CARL TOBIAS Five Key Questions for President Bush's New Attorney General Nominee, Michael Mukasey FindLaw guest columnist and U. Richmond law professor Carl Tobias outlines specific questions that he argues should be asked during the confirmation process for Michael Mukasey, President Bush's new Attorney General nominee. Tobias's suggested questions pertain to how and where terrorism suspects should be tried, how the Department of Justice can avoid being overly politicized, policies regarding domestic surveillance and interrogation techniques, and how much power the Executive should be seen as unilaterally wielding under the Constitution.
Wednesday, Oct. 17, 2007

Caspian States issue joint Declarations in a message to the US Central Asia Déjà Vu? - 2007-10-16
Iran and Russia may establish joint Navy in Caspian Sea - 2007-10-15

The Fight Against Radical Islam and the
New Anti-Semitism on Campus
Courtesy www.JewishPolicyCenter.org

<h3 class="post-title"> Cole in Salon: "The Iran Hawks" </h3>

My column in Salon.com, "The War Hawks," is now online. Excerpt:

' Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton think a tough line on Tehran will sell politically. They could be right.

Future historians may conclude that the key issue in the 2008 presidential campaign was not Iraq, but whether the United States should go to war with Iran. Sparring over Iran dominated the Republican debate in Dearborn, Mich., last week, while a Senate resolution condemning Iran's Revolutionary Guards as terrorists divided the Democrats, some of whom (including Sen. Barack Obama and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi) feared that it might give Bush a pretext to launch another war. Unexpectedly, Tehran has emerged as a preoccupation of candidates -- as a litmus test for attitudes toward war and domestic security. '

Read the whole thing.

(Remember that Salon is an amazing bargain for a daily publication with so much thought-provoking comment-- Joe Conason, Glenn Greenwald, Sidney Blumenthal, Joan Walsh, Gary Kamiya, Garrison Keillor (my idol!) etc., etc. I subscribed premium long before I ever convinced them to publish me.)

<h3 class="post-title entry-title"> Afghanistan: Corruption and Private Security Contractors </h3> Amid the controversy over Blackwater and other private security contractors in Iraq, the media have paid little attention to the role of these contractors in Afghanistan. The Afghan government started what has been reported as a "crackdown" on these contractors last week. AP:

Echoing a growing problem in Iraq, Afghan authorities have started to crack down on lucrative but largely unregulated security firms, some of which are suspected of murder.Two private Afghan security companies were raided this week, and at least 10 more contractors - including some protecting embassies - will soon be closed, police and Western officials told The Associated Press.

The government is also proposing new rules to tighten control over such companies _ including some Western contractors _ amid concerns they intimidate Afghans, disrespect local security forces and don't cooperate with authorities, according to a policy draft document obtained by AP.

These contractors attracted attention during the Afghan presidential campaign in October 2004 when one of President Karzai's DynCorp bodyguards (since replaced by Afghans) slapped Afghanistan's Minister of Transport in the face (a grave insult) when he approached the President during a campaign photo opportunity in Northern Afghanistan. A CIA contractor was convicted of misdemeanor assault for beating to death an Afghan detainee who turned himself in for questioning voluntarily. A contractor for USPI who shot dead his Afghan translator in 2005 was secretly spirited out of the country and never prosecuted. And these are a few of the incidents reported in the international press.

These incidents are serious enough. But there is an even more serious political issue: private security contractors are corrupting the Afghan police and administration. They have hired, armed, and trained militias that were supposed to be demobilized and disarmed, enabling them to persist and profit as part of the "private sector," awaiting the spark that will set off another civil war.

In my article Saving Afghanistan, published in Foreign Affairs last December, I reported:

One former mujahideen commander, Din Muhammad Jurat, became a general in the Ministry of the Interior and is widely believed -- including by his former mujahideen colleagues -- to be a major figure in organized crime and responsible for the murder of a cabinet minister in February 2002. (He also works with U.S. Protection and Investigations, a Texas-based firm that provides international agencies and construction projects with security guards, many of whom are former fighters from Jurat's militia and current employees at the Ministry of the Interior.)

Since that article was published, Afghanistan's erratic Attorney-General, Abdul Jabbar Sabet (himself also accused of corruption), issued an arrest warrant for Jurat and attempted to dissolve his security firm. The result was the beating of Sabet by Jurat's supporters. Jurat, a native of the Panjshir Valley, is a former commander of Ahmad Shah Massoud, while Sabet, a native of Nangarhar in Eastern Afghanistan, was a member of Gulbuddin Hikmatyar's Hizb-i Islami while working for Voice of America Pashto service in the 1980s. Afghans interpreted this incident variously as ethnic politics, factional struggles, government attempts to marginalize the mujahidin, the strength of corrupt mafias, and weakness of the state (or perhaps all of the above).

Word on the street about this week's crackdown is equally complex. As the Afghan "street" now has access to internet and Skype, its rumors travel quickly. Word on the street is that rather than a sincere "crackdown" on private security firms, the government's actions are more similar to its counter-narcotics actions: use of the government by one criminal group to suppress its competitors. The stories circulating involve beneficiaries of US Department of Defense contracts from favored Afghan families and huge payoffs to Afghan officials. I do not know how true these stories are. But I do know that the complete opaqueness of the contracting process makes it impossible to even try to refute them.

When I testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 1, 2007, Senator John Warner (R-Virginia) asked about corruption: wasn't corruption a part of the culture in Afghanistan? Was the U.S. imposing alien standards? I explained that, while corruption occurred in Afghanistan as in every society, Afghans believed that the unprecedented level of corruption today was largely due to the foreign presence, not their culture. First of all, Afghans do not believe that the international drug problem is caused by greedy Afghan farmers. They think it is due to the global demand for illicit drugs and a policy regime that disproportionately punishes the weakest and poorest parts of the supply chain. Second, they see, if we do not not, the links among US security contractors, Afghan militias, and corrupt officials. They see the armed groups that destroyed their country remobilized and paid by a politically connected "private sector" subsidized by the U.S. government.

The individuals working for private security contractors are not all evil and corrupt people. Some of them have taken risks for something they believe in, and others, like so many wielding guns on every side of this and other conflicts, are just keeping their heads down while they try to make some money for their families. But the system of privatized security contractors expanded by the Bush administration is seen by Afghans as corrupting their state and society and is undermining support for the international presence. In this post I have not even touched on the role of private contractors in implementing the US counter-narcotics policy and many other subjects. Unfortunately I have not been able to do all the research that this subject requires. I hope that others will soon fill that gap. Posted by Barnett R. Rubi

Gates in the Lion’s Den
October 17th, 2007 Monday night’s speech by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to the ultra-hawkish Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) must have deeply disappointed most of his audience, particularly when it came to his brief discussion of Iran. While Gates repeated the adminstration’s mantra that “all options are on the table,” the degree to which he emphasized diplomacy and omitted any mention of the growing list of charges by other U.S. military and administration officials regarding Tehran’s alleged “proxy war” against U.S. forces in Iraq — let alone its support for Syria, Hezbollah, or Hamas — was truly remarkable given the Likudist views of his hosts. As made clear by a quick visit to its website, JINSA considers Iran second only to the creation of a Palestinian state as the greatest strategic threat to Israel. Read the rest of this entry »

Bernard Weiner, The Crisis Papers: Will Dems Commit Political Suicide in '08?: An Address to Democrats Abroad Democrats who live and work abroad tend to mirror the concerns and frustrations of the activist Dem base back home perplexed by the party's overly-timid leadership in confronting the worst policies of CheneyBush. And what about the chances of Hillary and Obama and Edwards -- and Al Gore?

Mary Shaw: Rendition Movie is Not Fiction Amnesty International speaks out about the ugly truths that this new movie depicts.

Krugman: Gore Derangement Syndrome

On the day after Al Gore shared the Nobel Peace Prize, The Wall Street Journal’s editors couldn’t even bring themselves to mention Mr. Gore’s name. Instead, they devoted their editorial to a long list of people they thought deserved the prize more. What is it about Mr. Gore that drives right-wingers insane?

Friedman: Who Will Succeed Al Gore?

Gore lost the election and had to figure out what to do with the rest of his life. He took the initiative to get the country and the world to focus on a common threat — climate change. Bush won,and for the first year really didn’t know what to do with it. When, on 9/11, we were suddenly faced with a common threat—terrorism and Al Qaeda—but time and again he just divided us at home and abroad.”

A Death in the Family
One Iraq loss in particular has given Christopher Hitchens pause: a young soldier named Mark Daily, killed in Mosul, who cited the V.F. columnist as an inspiration to sign up.

