Senin, 31 Agustus 2009

Should Obama Listen to Bob Dole?

Rep. Sensenbrenner Has Prostate Cancer
Wisconsin Republican Says His Cancer Is in Early Stage and That He Will Undergo Radiation Treatment
Should Obama Listen to Bob Dole?
When it comes to health care, everyone, it seems, has advice for the President. Add Bob Dole to the list. He wrote an Op-Ed in the Washington Post this morning. Key graph: "If I were a White House adviser, I...
Kennedy's seat: Appointment possible

by Mark Silva and updated

That last public wish of the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy may come true -- in part, at least.

Deval Patrick at Kennedy library.jpg

Before he died, the senator-for-nearly-five-decades asked that Massachusetts change its recently revised laws for replacing a U.S. senator. The Democrats are down one now in the Senate, with the president's health-care initiatve, near and dear to the late senator, on the table.

The state already had removed the appointive power from then-Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, when Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts posed the potential for a vacancy back home with his bid for the White House in 2004. The state now requires a special election, but that apparently won't come until January.

A state legislative committee will hold a hearing next week on a bill to allow Democatic Gov. Deval Patrick to appoint a temporary replacement for Kennedy while a special election is held to fill his seat, the Boston Globe reports this afternoon -- "a signal that Beacon Hill is moving to accommodate Kennedy's request that Massachusetts maintain two voices in the Senate.''

Mitt Romney portrait.jpg

The state House and Senate chairmen of the Joint Committee on Election Laws announced today they have moved the hearing date from early October to Sept. 9. The bill could go to the floor of both the state House and Senate within days after the hearing.

''One of the senator's last public acts was a request that the Legislature explore ways to amend state law so the Commonwealth will not lose a voice in the United States Senate pending the filling of the seat with a special election,'' said state Sen. Thomas P. Kennedy (no relation to the late senator), Senate chairman of election laws committee.

Patrick today set the date of the special election, Jan. 19.

"In the meantime, without the modest change that Sen. Kennedy himself proposed, Massachusetts will not be adequately represented in the U.S. Senate,'' Patrick said at a news conference this afternoon. He supports the special election, he said, but will work with the state legislature to secure an interim appointment before the election.

"On the merits, the proposal seems to me reasonable and wise,'' said Patrick, suggesting that he can't speak for the changes made in the past but sees an urgency in filling the vacancy today. "I don't think, by any means, it is a certainty it will happen,'' he allowed, nor does he need the personal "head-ache'' of making an appointment, but it seems like a "nice, and elegant'' solution for the vacancy.

(One may be to able to appoint a senator, one couldn't: Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, above, at the memorial service for Sen. Edward Kennedy at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library, by Michael Dwyer / . Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, below, unveiling his official portrait during a ceremony in January, by Elise Amendola / )

It is his intention, Patrick said, to seek a personal assurance from any interim appointee that he or she will not seek the seat in the special election -- though the state cannot constitutionally require that by law.

For causes such as health care and other issues in which the state has an interest, the governor said, the state needs two senators.

"Our interests,'' he said, speak "in favor of having a voice.''

Patrick said he has not picked a potential interim appointee, and had not spoken with President Barack Obama about this. Patrick said that Kennedy's widow, Vicki, is not interested in the appointment -- nor will the governor, seeking reelection, seek the Senate seat in the January special election: "I will not seek the position.''


Minggu, 30 Agustus 2009

Video: Face The Nation, 08.31.09
Colleagues of Senator Edward M. Kennedy remember his lasting legacy and the indelible mark he left on the political landscape.
Cheney: Torture probe 'offends hell out of me'

by Mark Silva

Former Vice President Dick Cheney, who administration authorized and legally justified interrogation tactics for detainees captured in its "war on terror,'' has this to say about the Obama administration's investigation of interrogations that may have exceeded the authority given the interrogators:

"I think it's a terrible decision,'' Cheney said in an interview aired this morning on FOX News Sunday.

And a political decision, he maintains"absolutely.''

"I guess the other thing that offends the hell out of me, frankly, is we had a track record now of eight years of defending the nation against any further mass casualty attacks from al Qaeda,'' Cheney said. "The approach of the Obama administration should be to come to those people who were involved in that policy and say, how did you do it? What were the keys to keeping this country safe over that period of time?"

