insert (a signature Adrian technique) that forms a woman’s profile on the left shoulder.
Two pairs of thigh-high leather boots made by a Parisian bottier in the 1920s reveal 4.5-inch heels, predating their emergence in high style by at least 20 years. The boots, worn by demimondaines, provide evidence of the influence of marginal and fetishistic fashions on the mainstream.
This selection of new acquisitions reflects a fraction of The Costume Institute’s collection of more than 30,000 costumes and accessories spanning five continents and as many centuries. blog.mode: addressing fashion continues The Costume Institute’s dedication to the acquisition, exhibition, and interpretation of historical and contemporary fashion. It also reflects the Museum’s mission to actively seek out and obtain masterworks from all eras and corners of the world.
The exhibition is organized by Harold Koda, Curator in Charge, and Andrew Bolton, Curator, both of the Metropolitan Museum’s Costume Institute. Exhibition design is by Michael Langley, graphic design by Sophia Geronimus, and lighting design by Clint Coller and Richard Lichte, all of the Metropolitan Museum’s Design Department. Chris Paulocik is the Conservator for The Costume Institute.
A book, blog.mode: addressing fashion, will be published after the close of the exhibition by The Metropolitan Museum of Art and distributed by Yale University Press. It will include photographs of all of the garments and accessories from the exhibition, along with curatorial commentary and excerpts from the blog.
The blog for the exhibition will go online at www.metmuseum.org on December 18, 2007, and will accept new comments until April 13, 2008, when the exhibition closes. An education program featuring prominent fashion bloggers will be presented on March 30, 2008, in conjunction with the exhibition.

VISITOR INFORMATION
Hours
Fridays and Saturdays 9:30 a.m.-9:00 p.m.
Sundays, Tuesdays–Thursdays 9:30 a.m.-5:30 p.m.
Met Holiday Mondays in the Main Building:
December 24, and December 31, 2007 and January 21, February 18, May 26, and
September 1, 2008
Sponsored by Bloomberg 9:30 a.m.-5:30 p.m.
All other Mondays closed; Jan. 1, Thanksgiving, and Dec. 25 closed
Suggested Admission (Includes Main Building and The Cloisters on the Same Day)
Adults $20.00, seniors (65 and over) $15.00, students $10.00
Members and children under 12 accompanied by adult free
Advance tickets available at www.TicketWeb.com or 1-800-965-4827.
For More Information (212) 535-7710; www.metmuseum.org

Visita del Presidente della Repubblica a Washington e New York, 10-14 dicembre 2007

Il Presidente della Repubblica, Giorgio Napolitano, su invito del Presidente degli Stati Uniti d’America, George W. Bush, sarà alla “Casa Bianca” nella mattinata dell’11 dicembre. Il colloquio tra i due Capi di Stato consentirà di affrontare i temi principali dell’agenda bilaterale e internazionale e di confermare la profonda amicizia fra il popolo italiano e quello americano.
A termine dell’incontro nello “Studio Ovale” - prima di una colazione offerta dal Presidente Bush in onore del Presidente Napolitano - sono previste dichiarazioni congiunte alla stampa. Alle ore 15.30 il Presidente Napolitano incontrerà Nancy Pelosi, Presidente della Camera dei Rappresentanti.
Nel pomeriggio il Presidente della Repubblica Italiana nella Cancelleria dell’Ambasciata d’Italia (3000 Whitehaven Street - NW Washington Telefono 0012026124444) inaugurerà la mostra – allestita in alcune sale della Cancelleria- “Richard Ginori 1737-1937”, ceramiche del Museo di Doccia. Successivamente il Capo dello Stato incontrerà una delegazione di membri di The German Marshall Fund of United States e, a seguire, il personale italiano delle Istituzioni Finanziarie Internazionali, rappresentanti della collettività italiana, e il personale dell’Ambasciata.
Il giorno seguente, mercoledì 12 dicembre, nella mattinata il Presidente Napolitano si recherà al Cimitero Nazionale di Arlington dove deporrà una corona al Sacello del Milite Ignoto e visiterà il mausoleo del Cimitero Nazionale.
Nel pomeriggio del 12 dicembre – a New York - il Capo dello Stato nel teatro dell’Italian Accademy (1161 Amsterdam Avenue) incontrerà gli esponenti della collettività italiana e italo-americana. Il Direttore dell’Italian Accademy, prof. David Freedberg, dopo un breve indirizzo di benvenuto, presenterà l’attività dell’Italian Accademy.
Il 13 dicembre il Capo dello Stato andrà al Council on Foreign Relations (58E. 68th Str-NY-) per un breakfast-dibattito.
Il Presidente Napolitano presso il Consolato Generale d’Italia (690 Park Avenue) incontrerà i rappresentanti del Consiglio Generale degli Italiani all’Estero e il personale del Consolato.
Nella sede dell’Istituto Italiano di Cultura (686 Park Avenue) inaugurerà l’esposizione del dipinto “L’Annunciazione” di Guido Reni, datato 1628, dipinta e custodita ad Ascoli Piceno nella Pinacoteca Comunale.
Subito dopo, nella sede del Consolato ci sarà un incontro con la stampa accreditata per un bilancio della visita del Capo dello Stato negli Stati Uniti.
Nel pomeriggio del 13 dicembre il Capo dello Stato partirà da New York per far rientro a Roma.