Father Dobbs
The bossy CNN anchor has remained unruffled by conflict and become a major weight on public opinion, writes James Wolcott in this VF.com exclusive.

White House Civil War
Promised real power as Bill Clinton’s vice president, Al Gore found he had a rival for that role: the First Lady. And when Hillary decided to run for the Senate, a tense competition got ugly, writes Sally Bedell Smith.

White House Threatens Veto of Wiretap Bill
"The White House threatened to veto wiretap legislation a day before Wednesday's planned vote in Congress, and said that restrictions on government authority would hamper its fight against terrorism," Reuters reports. "The measure 'falls far short of providing the intelligence community with the tools it needs to collect foreign intelligence effectively from individuals outside the United States,' the White House budget office said on Tuesday."

In "Secrecy Fetish Hurts Terror War," Jim Harper, Cato's director of information policy studies, writes: "The scope of executive power, the meaning of the Authorization for Use of Military Force, and the Fourth Amendment reasonableness, of surveillance without a warrant all turn on the administration's premise that we are in a war on terror. Releasing information about the risk of attack would allow Congress and the American people to weigh these arguments intelligently and perhaps even participate in the protection of their country. Yet the Bush administration holds out secrecy as the cardinal virtue in anti-terrorism efforts. It cannot maintain credible arguments for broad executive power while withholding information about the current risk of a terrorist attack here."

Global Warming Starts to Divide G.O.P. Contenders
"While many conservative commentators and editorialists have mocked concerns about climate change, a different reality is emerging among Republican presidential contenders," reports The New York Times. "It is a near-unanimous recognition among the leaders of the threat posed by global warming. Within that camp, however, sharp divisions are developing. Senator John McCain of Arizona is calling for capping gas emissions linked to warming and higher fuel economy standards. Others, including Rudolph W. Giuliani and Mitt Romney, are refraining from advocating such limits and are instead emphasizing a push toward clean coal and other alternative energy sources."

In "Global Warming: No Urgent Danger; No Quick Fix," Patrick Michaels, Cato senior fellow and author of Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media, writes: "Let's get real and give the politically incorrect answers to global warming's inconvenient questions. Global warming is real, but it does not portend immediate disaster, and there's currently no suite of technologies that can do much about it. The obvious solution is to forgo costs today on ineffective attempts to stop it, and to save our money for investment in future technologies and inevitable adaptation."

Jacob Grier, editor, jgrier@cato.org

Reporter-at-Large: Iraqi Kurdistan—A New Warzone? by Ximena Ortiz Tensions along the Turkish-Kurdish border are escalating as PKK militants and the Turkish military clash. There could be serious consequences for Baghdad, Ankara and Washington.

Pakistan: America’s next battlefield?
Aijaz Ahmad on US plans to reshape Pakistan's government (more) view

Putin denounces military threats against Iran
Caspian leaders agree to oppose any foreign military bases or aggression in region (more) view

Why Senator Clinton?
We ask Clinton why she voted for an amendment that could be used as support for attacking Iran (more) view

Can the CIA be sued for torture?
Michael Ratner says: claiming kidnapping, imprisonment and torture are a 'state secret', is outrageous. (more) view

Law of the Sea Heating Up (Andrew Rice, left, is running for Senate against Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma)

Matt Stoller posted this gem last night and Taylor Marsh knocked one out of the park this morning. These two are well ahead of the curve, but there will be lots more progressive advocacy on the Law of the Sea before all is said and done.

The Law of the Sea is picking up attention outside the blogosphere, too. Taylor points out that State Sen. Andrew Rice, who is looking to send Jim "Black Helicopoter" Inhofe back to Oklahoma (or at least to K Street), fired a warning shot today:"

"As a U.S. Senator who constantly portrays himself as a pro-national security public servant, Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe is now choosing to ignore the pleas of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of the Navy, among other military leaders, when they ask for Senate approval of UNCLOS. American military leaders have made it clear that participation in UNCLOS will enhance our national security and that changes have been made in UNCLOS provisions to explicitly protect American interests. And yet Jim Inhofe and a very small minority are working against our nation's best interests, simply because it might hurt the special interests he puts before the needs of Oklahomans again and again. Inhofe is clearly out of step with our national security needs."

Rice is an extremely promising candidate who has learned from the successes of people like Jon Tester and Claire McCaskill. He gets that red-state candidates don't need to pander; they need to speak confidently about their beliefs and prove that progressives are more in touch with local values than the far right. Inhofe is well entrenched, but then again, so one was Conrad Burns. Rice is off to an extremely promising start.

As for Frank Gaffney's weekly Law of the Sea rant in the Washington Times...well...Mr. Gaffney is nothing if not consistent.

Gaffney uses the Medellin brouhaha to make a sweeping statement that international tribunals are stacked against the United States. He then suggests that, if we join, we will be subject to the jurisdiction of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.

One problem with that -- the U.S. will never be subject to that tribunal. Every country gets to choose its preferred method of dispute resolution under the treaty. The U.S. chose arbitration. If countries don't agree, the default method is arbitration. That means, no matter what, any dispute resolution will take place in..arbitration.

Gaffney knows this. He even conceded the point when he testified earlier this month before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. That means this isn't misinformation; it's a lie.

This is the kind of thing that Jeremy Rabkin must have meant when he said:

"The Senate won't ratify the Convention if it is controversial, and I'm doing everything I can to make a controversy."

I know better than to expect the Washington Times to take Gaffney to task for his intellectual dishonesty. Still, that is exactly what should happen. -- Scott Paul

05:26 PM | Permalink

Double-Header Tomorrow: Iraq and Iran Tomorrow, two interesting books will be hitting the newsstands. I know both authors but have not read their books. My hunch though is that they fill in key pieces of the Iraq and Iran stories that readers will want to know about.

The first is Curveball: The Spies, Lies, and the Con Man Who Caused a War by Los Angeles Times correspondent Bob Drogin. At first glance, looks very good.

Secondly is USA Today Diplomatic Correspondent Barbara Slavin's book, Bitter Friends, Bosom Enemies: Iran, the US and the Twisted Path to Confrontation.

Chris Nelson of The Nelson Report asked Slavin to share some of the key findings of her book that are relevant to America's current posture towards Iran.

Barbara Slavin writes:

The first Bush administration, according to Brent Scowcroft, was eager for contacts with Iran. "We're happy to do it," Scowcroft told me he told various intermediaries. "We could have it official, public or private citizen to private citizen, any way you want it." The two sides got as far in 1990 as agreeing to meet in Switzerland, but "at the last minute the Iranians pulled the plug," Scowcroft said. Under Clinton, relations took several steps back because of 'dual containment' -- the effort to sanction and isolate both Iran and Iraq. After Mohammad Khatami was elected Iranian president in 1997, a warming trend ensued but the Clinton administration made a fatal error -- since continued by George W. Bush.

It sought to distinguish between the parts of the Iranian regime it liked -- namely Khatami -- and the parts it didn't -- namely supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Iran's military and intelligence establishment. Clinton went so far as to name a delegation to meet with the Khatami government, a team consisting of Bruce Riedel, his top NSC Mideast adviser, then undersecretary of State Tom Pickering and deputy assistant secretary David Welch. But the Iranians wouldn't bite.

Enter George W. Bush. He had the best chance to patch up relations after 9-11 and he blew it. The U.S. and Iran both opposed the Taliban and Iran believed Bush and Cheney, as ex-oilmen, would lift sanctions. Unknown to many, the U.S. and Iran held secret, one-on-one high-level talks in Paris and Geneva from the fall of 2001 through May 2003, talks led on the U.S. side by Ryan Crocker and Zalmay Khalilzad.

In early May 2003, through Swiss intermediaries, the Iranians also presented an offer for comprehensive negotiations (reprinted in the annex to my book). Bush, full of hubris over Iraq, did not even give the Iranians the courtesy of a reply. The Europe talks ended, meanwhile, after yours truly wrote about them on the front page of USA TODAY and al-Qaeda bombings took place in Saudi Arabia that the White House said were linked to al-Qaeda detainees in Iran.

The Iranians did not give up, however. In late 2005 and through the spring of 2006, Ali Larijani, their new national security adviser, sought backchannel talks with Steve Hadley. Larijani went so far as to publicly accept a prior U.S. offer of talks on Iraq in March 2006. Supreme leader Khamenei publicly endorsed the talks, something he had never done before. Again, Bush sawed off the limb. The upshot: Larijani was weakened, Khamenei humiliated and Iran accelerated its nuclear program and its intervention in Iraq.