And, Cheney maintains, he has "serious doubts'' about whether President Barack Obama "understands and is prepared to do what needs to be done to defend the nation."

Obama, whose administration has denounced as "torture'' some of the harshest tactics condoned by the Bush administration, has maintained that he is looking forward, rather than backward. But Attorney General Eric Holder now is reexamining some of the harshest interrogations conducted.

"President Obama made the announcement some weeks ago that this would not happen, that his administration would not go back and look at or try to prosecute CIA personnel,'' Cheney told FOX News' Chris Wallace. "Now we've got a political appointee coming back, and supposedly without the approval of the president, going to do a complete review, or another complete investigation, possible prosecution of CIA personnel.

"The negative consequences of that, about the terrible precedent it sets, to have agents involved, CIA personnel involved, in a difficult program that's approved by the Justice Department, approved by the National Security Council, and the Bush administration, and then when a new administration comes in, it becomes political,'' the retired vice president maintained.

"In the intelligence arena, we ask those people to do some very difficult things,'' Cheney said. "Sometimes, that put their own lives at risk. They do so at the direction of the president...if they are now going to be subject to being investigated and prosecuted by the next administration, nobody's going to sign up for those kinds of missions.... It's a very, very devastating, I think, effect that it has on morale inside the intelligence community....''

Cheney, who also said that he "was probably a bigger advocate of military action (against Iran) than any of my colleagues,'' allowed: "It was not my decision to make.

""I thought that negotiations could not possibly succeed unless the Iranians really believed we were prepared to use military force,'' Cheney said of the standoff with Iran over its enrichment of nuclear material. "And to date, of course, they are still proceeding with their nuclear program and the matter has not yet been resolved... The president made the decision and, obviously, we pursued the diplomatic avenues."

Asked if he will speak with the Justice Department's prosecutor, should it come to that, Cheney said: "It will depend on the circumstances and what I think their activities are really involved in. I've been very outspoken in my views on this matter. I've been very forthright publicly in talking about my involvement in these policies.... I'm very proud of what we did in terms of defending the nation for the last eight years successfully. And, you know, it won't take a prosecutor to find out what I think. I've already expressed those views rather forthrightly...

The vice president certainly knew about, and condoned, the interrogations taking placedocuments released have revealed that a few detainees were "water-boarded'' many dozens of timesthe practice, a simulated drowning, has now been banned.

And some of the harshest interrogation practices revealed by an CIA inspector general's report from 2004 that was released, in part last weeksuch as the threat of an electric drill in one casehad been well-known for some time internally, Cheney says.

"I knew about the waterboarding. Not specifically in any one particular case, but as a general policy that we had approved.'' Cheney said. "The fact of the matter is, the Justice Department reviewed all of those allegations several years ago. They looked at this question of whether or not somebody had an electric drill in an interrogation session.

"It was never used on the individual, or that they had brought in a weapon, never used on the individual.,'' he said. "The judgment was made then that there wasn't anything there that was improper or illegal with respect to conduct in question...

"My sort of overwhelming view is that the enhanced interrogation techniques were absolutely essential in saving thousands of American lives and preventing further attacks against the United States, and giving us the intelligence we needed to go find al Qaeda, to find their camps, to find out how they were being financed,'' Cheney said. "Those interrogations were involved in the arrest of nearly all the al Qaeda members that we were able to bring to justice... I think they were directly responsible for the fact that for eight years, we had no further mass casualty attacks against the United States. It was good policy. It was properly carried out. It worked very, very well."

Asked if he believes the Democrats have gone "soft'' on national security, Cheney saidL "I do, I've always had the view that in recent years anyway that they didn't have as strong of advocates on National Defense or National Security as they used to have, and I worry about that, I think that things have gotten so partisan that the sort of the pro defense hawkish wing of the Democratic party has faded and isn't as strong as it once was.''

And he said this about Obama:

"I was not a fan of his when he got elected, and my views have not changed any... have serious doubts about his policies, serious doubts especially about the extent to which he understands and is prepared to do what needs to be done to defend the nation."