There is much more, including an intelligence assessment in early 2003 that invading Iraq would spur the two members of the Axis of Evil with real nuclear programs -- Iran and North Korea -- to intensify their efforts. Also the fact that the White House did not even ask the intelligence community for an assessment of the regional impact of toppling Saddam before invading.

It simply assumed that all would go well and that Tehran would be the next evildoer to fall. Instead of dividing our enemies by negotiating with Iran, the Bush administration has united them. And now -- like the child who shot his parents and complains he's an orphan -- the White House blames Iran for taking advantage of the strategic opportunities the United States has provided.

It's useful though quite troubling to be reminded that our current problems with Iran were entirely self-inflicted by this administration.

-- Steve Clemons

11:11 PM | Permalink

Blackwater won't allow arrests
By Sharon Behn
A defiant Blackwater Chairman Erik Prince told editors and reporters at The Washington Times yesterday he will not allow Iraqi authorities to arrest his contractors and try them in Iraq's faulty justice system.

AP photo / Hamza Hendawi
<h4 class="home_dig_blog_hed">Dissent From the Front Lines</h4> By Robert Scheer — When will we listen to the troops? I’m not talking about soldiers used as props for a George Bush photo op, telling reporters what Washington wants to hear. The Iraq war has produced brilliant messages of dissent from the ranks that should cause us to stop in our tracks and reconsider what we have wrought.

Carville Sees Bush as GOP’s Nominee—Jeb, That Is Political analyst James Carville shocked the crowd at CNN’s America Votes 2008 gala by suggesting that Jeb Bush would be the Republican nominee. According to the Ragin’ Cajun: “There is nobody in this field who can rally the Republican Party; he’s the only person in America that can do it.”

Inside the Military-Industrial Complex

[b]James Harris and Josh Scheer —[/b] Former Assistant Secretary of Defense Philip Coyle knows a thing or two about the “staggering” amounts of money the U.S. funnels into the military-industrial complex, and why it is so difficult to stanch the profiteering.

Turkish Vote Authorizes Military Operation in Iraq Parliament authorizes cross-border military operations to combat rebels. Bush urges restraint.

Molly Moore | 11:41 a.m. ET

Foreign Policy News and Commentary Update October 17, 2007

WORLD TO AMERICA: LISTEN TO US - AMAR C. BAKSHI (WASHINGTON POST, OCTOBER 16): 'World opinion surveys show Brand America slipping. "'So what should America do to improve its image in the world?' a few worried Washingtonians asked me over coffee. The group fired off their own solutions: Elect Obama. Stabilize Iraq. Expand public diplomacy. Democratize the Middle East. Solve Israel-Palestine. Increase foreign aid... But none of them mentioned what I'd put first on my list: Listen more closely to the world.'
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglo...ml?nav=rss_blog

LAURA BUSH'S DIPLOMATIC JOURNEY TO THE MIDDLE EAST - MARK SILVA (SWMAP, BALTIMORESUN.CO, OCTOBER 15): The popular face of the White House will hit the road again this month, with the details of First Lady Laura Bush's public diplomacy trip to the Middle East announced today. At a time when President Bush's own approval ratings are lagging, and international opinion of the United States is sagging, the first lady serves as a potentially more welcome ambassador.
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/polit...comment-1608597

HILLARY CLINTON AND AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY - DONALD DOUGLAS (AMERICA POWER, OCTOBER 16): http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2007...an-foreign.html
SEE ALSO
http://globaldashboard.org/news/hillarys-foreign-policy/

AN ENDURING PEACE BUILT ON FREEDOM - JOHN MCCAIN (REAL CLEAR POLITICS, OCTOBER 15): We must also revitalize our public diplomacy. In 1998, the Clinton administration and Congress mistakenly agreed to abolish the U.S. Information Agency and move its public diplomacy functions to the State Department. This amounted to unilateral disarmament in the war of ideas. I will work with Congress to create a new independent agency with the sole purpose of getting America's message to the world -- a critical element in combating Islamic extremism and restoring the positive image of our country abroad.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...ilt_on_fre.html

SUN SETS EARLY ON THE AMERICAN CENTURY: EVEN HARD-HEADED REALISTS IN THE U.S. POWER ELITE FEAR THE IRAQ WAR HAS CRIPPLED AMERICA'S ABILITY TO LEAD - PHILIP S. GOLUB (TORONTO STAR, OCTOBER 15/COMMON DREAMS): Transnational opinion surveys show a consistent and nearly global pattern of defiance of U.S. foreign policy as well as a more fundamental erosion in the attractiveness of the United States: The narrative of the American dream has been submerged by images of a military leviathan disregarding world opinion and breaking the rules. World public opinion may not stop wars but it does count in subtler ways.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/15/4547/

BLACKWATER SECURITY, BUSH'S PRIVATE WAFFEN SS: THE IRAQI GENOCIDE - PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS (COUNTERPUNCH, OCTOBER 16): International polls show that the rest of the world regard the US and Israel as the greatest dangers to world peace. Americans claim that they are fighting wars against terrorism, but it is US and Israeli terrorism that worries everyone else.
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts10162007.html

SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENTS: SOMETHING IS ROTTEN IN IRAQ AND THE PENTAGON - DAVE LINDORFF (COUNTERPUNCH, OCTOBER 16): We are conducting a slaughter of innocents in Iraq that is as bad as anything the Nazis did in their Eastern Front campaign.
http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff10152007.html

AS VIOLENCE FALLS IN IRAQ, CEMETERY WORKERS FEEL THE PINCH - JAY PRICE AND QASIM ZEIN, MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS (YAHOO, OCTOBER 17)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20071016...gn_editors_ytop
VIA
http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2007/1...oor-yorick.html

ASK THE IRAQIS - LAWRENCE WRIGHT (NEW YORKER, OCTOBER 22): We didn't ask the Iraqis if we could invade their country; we didn't ask them if we could occupy it; and now we are not asking them if we should leave. Whatever we end up doing, we need to remember that eventually the only people who are going to occupy Iraq are the Iraqis, and that the decision of when we leave, as inevitably we will, should be as much theirs as ours.
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2007...?printable=true

THE REAL IRAQ WE KNEW - 12 FORMER ARMY CAPTAINS (WASHINGTON POST, OCTOBER 16): Today marks five years since the authorization of military force in Iraq, setting Operation Iraqi Freedom in motion. Five years on, the Iraq war is as undermanned and under-resourced as it was from the start. And, five years on, Iraq is in shambles. .
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1500841_pf.html SEE ALSO
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...7/EDTHSR1V1.DTL

THE PRO-WAR UNDERTOW OF THE BLACKWATER SCANDAL NORMAN SOLOMON (COMMON DREAMS, OCTOBER 16): Unless the deadly arrogance of Blackwater and its financiers in the U.S. government is placed in a broader perspective on the US war effort as a whole, the vilification of the firm could distract from challenging the overall presence of American forces in Iraq and the air war that continues to escalate outside the American media's viewfinder.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/16/4572/

AL QAEDA IN TROUBLE EDITORIAL (WASHINGTON TIMES, OCTOBER 16): There is some very good news coming from the battlefield in Iraq: The changes in U.S. military strategy instituted earlier this year by Gen. David Petraeus have been achieving remarkable success against al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI).
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...mplate=printart

FIRE FIGHT: ONLY AFTER AMERICA LEAVES IRAQ CAN THE CONFLAGRATION WE STARTED BE BROUGHT UNDER CONTROL - PAUL W. SCHROEDER (AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE, OCTOBER 8)
http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_10_08/feature.html

LISTEN TO THE ENEMY: THE STAKES - JACK DAVID (NATIONAL REVIEW, OCTOBER 16): We cannot wish away the wars al Qaeda and Iran are waging against us. Preventing Iran and al Qaeda from gaining control of Iraq is a vital U.S. interest and a central near-term objective in those wars. Those who think otherwise have not listened to the enemy.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NWU1N...NWY2MGVkNWUxMjI=

THE IRAN HAWKS: RUDY GIULIANI AND HILLARY CLINTON THINK A TOUGH LINE ON TEHRAN WILL SELL POLITICALLY. THEY COULD BE RIGHT - JUAN COLE (SALON, OCTOBER 17): The Iraq problem is so intractable that bringing it up with voters is dangerous, since they will then ask about policy prescriptions, and most experts agree that the U.S. has no good options. Iran, in contrast, looms as a vague sort of threat on the horizon and politicians can therefore pull out of their tool kits their favorite instrument -- speaking hypothetically without committing to a particular course of action.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/...iran/print.html

UNINTENDED (MEANING BAD) CONSEQUENCES OF PROMOTING DEMOCRACY IN IRAN: JUSTIN ELLIOTT (MOTHER JONES, OCTOBER 16): Will the administration ever learn that intrusive U.S. policy isn't helping matters in Iran? Probably not.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archiv...and_uninte.html

THE FOLLY OF WAR WITH IRAN: IT'S INSTRUCTIVE TO RECALL A COMMENT PRESIDENT LINCOLN ONCE MADE: "ONE WAR AT A TIME...."
WALTER RODGERS (CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, OCTOBER 16)
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1016/p09s02-coop.html

NORMAN PODHORETZ'S WAR PRAYER - MUHAMMAD SAHIMI (ANTIWAR.COM, OCTOBER 16): Neoconservatives have been talking about "freedom" for Iran's people. But the freedom they advocate is Iranians' freedom from their religion, historical and cultural heritage, and natural resources, so that a puppet government similar to Iraq's is installed in Iran, the country and its resources are controlled by the West, and the U.S. can have "enduring military bases" in Iran.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/sahimi.php?articleid=11762

IRAN'S CHOICE: PLANES OR BOMBS? - MICHAEL B. KRAFT AND BRETT WALLACE (WASHINGTON TIMES, OCTOBER 16): With Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice calling the Iranian regime liars about their nuclear program, it is time to consider sharply cutting off Iran's air links to the outside world.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...mplate=printart

SECRETARY OF STATE PELOSI REVIEW & OUTLOOK (WALL STREET JOURNAL, OCTOBER 16): House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, famous for donning a head scarf earlier this year to commune for peace with the Syrians, has now concluded that this is the perfect moment to pass a Congressional resolution condemning Turkey for the Armenian genocide of 1915. Problem is, Turkey in 2007 has it within its power to damage the growing success of the US effort in Iraq. We would like to assume this is not Speaker Pelosi's goal.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1192490840...days_us_opinion PAID SUBSCRIPTION

ARMENIAN STORY HAS ANOTHER SIDE - NORMAN STONE (CHICAGOTRIBUNE.COM, OCTOBER 16): For years, Armenians have urged the US Congress to recognize their fate as genocide. Many US leaders -- including former secretaries of state and defense and current high-ranking Bush administration officials -- have urged Congress either not to consider or to vote down the current genocide resolution primarily for strategic purposes: Turkey is a critical ally to the U.S. in both Iraq and Afghanistan and adoption of such a resolution would anger and offend the Turkish population and jeopardize U.S.-Turkish relations.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion...,0,900339.story

CONGRESSIONAL TURKEYS: THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE RESOLUTION IS UNNECESSARY - FRED GEDRICH (NATIONAL REVIEW, OCTOBER 17)
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGJiM...NDk4NmZkYWRlNmE=

HISTORY LESSON EDITORS (NATIONAL REVIEW, OCTOBER 17): If the Turks are to be dissuaded from pursuing their national interests by military force in order to accommodate the U.S., then they need to feel that the U.S. remains a good friend and will seek a solution in northern Iraq that respects their interests. It is at this very moment that Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat-controlled House Foreign Affairs Committee consider a resolution that describes the massacres of Armenians in 1915 by troops of the Ottoman Empire, Turkey's precursor state, as a 'genocide,' thus placing the Mark of Cain on Turkey's brow.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjRlM...djYmE=&w=MA==

NICE TIMING ON THE ARMENIA 'GENOCIDE' RESOLUTION, MS. PELOSI TRUDY RUBIN (BALTIMORESUN.COM, OCTOBER 16): The timing of this resolution couldn't be worse. http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/o...0,5944470.story

U.S. CAN CALM A RUFFLED TURKEY: ON BOTH THE GENOCIDE AND IRAQ ISSUES, THE US CAN TAKE STEPS TO REPAIR TIES WITH THIS KEY NATO ALLY EDITORIAL (CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, OCTOBER 17)
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1017/p08s01-comv.html
GENOCIDE: AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH: THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE BILL HAS BEEN ATTACKED BY BOTH THE RIGHT AND THE LEFT -- AND IT MAY MAKE MATTERS WORSE. BUT IT'S NECESSARY - GARY KAMIYA (SALON, OCTOBER 16)
http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2007/1...cide/print.html

SPEAKING OF EGYPT MARC LYNCH (ABUAARDVARK, OCTOBER 15): Egyptians are divided over what is more relevant: American hypocrisy (talking democracy but doing nothing about it) or American impotence (failing to move Mubarak even when it does "try").
http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark...ing-of-egy.html

OUTSOURCING TORTURE CHRIS HEDGES (TRUTHDIG, OCTOBER 15/COMMON DREAMS): We have nothing left to say to the Mubarak regime. The torture practiced in Egypt is the torture we employ for our own ends. The cries that rise up from these fetid cells in Egypt condemn not only the Mubarak dictatorship but the moral rot that has beset the American state. http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/15/4538/

FOLLOW THE LEADER: THE OPEN SECRET ABOUT THE ISRAEL LOBBY - PAUL FINDLEY (COUNTERPUNCH, OCTOBER 16): The interests of one small foreign country almost always trump U.S. interests. That nation of course is Israel. (Paul Findley represented Illinois in the U.S. House of Representatives for 22 years.)
http://www.counterpunch.org/findley10162007.html

U.S. AND ISRAEL I: HOW ABOUT A PEACE LOBBY? DANIEL LEVY (INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE, OCTOBER 16): For all its influence and -- for argument's sake -- good intentions, the existing "pro-Israel" community has not helped deliver what is most vital for Israel's future: permanent agreed borders and an end of conflict.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/16/opinion/edlevy.php

U.S. AND ISRAEL II: BLAMING ISRAEL DORE GOLD (INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE, OCTOBER 15): Lobbies have been around for decades in Washington in domestic and foreign affairs. In the case of Israel and the United States, real interests and shared values are the true glue bonding the two countries.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/16/opinion/edgold.php

BUSH-RICE CALL FOR MIDEAST PEACE CONFERENCE: WHAT'S THE RUSH? EDWARD M. GOMEZ (WORLD VIEWS, SFGATE.COM, OCTOBER 16)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate...;entry_id=21178

THE FAILED MOSCOW TALKS - ARIEL COHEN (WASHINGTON TIMES, OCTOBER 16): The old Soviet obsession -- that Russia's fate, its cosmic goal, is to fight "American imperialism" -- remains undiluted, even 15 years after the collapse of communism. This is tragic -- for Russia, Europe and the world.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...mplate=printart

A PARLEY WITH PUTIN EDITORIAL (BOSTON GLOBE, OCTOBER 15): It is a good thing the U.S. and Russia are engaged in dialogue among their specialists and top government officials. But if their efforts at conflict resolution are to succeed, both sides will have to climb down from positions that are rooted in self-delusion, paranoia, or political posturing.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial...h_putin?mode=PF

EXPAND OR SCRAP MISSILE BAN: A COLD WAR TREATY HAS OPENED A GAP IN U.S. AND RUSSIAN SECURITY - KEVIN RYAN (LOS ANGELES TIMES, OCTOBER 16)
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commen...omment-opinions

AS U.S. CONGRESS HONORS TIBET'S DALAI LAMA, CHINA IS "FURIOUS" EDWARD M. GOMEZ (WORLD VIEWS, SFGATE.COM, OCTOBER 17)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate...;entry_id=21211

THE HORN, THE LIST AND THE RISKS EDITORIAL (NEW YORK TIMES, OCTOBER 16): The administration should be using its influence to press Ethiopia to recognize and demarcate the new border with Eritrea -- drawn by the United Nations -- in talk to lower tensions.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/17/opinion/...p-Ed/Editorials

RENDITIONS AND THE RULE OF LAW - DANIEL BYMAN (BOSTON GLOBE, OCTOBER 15): Increased care regarding treatment and greater attention to the legal dimensions of renditions is particularly important today given that the program is tainted by its lack of transparency and association with torture. In the public mind, torture is the purpose of renditions -- a perception even stronger among the publics of US allies.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial..._of_law?mode=PF

SWEEPING OUR INHUMANITY UNDER THE RUG - MARIE COCCO (TRUTHDIG, OCTOBER 15): As things stand now, the US government can seize an innocent individual, abuse him, later admit that it had held the person in error -- but then declare the whole episode a state secret and so block the wronged man?s case from ever being heard.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/200710..._under_the_rug/