Sabtu, 29 Agustus 2009

Barack Obama's Eulogy for Ted Kennedy
Remarks of the President for the Funeral Mass of the Mass. Senator
Obama eulogy: Kennedy 'Happy Warrior'

by Mark Silva

`"Today we say goodbye to the youngest child of Rose and Joseph Kennedy,'' President Barack Obama said today at the public funeral for the last of the three Kennedy brothers who held or sought the presidency.

"The world will long remember their son Edward as the heir to a weighty legacy; a champion for those who had none; the soul of the Democratic Party; and the lion of the United States Senatea man who graces nearly one thousand laws, and who penned more than three hundred himself,'' the president said in a eulogy for Edward M. "Ted'' Kennedyremembered by Obama today as Wordsworth's "Happy Warrior'' and "the greatest legislator of our time.''

Clintons and Obama at funeral.jpg

Obama and wife Michelle assumed seats in the first pews of the basilica in Boston where some 1,500 mourners assembled this morning for a funeral masswith an array of former presidents and first ladies seated beside them and behind them: President Jimmy Carter and Roslyn Carter to their left, President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clintonthe secretary of state in the Obama administration who fought Obama for the Democratic nomination last yearbehind them and President George W. Bush and Laura Bush beside the Clintons..

The television coverage of the assembly revealed an animated Bush engaging in banter with Hillary Clinton to his right, with Bill Clinton and with the Obamas seated before him before the mass. This culminated three days of memorial events for the longtime senator from Massachusetts who died this week following a year-long battle with brain cancer.

Last night, friends shared storieswith retired Sen. John Culver of Iowa telling an amusing tale of sailing with Kennedy. Today, they came to eulogize Kennedy, who will be buried this afternoon at Arlington National Cemetery.

Obama spoke of not only the late and longtime legislator's lawmaking prowess, but also his personal skills of persuasion. And he spoke of his own personal gifts from the mana Cape Cod seascape hanging on Kennedy's wall that Obama, then a freshman, had seen and complimented. Kennedy gave it to him. "That was my second (favorite) gift from Teddy and (his wife) Vicki,'' Obama said today"after our dog Bo.''

The senator, who died at 77 at his home Tuesday night, was the last of three brothers who had first captured the American public's imagination in the 1960s and engaged in the greatest legislative debates for five decades: President John F. Kennedy, elected in 1960, slain in 1963; Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, assassinated while seeking his party's nomination for president in 1968; and "Teddy'' Kennedy, first elected a senator in 1962, failing at his final bid for the presidential nominationlosing to an incumbent Carterin 1980, but continuing to serve in the Senate for nearly three decades more.

"Those of us who loved him, and ache with his passing, know Ted Kennedy by the other titles he held: Father. Brother. Husband. Uncle Teddy, or as he was often known to his younger nieces and nephews, "The Grand Fromage," or "The Big Cheese.'' Obama said today. "I, like so many others in the city where he worked for nearly half a century, knew him as a colleague, a mentor, and above all, as a friend.

"Ted Kennedy was the baby of the family who became its patriarch; the restless dreamer who became its rock,'' the president said of a senator who served for nearly 47 years.

(Former President Bill Clinton is pictured above, left, speaking with President Barack Obama as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, center, looks on prior to the Roman Catholic Funeral Mass for Sen. Edward Kennedy at Our Lady of Perpetual Hope Basilica in Boston. Photo by Brian Snyder / pool / )

"He was the sunny, joyful child, who bore the brunt of his brothers' teasing, but learned quickly how to brush it off,'' Obama said. "When they tossed him off a boat because he didn't know what a jib was, six-year-old Teddy got back in and learned to sail. When a photographer asked the newly-elected Bobby to step back at a press conference because he was casting a shadow on his younger brother, Teddy quipped, "It'll be the same in Washington."

"That spirit of resilience and good humor would see Ted Kennedy through more pain and tragedy than most of us will ever know. He lost two siblings by the age of sixteen. He saw two more taken violently from a country that loved them. He said goodbye to his beloved sister, Eunice, in the final days of his life. He narrowly survived a plane crash, watched two children struggle with cancer, buried three nephews, and experienced personal failings and setbacks in the most public way possible.

"It is a string of events that would have broken a lesser man. And it would have been easy for Ted to let himself become bitter and hardened; to surrender to self-pity and regret; to retreat from public life and live out his years in peaceful quiet. No one would have blamed him for that.

"But that was not Ted Kennedy. As he told us, "...Individual faults and frailties are no excuse to give inand no exemption from the common obligation to give of ourselves." Indeed, Ted was the "Happy Warrior" that the poet Wordsworth spoke of when he wrote:

As tempted more; more able to endure,
As more exposed to suffering and distress;
Thence, also, more alive to tenderness.

"Through his own suffering, Ted Kennedy became more alive to the plight and the suffering of othersthe sick child who could not see a doctor; the young soldier denied of rights because of who he or she is or where he or she comes from. The landmark laws that he championed -- the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, immigration reform, children's health care, the Family and Medical Leave Act -all have a running thread.

"Ted Kennedy's life's work was not to champion those with wealth or power or special connections. It was to give a voice to those who were not heard; to add a rung to the ladder of opportunity; to make real the dream of our founding. He was given the gift of time that his brothers were not, and he used that gift to touch as many lives and right as many wrongs as the years would allow.

"We can still hear his voice bellowing through the Senate chamber, face reddened, fist pounding the podium, a veritable force of nature, in support of health care or workers' rights or civil rights. And yet, while his causes became deeply personal, his disagreements never did.

"While he was seen by his fiercest critics as a partisan lightning rod, that is not the prism through which Ted Kennedy saw the world, nor was it the prism through which his colleagues saw him. He was a product of an age when the joy and nobility of politics prevented differences of party and philosophy from becoming barriers to cooperation and mutual respecta time when adversaries still saw each other as patriots.

"And that's how Ted Kennedy became the greatest legislator of our time. He did it by hewing to principle, but also by seeking compromise and common causenot through deal-making and horse-trading alone, but through friendship, and kindness, and humor.

"There was the time he courted Orrin Hatch's support for the Children's Health Insurance Program by having his Chief of Staff serenade the senator with a song Orrin had written himself; the time he delivered shamrock cookies on a china plate to sweeten up a crusty Republican colleague; and the famous story of how he won the support of a Texas Committee chairman on an immigration bill.

" Teddy walked into a meeting with a plain manila envelope, and showed only the chairman that it was filled with the Texan's favorite cigars.,'' Obama said. "When the negotiations were going well, he would inch the envelope closer to the chairman. When they weren't, he would pull it back. Before long, the deal was done.

"It was only a few years ago, on St. Patrick's Day, when Teddy buttonholed me on the floor of the Senate for my support on a certain piece of legislation that was coming up for vote. I gave him my pledge, but expressed my skepticism that it would pass. But when the roll call was over, the bill garnered the votes it needed, and then some. I looked at Teddy with astonishment and asked how he had pulled it off. He just patted me on the back, and said "Luck of the Irish!"

"Of course, luck had little to do with Ted Kennedy's legislative success, and he knew that. A few years ago, his father-in-law told him that he and Daniel Webster just might be the two greatest senators of all time. Without missing a beat, Teddy replied, "What did Webster do?"

"But though it is Ted Kennedy's historic body of achievements we will remember, it is his giving heart that we will miss. It was the friend and colleague who was always the first to pick up the phone and say, "I'm sorry for your loss," or "I hope you feel better," or "What can I do to help?" It was the boss who was so adored by his staff that over five hundred spanning five decades showed up for his 75th birthday party. It was the man who sent birthday wishes and thank you notes and even his own paintings to so many who never imagined that a U.S. senator would take the time to think about someone like them.

"I have one of those paintings in my private studya Cape Cod seascape that was a gift to a freshman legislator who happened to admire it when Ted Kennedy welcomed him into his office the first week he arrived in Washington; by the way, that's my second (favorite) gift from Teddy and Vicki after our dog Bo. And it seems like everyone has one of those storiesthe ones that often start with "You wouldn't believe who called me today."

"Ted Kennedy was the father who looked after not only his own three children, but John's and Bobby's as well. He took them camping and taught them to sail. He laughed and danced with them at birthdays and weddings; cried and mourned with them through hardship and tragedy; and passed on that same sense of service and selflessness that his parents had instilled in him. Shortly after Ted walked Caroline down the aisle and gave her away at the altar, he received a note from Jackie that read, "On you the carefree youngest brother fell a burden a hero would have begged to be spared. We are all going to make it because you were always there with your love."