GITMO WHISTLEBLOWER CONDEMNS PROPOSALS TO HOLD NEW TRIBUNALS - ANDY WORTHINGTON (ANTIWAR.COM, OCTOBER 17): Lawyers hope that the Supreme Court will decide, once and for all, that the detainees have the right to challenge the basis of their detention, and that crucial passages in last fall's shameful Military Commissions Act, which stripped them of their habeas corpus rights, will be struck down.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/worthington.php?articleid=11769

NOT -SO-NEW HOMELAND SECURITY STRATEGY CHARLESV PEÑA(ANTIWAR.COM, OCTOBER 17): Al-Qaeda's ideology is not simply driven by a desire to destroy America because they hate us, our freedom, and our way of life. Indeed, in an October 2004 video, Osama bin Laden said to the American people: "This is contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom. Let him tell us why we did not strike Sweden." To paraphrase James Carville, it's not us, our freedom, and our way of life; it's our policies, stupid.
http://www.antiwar.com/pena/?articleid=11763

GOTHIC AMERICA - THOMAS KAPLAN-MAXFIELD (COMMON DREAMS, OCOTBER 15): Call other people 'terrorists' and deny that you are a terrorist (in some form), and produce the very terrorism you are trying to eradicate. In short, as Pogo said, 'we have met the enemy and he is us.'
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/15/4556/

RICE'S DIPLOMATIC 'NO SPIN' ZONE? - MICHAEL ABRAMOWITZ (WASHINGTON POST, OCTOBER 16): As anyone who watches her on television can attest, Rice is very skillful at deflecting efforts to knock her off her talking points, and she calmly bats away questions that imply US policy has been anything less than absolutely the best approach to whatever problem may be at hand.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/on-the-plane/

Bush warns of World War III if Iran goes "nuclear" : We've got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel, US president says at White House press conference after Russia cautions against military action against Tehran's suspected atomic program
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3461069,00.html
Putin sides with Iran on nuclear question: Russian President Vladimir Putin, appearing side by side with his Iranian counterpart at a five-nation summit here Tuesday, made a powerful show of support for America's regional arch-enemy, drawing the line against any attack on Iran and reaffirming Iran's right to civilian nuclear use.
http://www.insidebayarea.com/news/ci_7201857
Russians Will Finish Iranian Nuclear Power Plant - Putin Promises To Help Defend Iran From Attack From The West
http://www.insidebayarea.com/news/ci_7201857
Caspian summit a triumph for Iran: Moscow is now poised to enter into a new strategic relationship with Iran that will serve the geostrategic, security, and other shared interests of both nations.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IJ18Ak01.html

Israel calls for new Security Council resolution on Iran: Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said, "I do believe there is a need for another Security Council resolution. In the past, the need to get everybody on board, including Russia and China, led to some compromises on the nature of the sanctions. I hope this will not (be) the case this time."
http://snipurl.com/1sam7
Gates: U.S.-Israeli Partnership as Important as Ever: The United States has stood as a friend and partner of Israel since its independence in 1948, and that situation won't change, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said here yesterday evening.
http://snipurl.com/1sam8

The Armageddon Lobby: The Christian Zionist movement are being carried out with the intent of successfully attaining their theological prophecy, one that spells disaster for the Jewish people.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15422.htm
Perspectives on Christian Zionism: Bill Moyers talks with Rabbi Michael Lerner, editor of TIKKUN, a Jewish journal of politics, culture, and spirituality, and Dr. Timothy P. Weber, author of ON THE ROAD TO ARMAGEDDON: HOW EVANGELICALS BECAME ISRAEL'S BEST FRIEND.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10052007/watch3.html

How China Could Crash the US Dollar on a Whim: China now exerts enormous influence over the economies of virtually every country in the world, and a slight change in its domestic economic policy has the potential to send shockwaves rippling throughout the world. Nowhere is this more apparent-and frightening-then in China's economic relationship with the United States, which is very much at the mercy of China when it comes to prices, wages, interest rates, most importantly, the value of the Dollar.
http://www.currencytrading.net/2007/how-ch...llar-on-a-whim/

Text of Bush's Wednesday News Conference
By The Associated Press – 9 hours ago

Text of President Bush's news conference on Wednesday, as transcribed by CQ Transcriptions.

BUSH: Good morning.

We're now more than halfway through October, and the new leaders in Congress have had more than nine months to get things done for the American people.

Unfortunately, they haven't managed to pass many important bills.

Now the clock is winding down. In some key areas, Congress is just getting started.

Congress has work to do on health care. Tomorrow, Congress will hold a vote attempting to override my veto of the SCHIP bill. It's unlikely that that override vote will succeed, which Congress knew when they sent me the bill.

Now it's time to put politics aside and seek common ground to reauthorize this important program. I have asked Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt, National Economic Council Director Al Hubbard, and OMB Director Jim Nussle to lead my administration's discussions with the Congress.

I made clear that, if putting poor children first requires more than the 20 percent increase in funding I proposed, we'll work with Congress to find the money we need. I'm confident we can work out our differences and reauthorize SCHIP.

Congress has work to do to keep our people safe. One of the things Congress did manage to get done this year is pass legislation that began modernizing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. FISA is a law that our intelligence professionals use to monitor the communications of terrorists who want to do harm to our people.

The problem is that Congress arranged for the measure they passed to expire this coming February. In addition, the House is now considering another FISA bill that would weaken the reforms they approved just two months ago.

When it comes to improving FISA, Congress needs to move forward, not backward, so we can ensure intelligence professionals have the tools they need to protect us.

Congress has work to do on the budget.

One of Congress' basic duties is to fund the day-to-day operations of the federal government. Yet Congress has not sent me a single appropriations bill.

Time is running short, so I urged the speaker and the leader of the Senate to name conferees for six of the annual appropriations bills that have already passed the House and the Senate.

The two houses need to work out their differences on these bills and get them to my desk as soon as possible. They also need to pass the remaining spending bills, one at a time, and in a fiscally responsible way.

Congress has work to do on education. As we saw from the recent nation's report card, the No Child Left Behind Act is getting results for America's children.

Test scores are rising. The achievement gap is beginning to close. And Congress should send me a bipartisan bill that reauthorizes and strengthens this effective piece of legislation.

Congress has work to do on housing. Back in August, I proposed a series of reforms to help homeowners struggling with their mortgage payments. We're into six weeks later; Congress has yet to finish work on any of these measures.

These are sensible reforms that would help American families stay in their homes and Congress needs to act quickly on these proposals.

Congress has work to do on trade. Earlier this year, my administration reached out to the Congress and we forged a bipartisan agreement to advance trade legislation.

Now Congress needs to begin moving on trade agreements with Peru, Colombia, Panama and South Korea. These agreements expand access to overseas markets, they strengthen Democratic allies and they level the playing field for American workers, farmers and small businesses.

Congress has work to do for our military veterans. Yesterday, I sent Congress legislation to implement the Dole-Shalala commission's recommendations that would modernize and improve our system of care for wounded warriors. Congress should consider this legislation promptly so that those injured while defending our freedom can get the quality care they deserve.

Congress also needs to complete the Veterans' Affairs appropriations bill that funds veterans' benefits and other ongoing programs.

We have our differences on appropriations bills. The veterans bill is where we agree.

So I ask Congress to send me a clean bill that will fund our veterans, a bill without unnecessary spending in it.

And they need to get this work done. And I hope they can get it done by Veterans Day. It seems like a reasonable request on behalf of our nation's veterans.

Congress has work to do for law enforcement and the judiciary. I want to thank the Senate Judiciary Committee for beginning hearings today on Judge Mukasey's nomination to serve as the attorney general. I urge the committee to vote on that nomination this week and send it to the full Senate for a vote next week.

The Senate also needs to act on the many judicial nominations that are pending and give those nominees an up-or-down vote. Confirming federal judges is one of the most important responsibilities of the Senate, and the Senate owes it to the American people to meet that responsibility in a timely way.

With all these pressing responsibilities, one thing Congress should not be doing is sorting out the historical record of the Ottoman Empire. The resolution on the mass killings of Armenians beginning in 1915 is counterproductive. Both Republicans and Democrats, including every living former secretary of state, have spoken out against this resolution.

Congress has more important work to do than antagonizing a democratic ally in the Muslim world, especially one that's providing vital support for our military every day.

There's little time left in the year, and Congress has little to show for all the time that has gone by.

Now is the time for them to act. And I look forward to working with members of both parties on important goals that I've outlined this morning.

And now I look forward to taking some of your questions, believe it or not.

Q: Mr. President, Turkey's parliament is invading — sending military forces into Iraq to pursue Kurdish rebels. Do you think that Turkey has a legitimate right to stage a cross-country — cross-country offensive — cross-border offensive?

BUSH: I talked to Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus about this issue this morning. We are making it very clear to Turkey that we don't think it is in their interests to send troops into Iraq.

Actually, they have troops already stationed in Iraq and they've had troops stationed there for quite a while. We don't think it's in their interests to send more troops in.

I appreciate very much the fact that the Iraqi government understands that this is a sensitive issue with the Turks.

And that's why Vice President Hashemi is in Istanbul today, talking with the Turkish leaders, to assure them Iraq shares their concerns about terrorist activities, but that there's a better way to deal with the issue than having the Turks send massive troops into the country — massive additional troops into the country.

What I'm telling you is, is that there's a lot of dialogue going on, and that's positive. We are actively involved with the Turks and the Iraqis, through a tripartite arrangement. And we'll continue to — dialoguing with the Turks.

Q: Why are you going to attend the congressional award ceremony for the Dalai Lama today when ...

BUSH: When am I, or why am I?

Q: Why are you going to, when China has expressed outrage about it?

And what, if any, potential damage do you see to U.S.-China relations, considering that you need their support on dealing with Iran and North Korean nuclear issues?

BUSH: One, I admire the Dalai Lama a lot.

Two, I support religious freedom. He supports religious freedom.

Thirdly, I like going to the gold medal ceremonies. I think it's a good thing for the president to do, to recognize those who Congress has honored. And I'm looking forward to going.

I told the Chinese president, President Hu, that I was going to go to the ceremony. I brought it up. And I said I'm going because I want to honor this man.

I have consistently told the Chinese that religious freedom is in their nation's interest. I've also told them that I think it's in their interest to meet with the Dalai Lama and will say so at the ceremony today in Congress.

If they were to sit down with the Dalai Lama they would find him to be a man of peace and reconciliation. And I think it's in the country's interest to allow him to come to China and meet with him.

So my visit today is not new to the Chinese leadership. As I told you, I brought it up with him. I wanted to make sure he understood exactly why I was going.

And they didn't like it, of course. But I don't think it's going to damage — severely damage — relations. As a matter of fact, I don't think it ever damages relations when an American president talks about, you know, that religious tolerance and religious freedom is good for a nation. I do this every time I meet with them.

David? Welcome back.

Q: Mr. President, the last time you used that line and we were here ...

(LAUGHTER)

BUSH: You know something, the interesting thing about it is, it works every time, because ...

(LAUGHTER)

... because there's a grain of truth.

I won't use it again, though.

(LAUGHTER)

Q: There's a report today from Israel Army Radio indicating that the Syrians have confirmed that the Israelis struck a nuclear site in their country. You wouldn't comment on that before, and I'm wondering if now, on the general Q, you think it's appropriate for Israel to take such action if it feels that there is mortal danger being posed to the state.

BUSH: David, my position hasn't changed.

Q: Can I ask you whether ...

BUSH: You can ask me another Q.

Q: Did you support Israel's strike in 1981 on the Iraqi reactor outside of Baghdad?

BUSH: You know, Dave, I don't remember what I was doing in 1980 — let's see, I was living in Midland, Texas. I don't remember my reaction that far back.

Q: Well, but as you look at, as president now ...

BUSH: In 1981, in Midland, Texas, trying to make a living for my family and...

Q: But you're a careful — you know, someone ...

BUSH: Student of history — I do. Yes.

No, I don't remember my reaction, to be frank with you.

Q: But if I ask you now, as you look back at it, do you think it was the right action for Israel to take?

BUSH: David, I'm not going to comment on the subject that you're trying to get me to comment on.

Q: Why won't you? But isn't a fair question to say, given all the talk about Iran and a potential threat, whether it would be appropriate for Israel to act ...

BUSH: I understand.

Q: ... in self-defense if Iran were to develop nuclear weapons?

BUSH: I understand what you're trying to take. I understand what you're trying to take. It's a clever ruse to get my to comment on it, but I'm not going to. Thank you.

Q: Well, I'm just wondering why you think it's not appropriate to make that judgment when it is a real world scenario, as we know, since they apparently took this action against Syria.

BUSH: Welcome back.

(LAUGHTER)

Q: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you.

Q: I don't know if you saw the picture on the front page on one of the papers this morning of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Vladimir Putin.

BUSH: I did.

Q: They look like they're getting along pretty well. And they are among ...

BUSH: (OFF-MIKE) front page of the paper. No, man, come on.

(LAUGHTER)

Q: They looked like they were enjoying each other's company. And I'm wondering, since they were leaders of five Caspian Sea region nations — they have now declared each country will not be used as a base to attack the other. A, what do you make of their growing relationship? B, does it complicate what the United States can do in the region? And, C, would you characterize that arrangement as some sort of Caspian Sea Truman doctrine or something like that?

BUSH: You know, I think it's hard to judge how their conversations went, from a picture. Generally, leaders don't like to be photographed scowling at each other or, you know, making bad gestures at each other.

So I'm not surprised that there was, you know, a nice picture of them walking along. You know, I try to make sure that, when I'm with foreign leaders, there's a pretty picture of the two of us walking down, you know, the colonnades or something like that, to send a good message.

Q: Are you saying it's not so warm?

BUSH: Well, I don't know yet. What I'm about to tell you is, is that I'm looking forward to getting President Putin's readout from the meeting.

I think one of the — the thing I'm interested in is whether or not he continues to harbor the same concerns that I do. And I say continues, because when we were in Australia, he reconfirmed to me that he recognizes it's not in the world's interest for Iran to have the capacity to make a nuclear weapon.

BUSH: And they have been very supportive in the United Nations. And we're working with them on a potential third resolution.

So that's my concerns. I don't worry about the pictures. I understand why they meet. I will continue to work with Russia, as well as other nations, to keep a focused effort on sending Iran a message that you will remain isolated if you continue your nuclear weapons ambitions.

Q: But this declaration doesn't speak to that, Mr. President. This declaration doesn't suggest isolation for Iran, just the opposite, that Russia and Iran are going to do business.

BUSH: We'll find out. See, that's — you're trying to get me to interpret the meeting based upon a news story or a picture. I'd rather spend some time with Vladimir Putin finding out exactly what went on.

Thank you.

Q: When North Korea tested a nuclear device, you said that any proliferation would be a grave threat to the U.S., and North Korea would be responsible for the consequences.

Are you denying that North Korea has any role in the suspected nuclear facility in Syria?

BUSH: See, you're trying to pull a Gregory.

Q: Yes, I am.

BUSH: OK. Well, I'm not going to fall for it. But I'd like to talk about...

Q: Doesn't (OFF-MIKE) a right to know about who is proliferating, especially when you're negotiating with North Korea?

BUSH: Now, you have a right to know this, that when it comes to the six-party talks, proliferation, the issue of proliferation, has equal importance with the issue of weaponry and that North Korea has said that they will stop proliferating, just like they have said they will fully disclose and disable any weapons programs.

Step one of that has been dealing with shuttering Pyongyang. Step two will be full declaration of any plutonium that has been manufactured and/or the construction of bombs, along with a full declaration of any proliferation activities.

And, in my judgment, the best way to solve this issue with North Korea peacefully is to put it in the — keep it in the contexts of six-party talks. And the reason why is that diplomacy only works if there are consequences when diplomacy breaks down.

And it makes sense for there to be other people at the table, so that if North Korea were to, you know, have said to all of us, We're going to do X, Y or Z, and they don't, that we have other people, other than the United States being consequential.

There's a lot of aide that goes on between North Korea and China — or North Korea and South Korea. And therefore, if they renege on their promises, and they have said — they have declared that they will show us weapons and get rid of the weapons programs, as well as stop proliferation.

If they don't fulfill that which they've said, we are now in a position to make sure that they understand that there be consequences. And I'm pleased with the progress we're making. There's still work to be done; you bet there's work to be done.

Do I go into this thing saying, Well, you know, gosh, the process is more important than the results? I don't. What matters most, you know, to me — or whether or not we can achieve the results that I've said we're hoping to achieve.

And, if not, there will be consequences to the North Koreans.

Q: Is Syria part of those talks? Is Syria part of the talks?

BUSH: Proliferation is — a part of the talks ...

Q: Including Syria?

BUSH: Look, in all due respect to you and Gregory, this is not my first rodeo.

(LAUGHTER)

And I know what you're — trying to get me to comment.

I'm not going to comment on it, one way or the other.

Q: But your administration has talked about ...