"Not only did the Kennedy family make it because of Ted's lovehe made it because of theirs; and especially because of the love and the life he found in Vicki. After so much loss and so much sorrow, it could not have been easy for Ted Kennedy to risk his heart again. That he did is a testament to how deeply he loved this remarkable woman from Louisiana. And she didn't just love him back. As Ted would often acknowledge, Vicki saved him. She gave him strength and purpose; joy and friendship; and stood by him always, especially in those last, hardest days.

"We cannot know for certain how long we have here. We cannot foresee the trials or misfortunes that will test us along the way. We cannot know God's plan for us.

"What we can do is to live out our lives as best we can with purpose, and love, and joy. We can use each day to show those who are closest to us how much we care about them, and treat others with the kindness and respect that we wish for ourselves. We can learn from our mistakes and grow from our failures. And we can strive at all costs to make a better world, so that someday, if we are blessed with the chance to look back on our time here, we can know that we spent it well; that we made a difference; that our fleeting presence had a lasting impact on the lives of other human beings.

"This is how Ted Kennedy lived. This is his legacy. He once said of his brother Bobby that he need not be idealized or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life, and I imagine he would say the same about himself. The greatest expectations were placed upon Ted Kennedy's shoulders because of who he was, but he surpassed them all because of who he became. We do not weep for him today because of the prestige attached to his name or his office. We weep because we loved this kind and tender hero who persevered through pain and tragedynot for the sake of ambition or vanity; not for wealth or power; but only for the people and the country he loved.

"In the days after September 11th, Teddy made it a point to personally call each one of the 177 families of this state who lost a loved one in the attack. But he didn't stop there. He kept calling and checking up on them. He fought through red tape to get them assistance and grief counseling. He invited them sailing, played with their children, and would write each family a letter whenever the anniversary of that terrible day came along. To one widow, he wrote the following:

"As you know so well, the passage of time never really heals the tragic memory of such a great loss, but we carry on, because we have to, because our loved one would want us to, and because there is still light to guide us in the world from the love they gave us."

"We carry on.

"Ted Kennedy has gone home now, guided by his faith and by the light of those he has loved and lost,'' the president said today. "At last he is with them once more, leaving those of us who grieve his passing with the memories he gave, the good he did, the dream he kept alive, and a single, enduring imagethe image of a man on a boat; white mane tousled; smiling broadly as he sails into the wind, ready for what storms may come, carrying on toward some new and wondrous place just beyond the horizon. May God Bless Ted Kennedy, and may he rest in eternal peace.''



Jumat, 28 Agustus 2009

Video: New Book by Post Reporter

Video: New Book by Post Reporter
Bob Schieffer talks to the Washington Post's Dan Balz about his new book, "Battle for America 2008."
Forbes Wealthiest Zip Codes: Is Yours on the List?
Forbes magazine is out with their list of the 500 wealthiest zip codes in America. Alpine N.J. (zip 07620) tops the list with a median price of $4.14 million. The second most expensive is Atherton, Calif. (zip 94027) at $3.85...
Richardson evades charge, not questions

by Mark Silva

A federal prosecutor in New Mexico today acknowledged that Gov. Bill Richardson and former aides won't face any charges stemming from the probe of an alleged "pay-to-play'' scheme therea shadow that had prompted the Democrat to withdraw his nomination as U.S. Commerce secretary.

At the same time, however, U.S. Attorney Greg Fouratt said the decision not to bring charges "is not to be interpreted as an exoneration of any party's conduct." He sent a letter to defense attorneys contending that a yearlong investigation had "revealed that pressure from the governor's office resulted in the corruption of the procurement process" sending state bond business to a Richardson political donor in 2004.

Richardson, who was finishing a weeklong trade mission in Havana, Cuba, steered away from the loaded words in the prosecutor's dismissal: "I'm not talking about that.''

But Richardson spokesman Gilbert Gallegos said today that Fouratt's letter "is wrong on the facts and appears to be nothing more than sour grapes."

The Associated Press quotes sources as saying that the decision not to seek indictments was made by Justice Department officials in Washington, D.C., but Attorney General Eric Holder was not involved in the decision to close the case.

The chief federal prosecutor in New Mexico began an investigation last year into the hiring of a Richardson supporter, Beverly Hills-based CDR Financial Products, as a financial adviser on state transportation bond deals. The state work generated almost $1.5 million in fees for CDR.