BUSH: Thank you.

Martha?

Q: Mr. President, on Iraq, you've talked repeatedly about the threat of al-Qaida in Iraq. And we've also heard a lot about the military progress that's being made against that group.

Can you tell Americans how close the United States is to declaring victory against that group?

And if you're not able to do so, does that suggest that your critics are correct, that this war cannot be won militarily?

BUSH: I — the Iraq situation cannot be won by military means alone. There has to be political reconciliation to go with it. There has to be an emergency of a democracy. That's been my position ever since it started.

Al-Qaida's still dangerous. They're dangerous in Iraq. They're dangerous elsewhere. Al-Qaida's not going to go away any time. That's why it's important for us to be listening — you know, finding out what their intentions are and what are their plans, so we can respond to them.

This war against al-Qaida requires actionable intelligence. That's why this FISA bill is important.

And they still want to do us harm, and they're still active.

Yes, we've hurt 'em bad in Iraq. We've hurt 'em bad elsewhere. If you're the number three person in al-Qaida, you've had some rough goes. You've been captured or killed. And we're keeping the pressure on them all the time.

And so, yes, we're making progress, and — but, no, I fully understand those who say you can't win this thing militarily. That's exactly what the ...

Q: But does ...

BUSH: That's exactly what the United States military says, that you can't win this military. That's why it's very important that we continue to work with the Iraqis on economic progress, as well as political progress.

And what's happened is in Iraq is there's been a lot of political reconciliation at the grassroots level. In other words, people that hadn't been talking to each other are now talking to each other. They're beginning to realize there's a better future than one of — one with a country with deep sectarian divide.

And what's going to end up happening is, is that the local reconciliation will affect the national government.

In the meantime, we're pressing hard to get the national government to complete the strategic partnership with the United States, as well as pass meaningful legislation, like the de-Baath law or the provincial government law or the — or the oil revenue-sharing law.

Q: What you just laid out — should the American people be prepared for a large number of U.S. forces to remain in Iraq after you're finished with your presidency?

BUSH: The troop levels in Iraq will be determined by our commanders on the ground and the progress being made.

Thank you.

Q: Mr. President, I'd like to follow on President Putin's visit to Tehran; not about the image of President Putin and President Ahmadinejad, but about the words that Vladimir Putin said there.

He issued a stern warning against potential military action — U.S. military action against Iran.

BUSH: Did he say U.S.?

Q: Yes.

BUSH: Oh, he did?

Q: He said — well, at least the quote said that.

And he also said, quote, He sees no evidence to suggest Iran wants to build a nuclear bomb.

Were you disappointed with that message, and does that indicate, possibly, that international pressure is not as great as you once thought against Iran abandoning its nuclear program?

BUSH: As I say, I look forward to — if those are, in fact, his comments, I look forward to having him clarify those. Because when I visited with him, he understands that it's in the world's interests to make sure that Iran does not have the capacity to make a nuclear weapon.

And that's why, on the first round at the U.N., he joined us. And second round, we joined together to send a message.

I mean, if he wasn't concerned about it, then why do we have such good progress at the United Nations in round one and round two?

And so, I'm — I will visit with him about it. I have not been briefed yet by Condi or Bob Gates about, you know, their visit with Vladimir Putin. And ...

Q: But you definitively believe Iran wants to build a nuclear weapon.

BUSH: I think so long — until they suspend and/or, you know, make it clear that — that their statements are real — yes, I believe they want to have the capacity, the knowledge in order to make a nuclear weapon.

And I know it's in the world's interests to prevent them from doing so. I believe that the Iranian — if Iran had a nuclear weapon, it would be a dangerous threat to world peace.

We've got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel. So I've told people that, if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.

And I take the threat of Iran with a nuclear weapon very seriously. And we'll continue to work with all nations about the seriousness of this threat; plus, we'll continue working the financial measures that we're in the process of doing.

In other words, I think — the whole strategy is, is that, you know, at some point in time, leaders, or responsible folks, inside of Iran, may get tired of isolation and say, this isn't worth it.

And to me, it's worth the effort to keep the pressure on this government.

And secondly, it's important for the Iranian people to know we harbor no resentment to them. We're disappointed in the Iranian government's actions, as should they be.

Inflation's way too high. Isolation is causing economic pain. This is a country that has got a much better future — people have got a much better — should have better hope inside Iran than this current government is providing them.

So, look, it's a complete issue, no question about it, but my intent is to continue to rally the world to send a focused signal to the Iranian government that we will continue to work to isolate you in the hopes that at some point in time somebody else shows up and says it's not worth the isolation.

Yes, ma'am?

Q: Mr. President, you are sponsoring the international peace conference. President Abbas said he's not going to come unless there is a timetable.

BUSH: Who said that?

Q: President Abbas.

BUSH: Oh, yeah?

Q: Secretary Rice said that failure is not an option. You talked about substantial issues need to be discussed.

What is the minimum expectation from you that you will call this conference a success? And what you offering the Arab nations to encourage them to participate?

BUSH: Right. Well, that's why Condi's making the trip she's making, is to explain to people, in private as well as in public, that, one, we're for a comprehensive peace.

Two, that there is a — the meeting, international meeting will be serious and substantive. In other words, as she said the other day, this isn't going to be just a photo opportunity. This is going to be a serious and substantive meeting.

We believe that now is the time to push ahead with a meeting at which the Israelis and Palestinians will lay out a vision of what a state could look like.

And the reason why there needs to be a vision of what a state could look like is because the Palestinians that have been made promises all these years need to see there's a serious, focused effort to step up a state.

And that's important so that the people who want to reject extremism have something to be for.

BUSH: So this is a serious attempt. And I'm pleased with the progress. And the reason I'm pleased is because it appears to me that President Abbas and Prime Minister Olmert are, one, talking — I know they're talking a lot, but they're making progress.

And, in order for there to be lasting peace, the deal has to be good for the Palestinians as well as the Israelis.

Our job is to facilitate the process.

Another reason I have an international meeting is to — is to get Arab buy-in for a state. In other words, part of the issue in the past has been that the Arab nations stood on the sidelines. And when a state was in reach, they weren't a part of the process, encouraging the parties to move forward.

And so, this is a — that's what I mean by comprehensive. It's comprehensive not only for what the state will look like, it's comprehensive in getting people in the region to be a part of the process.

So I'm feeling pretty optimistic about it.

Q: But could you discuss refugees and Jerusalem and security and all the issues that ...

BUSH: The important thing — I have discussed those publicly, as you know, early on in my presidency when I articulated a two-state solution.

The important thing is for the Israelis and the Palestinians to be discussing them. That's the important issue. The United States can't impose peace. We can encourage the development of a state.

That's precisely what I have been doing since the early stages of my presidency. In order for there to be a Palestinian state, it's going to require the Israelis and the Palestinians coming to an accord.

We can facilitate that, but we can't force people to make hard decisions. They're going to have to do that themselves. And I'm encouraged from what Condi tells me is going on in the Middle East, that there is a — you know, the attitude is let's work together to see if we can't lay out that vision for the sake of, you know — for the sake of peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

And it's possible. I believe that we will see a democratic state. And I understand how hard it is. And the reason it's hard, by the way, is because there are extremists who don't want there to be a democracy in the Middle East, whether it be in Iraq or Lebanon or in the Palestinian territories.

That's the struggle. When you see people trying to blow up the opportunity for a state to exist, you've just got to understand it's broader than just the Palestinian territory. It's a part of this struggle, this ideological struggle in which we're engaged.

And we've got to ask ourselves: Why don't they want there to be a democracy?

And the answer is, because it doesn't fit into their ideological vision; they, being the extremists.

Another issue with Iran, by the way, that is of great concern to us is their willingness to fund groups that try to either destabilize or prevent the rise of a democracy.

Anyway, I'm optimistic this can be achieved. And we'll continue working to that end.

Q: Could I ask you about a domestic matter?

BUSH: Sure.

Q: The Commerce Department reported today that the housing starts last month fell to the lowest level since 1993.

How concerned are you that this housing recession will spill over into the broader economy? And what more can be done to prevent that from happening?

BUSH: I'm encouraged by the rate of inflation, the job growth. We've had 49 consecutive months of uninterrupted job growth, which is a record here in America.

I'm pleased with the fact that our deficit is shrinking. But like our secretary of the treasury, I recognize there's a softness in the housing market.

By the way, we had growth in the GDP because of exports. In other words, there's positive elements of our economy, but, no question, the housing is soft.

And the fundamental question is: What do we do to help homeowners? And I don't think we ought to be providing bailouts for lenders. But I do think we ought to put policy in place that help people stay in their home.

And that's why this FHA modernization bill is really important, because it'll extend the reach of the FHA and to help more people be able to refinance their homes.

Part of the issue in the housing market has been that, as a result of asset bundling, that it's hard sometimes for people to find somebody to talk to, to help them refinance.

In other words, in the old days, you know, you go into your savings and loan, your local savings and loan and sit down and negotiate a house deal, and the person with whom you negotiated would be around if you had financial difficulties to say, Can't you help me restructure.

Today the originator of the note no longer owns the note in many cases.

And the securitization of mortgages actually provided a lot of liquidity in the market, and that's a good thing. But it also creates a issue here in America, and that is: How do we get people to understand the nature of the mortgages they bought and how do you help people refinance to stay in home — stay in their home?

And so that's what Secretary Paulson and Secretary Jackson have been working on, particularly with the private sector, to facilitate the ability to people to refinance.

And finally, we need to change the tax law. You're disadvantaged if you refinance your home. It creates a tax liability.

And if we want people staying in their homes, then it seems like to me we've got to change the tax code. That's why I talked to Senator Stabenow the other day and thanked her for her sponsorship of an important piece of tax legislation that will enable people to be more likely stay in their homes.

So there's some things we can do. In the meantime, he's got to understand that it's going to have to work out — when you got more houses than you got buyers, the price tends to go down. And we're just going to have to work through the issue.

I'm not a forecaster. But I can tell people that I feel good about many of the economic indicators here in the United States.

Q: Mr. President, following up on Vladimir Putin for a moment, he said, recently, that next year, when he has to step down according to the constitution, as the president, he may become prime minister; in effect keeping power and dashing any hopes for a genuine democratic transition there.

Senator McCain...

BUSH: I've been planning that myself.

(LAUGHTER)

Q: Senator McCain said yesterday, sir, that when he looks into Putin's eyes, he sees a K, a G and a B.

(LAUGHTER)

BUSH: Pretty good line.

(LAUGHTER)

Q: And he would never invite him to Kennebunkport. And he says it's time we got a little tough with Vladimir Putin.

I wonder if you think — is Senator McCain right?

And what would it mean for Russian democracy if, when you leave power, assuming you do, in January 2009 ...

(LAUGHTER)

... if Vladimir Putin is still in power?

BUSH: Yes. You know, one of the interesting — well, my leadership style has been to try to be in a position where I actually can influence people. And one way to do that is to have personal relationships that enable me to sit down and tell people what's on my mind, without fear of rupturing relations.

And that's how I've tried to conduct my business with Vladimir Putin. We don't agree on a lot of issues. We do agree on some. Iran is one. Nuclear proliferation is another. Reducing our nuclear warheads was an issue that we agreed on early.

But I believe good diplomacy requires good relations at the leadership level. That's why, in Slovakia, I was in a position to tell him that, you know, we didn't understand why he was altering the relationship between the Russian government and a free press. In other words, why — why the free press was becoming less free.

And I was able to do — he didn't like it. You know, nobody likes to be talked to in a way that may point up different flaws in their strategy. But I was able to do so in a way that didn't rupture relations.

He was able to tell me going into Iraq wasn't the right thing.

And, to me, that's good diplomacy. And so — and I'll continue to practice that diplomacy.

Now, in terms of whether or not it's possible to reprogram the kind of basic Russian DNA, which is a centralized authority, that's hard to do. We've worked hard to make it — you know, appear in their interest, or we made it clear to them that it is in their interest to have good relations with the West.

And the best way to have good long-term relations with the West is to recognize that checks and balances in government are important, or to recognize there are certain freedoms that are inviolate.

So Russia's a complex relationship, but it's an important relationship to maintain.

Q: Do you think it's (OFF-MIKE) if he stays in power after you're gone?

BUSH: I have no idea what he's going to do. I asked him when I saw him in Australia. I tried to, you know, get it out of him, who's going to be his successor, what he intends to do, and he was wily. He wouldn't tip his hand.

I'll tip mine. I'm going to finish — I'm going to work hard to the finish. I'm going to sprint to the finish line, and then you'll find me in Crawford.

Q: Mr. President, I'd like to turn your attention back to Capitol Hill.

A year ago, after Republicans lost control of Congress, you said you wanted to find common ground. This morning you gave us a pretty scathing report card on Democrats. But I'm wondering: How would you assess yourself in dealing with Democrats this past year?

How exactly have you been in dealing with them on various issues? And do you think you've done a good job in finding common ground?

BUSH: We're finding common ground on Iraq. I recognize there are people in Congress who say we shouldn't have been there in the first place, but it sounds to me as if the debate has shifted; that David Petraeus and Ryan Crocker's testimony made a difference to a lot of members.

I hope we continue to find ground by making sure our troops get funded. We found common ground on FISA. My only question is: Why change a good law? The way that law was written works for the security of the country.

That's what the American people want to know, by the way: Are we passing laws that are beneficial to the American people? This law is beneficial because it enables our intelligence experts and professionals to find out the intentions of al-Qaida.

Now, the law needs to be changed — enhanced by providing the phone companies that allegedly helped us with liability protection. So we found common ground there.

Hopefully we can find common ground as the Congress begins to move pieces of legislation.

The reason I said what I said today is there's a lot to be done. As you recognize, I'm not a member of the legislative branch; probably wouldn't be a very good legislator.

But as the head of the executive branch, it makes sense to call upon Congress to show progress and get results. It's hard to find common ground unless important bills are moving. They're not even moving. Not one appropriations bill has made it to my desk.

How can you find common ground when there's no appropriations process?

We found common ground on a trade bill — trade bills, really important pieces of legislation, as far as I'm concerned.

One of the reasons why is exports helped us overcome the weakness in the housing market last quarter. If that's the case, it seems like it would make sense to continue to open up markets to U.S. goods and services.

And, yet, there hasn't been one — there haven't been any bills moving, when it comes to trade. Veterans' affairs is an area where we can find common ground.

I've called in — I asked Bob Dole and Donna Shalala to lead an important commission, a commission to make sure our veterans get the benefits they deserve.

I was concerned about bureaucratic delay and, you know, I was concerned about a system that had been in place for years, but just didn't recognize this different nature, a different kind of war that we're fighting.

I don't like it when I meet wives who are sitting beside their husband's bed in Walter Reed and not being supported by its government, not being helped to provide care.

I'm concerned about PTSD. And I want people to focus on PTSD.

And so we sent up a bill. And I hope they move on it quickly.

There's place where we could find common ground.

Q: Is it all their fault that these bills aren't moving, when you've got these veto threats out?

BUSH: I think it is — I think it is their fault that bills aren't moving. Yes. As I said, I'm not part of the legislative branch.

All I can do is ask them to move bills. It's up to the leaders to move the bills.

And you bet I'm going to put veto threats out.

Of course, I want to remind you, I put a lot of veto threats out when the Republicans were in control of Congress. I said, now, if you overspend, I'm going to veto your bills. And they listened. And we worked together.

Whether or not that's the case, we'll find out.

And, by the way, on the SCHIP bill, we weren't dialed in in the beginning.

The leaders said, OK, let's see if we can get something moving. And I'm surprised I hadn't been asked about SCHIP. It's an issue...

Q: How far are you willing to go?

BUSH: Surprised I hadn't been asked about SCHIP yet.

I made it abundantly clear why I have vetoed the bills.

I find it interesting that when Americans begin to hear the facts, they understand the rationale behind the veto. First of all, there are 500,000 children who are eligible for the current program who aren't covered. And so to answer your question on how far I'm willing to go, I want to provide enough money to make sure those 500,000 do get covered. That ought to be the focus of our efforts.

Six or seven — in six or seven states, they spend more money on adults than children.

And, finally, the eligibility has been increased up to $83,000. That doesn't sound like it's a program for poor children to me.

And I look forward to working with the Congress, if my veto is upheld, to focus on those that are supposed to be covered.

That's what we need to get done.

Q: I wonder if you feel blind sided by the very blistering criticism recently from retired General Ricardo Sanchez, who was one of your top commanders in Iraq.

He told a news conference last week that there's been glaring, unfortunate display of incompetent strategic leadership within our nation leaders on Iraq.

BUSH: Right.

Q: Seems like quite a lack of common ground there, sir.

BUSH: You know, look, I admire General Sanchez's service to the country. I appreciate his service to the country. The situation on the ground has changed quite dramatically since he left Iraq.

The security situation is changing dramatically. The reconciliation that's taking place is changing. The economy is getting better