The firm's CEO, David Rubin, and his firm contributed $110,000 to Richardson political committees from 2003 to 2005. The largest of those contributions, $75,000, was made less than a week before CDR was selected in June 2004 by the New Mexico Finance Authority to handle the reinvestment of idle bond proceeds.

Joseph diGenova, a Republican and former U.S. attorney during the Reagan administration, called Fouratt's letter "stupid" because it makes allegations of corruption in a case which it has closed. "That letter is an outrage and the U.S. attorney who wrote it should be fired,'' diGenova is quoted as saying. "The case is closed. If he had charges, bring them. Otherwise, he should shut up. He's being a politician now, not a prosecutor.''

Richardson became governor in 2003, having served as a congressman from New Mexico, a roving diplomatic troubleshooter and President Bill Clinton's energy secretary and U.N. ambassador. He has returned to the diplomatic front, meeting with a delegation of North Koreans earlier this month in Santa Fe and traveling to Cuba this week.

He ran for president in 2008, and after failing at winning the Democratic Party's nomination endorsed Obama's candidacy much to the chagrin of the Clintons. Obama had nominated Richardson for Commerce in December soon after winning election.

The U.S. attorney in New Mexico was seated in January when a panel of federal judges, addressing a vacancy, determined a presidential appointment wasn't imminent and exercised its authority to seat the prosecutor.

He probed whether Richardson's former chief of staff, David Contarino, had played a role in the hiring of CDR. A grand jury subpoenaed records about CDR and former Richardson aide David Harris and Mike Stratton, a political adviser.

Harris served as Richardson's deputy chief of staff and then became executive director of the Finance Authority, which selected CDR for the bond financing work. Stratton, a Denver-based political consultant, served as a senior adviser to Richardson's 2008 presidential campaign and was a consultant to CDR.

Contarino has said they acted "appropriately and ethically at all times and a fair." The Richardson administration continues to face pay-to-play allegations in a whistleblower lawsuit filed in state court.

Wire services contributed.


Kamis, 27 Agustus 2009

Health Care Piles On Before Congressional Recess

Kennedy's Bad Boy Days
Sen. Ted Kennedy, Once Considered "Playboy of the Western World" Had Splotchy Past; Made Turnaround After Marriage
Kennedy’s Demons
Last night on World News, John Donvan looked back at the string of misfortunes that Ted Kennedy faced throughout his lifetime.
Obama at 50 percent: New Gallup low

by Mark Silva and updated at 3:10 pm

President Barack Obama, who won the White House with an Electoral College landslide and enjoyed soaring public approval for the job he was doing in the weeks following his inauguration, has fallen to 50-percent job-approval in the newest daily tracking of the Gallup Poll released just now.

The new low for Obama in the Gallup Poll, which measured the president's public job-approval at a peak of 69 percent after his inauguration in January, tracks other national polls which recently have gauged his approval ratings at 51 percent.

It also coincides with apparent growing public concern about a protracted debate over health care in Washington, Gallup and other pollsters have found.

Should the slide continue, Obama will by no means be the first president to slide below 50-percent job approval in the Gallup Poll, which has been tracking public approval of presidents since Harry Truman.

But Obama has reached his own personal new low more quickly than most of his predecessors did, according to Gallup. The percentage of people voicing disapproval for the job the president is performing also stands at a near-high of 43 percent.

Aides to the president say he is not fixated on polling data. Obama entered office with high ratings, spokesman Bill Burton said today, but never thought they were "something he should put up on a shelf and admire."

"It's real easy to stay popular in Washington if you don't do anything at all," said Burton, but the president doesn't believe in working that way.

Slipping below 50 percent before November of the first year in office would represent "the third-fastest drop'' since World War II, Gallup reports. Republican Gerald Ford slipped below 50 percent in his third month as president, Democrat Bill Clinton during his fourth month.

It took Republican President Dwight Eisenhower five years to fall below 50 percent in the public's eye, Gallup notes. It took both Republican George Bush's roughly three years. It took Democrat Lyndon Johnson and Republican Richard Nixon more than two years.

"Ford's quick descent to below-majority approval was hastened by his unpopular decision to pardon Nixon in September 1974,'' Gallup's Jeffrey Jones reports.

"Clinton also suffered from a series of missteps in attempting to change policy (gays in the military), fill positions within his administration (failed nominees Zoe Baird, Kimba Wood, and Lani Guinier), and controversy over a haircut he received aboard Air Force One at Los Angeles International Airport,'' the pollster notes.

It's also not necessarily an irreversible trend, Gallup points out: Clinton and Republican President Ronald Reagan, who dropped below majority approval "faster than most other presidents,'' easily won reelection to a second term.

The latest findings of the Gallup tracking poll come from surveys of about 1,500 adults conducted Aug. 25-27 with a possible margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points.

Christi Parsons contributed from Martha's Vineyard.


Health Care Piles On Before Congressional Recess

Congress lurches toward the August recess with an agenda full of health care and spending bills. NPR's David Welna talks to host Liane Hansen about what's expected to happen in the coming week.


Selasa, 25 Agustus 2009

Schools on the Front Line of H1N1 Fight

Schools on the Front Line of H1N1 Fight
Washington Post: Schools Could Be Hotbed for Infection, Also Will Be Centers for Mass Immunizations
What Do You Think Obama Should Read This Summer?
Yesterday we learned what's on President Obama's summer reading list while he vacations in Martha's Vineyard (see the full list here). Some of you commented with some additional book ideas, so we thought we'd open up the conversation -- tell...
Obama's 'czars:' Bull's-eyes for critics

by Mark Silva

President Obama is dancing with the czars, the way some of his critics would have it.

And those critics have grown louder and louder lately, complaining about not only the president's alleged "socialist'' health-care plans, but also his alleged "communist'' adviserVan Jones (pictured below), the environmental adviser whom FOX News Channel's Glenn Beck is calling "the green czar.''

(That's one of the nicer things Beck calls Joneswho, like a few others who have arrived in Washington with a zeal for public service, possessed somewhat more radical views about politics in his college days. Beck should know about radicals.)

As for those czars...

Van Jones.jpg

Obama has "more of them than the Romanovs,'' Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona joked today at his "town hall'' meeting in Sun City, Arizona, repeating a laugh line that he has played again and again. (But the audience wasn't laughing about something which some see as a threat to their very Constitution -- that is the threat of advisers to the president whom people lightly call "czars.")

This czar-struck administration is raising the hackles of the anti-czar crowd, for sure.

Beck calls it "The new Republic... apparently the old one wasn't good enough,'' Beck says. "One area I have a lot of questions on is the czars... There are nearly three dozen of these czars. They don't answer to anybody. They are advisers to the president.''

Actually, they answer to the presidentand Obama hardly is the first president to have an array of senior assistants who have a say in White House policy.

And Beck really has it out for the "green czar,'' Jones, whose actual title has more to do with being a special advisor for Green Jobs at the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

Some "czar'' Jones is, on this White House CEQ roster:

Chair: Nancy Sutley
Chief of Staff: Jon Carson
Deputy Chief of Staff: Nikki Buffa
General Counsel: Ted Boling

Associate Directors: Land and Water Ecosystems: Mike Boots; Climate Change: Jason Bordoff; NEPA Oversight: Horst Greczmiel; Communications: Christine Glunz; Green Jobs: Van Jones; Legislative Affairs: Jessica Maher;Policy Outreach: Amy Salzman.

This czar-business, like the car-business, has gotten out of control. The title itself has become a "clunker'' with little cache, considering how many there may be.

When the administration dropped the word "toxic" from its talk of financial markets' woes, the press secretary was asked in March: "Do you have some marketing czar now who decided that "legacy loans" is more attractive to private investors than the word "toxic"?

"If there's a marketing czar,'' Press Secretary Robert Gibbs replied, "I've failed to get his or her memo.''

The president himself has helped fuel the fervor for the word, czar.

"Will immigration reform be part of this whole process?'' Obama was asked during an interview by Juan Carlos Lopez, president of CNN EN ESPAÃ'OL , in April. "And also you've named a border czar. Was this consulted with Mexico, and what is he going to do?

"Well, the goal of the border czar is to help coordinate all the various agencies that fall under the Department of Homeland Security, and so that we are confident that the border patrols are working effectively with ICE, working effectively with our law enforcement agencies,'' Obama replied. "So he's really a coordinator that can be directly responsible to Secretary Napolitano and ultimately directly accountable to me.''

But the power of the czars may be overrated.

Kenneth Feinberg, one of the Obama administration officials whom the news media have anointed as a "czar," hardly has the powers that would impress an Ivan the Terrible or Peter the Great, or former colleague Mike Dorning has noted.

"Feinberg, widely described as the White House's "pay czar," will have real control over compensation of executives at exactly seven companies that have been large recipients of government bailout money,'' Dorning wrote a while back for the Chicago Tribune. "And he has discretion over only the top five executives and 20 most highly paid employees in those companies. At most, that's 175 people.

"But czars are proliferating in Washington with a White House that has demonstrated a clear inclination to concentrate broad authority in its top officials by crossing traditional bureaucratic boundaries and a 24-hour cable news culture that has discovered that the appointment of a czar is more exciting than, say, an adviser on urban issues.

"There's a health reform czar, a drug czar, a border czar, a regulatory czar, an info-tech czar -- everything, it sometimes seems, but a Russian czar.''

McCain likes, and often uses, his line about "more czars than the Romanovs.''

It's not a job title that you'll find on anyone's federal paycheck, however.

It's more of an informal thing. The magazine, Foreign Policy, counted 18 under its definition, back in April. Reuters counted 21. At town hall meetings these days, people are complaining about "30 or 40'' of them.

Beck has found "more than three dozen.''

And he has one, Jones, in his cross-hairs.


Senin, 24 Agustus 2009

Holder names prosecutor for CIA abuses

W.H.: CIA Not Out of Interrogation Biz
Obama Spokesman Confirms New Interrogation Unit Which, Will Be Led by FBI Official
A Frightening Swine Flu Forecast
The nation is bracing for the return of Swine Flu this fall. The traditional flu season sets in each year when children return to schools. This year, becuase of Swine Flu, things are very different. It is a point underlined...
Holder names prosecutor for CIA abuses

by Josh Meyer

Att'y Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. today opened a preliminary investigation into whether some CIA operatives broke the law in their coercive interrogations of suspected terrorists in the years after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks -- prompting sharp criticism from both the right and the left.

Holder said that he decided to establish what he called a ``preliminary review'' after he conducted a thorough examination of past reviews of the interrogations, including an internal CIA investigation completed in 2004 by the agency's inspector general and separate reviews by Justice Department internal affairs watchdogs and line prosecutors.

``As a result of my analysis of all of this material, I have concluded that the information known to me warrants opening a preliminary review into whether federal laws were violated in connection with the interrogation of specific detainees at overseas locations,'' Holder said in a just-released statement.

``The department regularly uses preliminary reviews to gather information to determine whether there is sufficient predication to warrant a full investigation of a matter. I want to emphasize that neither the opening of a preliminary review nor, if evidence warrants it, the commencement of a full investigation, means that charges will necessarily follow.''

Holder tapped Assistant U.S. Att'y John Durham to lead the review, saying Durham is best positioned to do so because he has already investigating the CIA. Last year, the Bush administration's final attorney general, Michael Mukasey, appointed the Connecticut-based Durham to investigate the destruction of CIA videotapes of detainee interrogations.

``During the course of that investigation, Mr. Durham has gained great familiarity with much of the information that is relevant to the matter at hand. Accordingly, I have decided to expand his mandate to encompass this related review,'' Holder said.

Durham, an experienced and well-regarded career prosecutor, already has assembled a team of investigators, who will recommend to Holder ``whether there is sufficient predication for a full investigation into whether the law was violated in connection with the interrogation of certain detainees,'' the attorney general said.

"There are those who will use my decision to open a preliminary review as a means of broadly criticizing the work of our nation's intelligence community. I could not disagree more with that view,'' Holder said.

"I fully realize that my decision to commence this preliminary review will be controversial. As attorney general, my duty is to examine the facts and to follow the law. In this case, given all of the information currently available, it is clear to me that this review is the only responsible course of action for me to take."

Congressional Republicans continued their sharp criticism of the attorney general for launching such an investigation, no matter how narrowly focused, saying it endangered national security. And human rights organizations condemned the nation's top law enforcement official for not going far enough in trying to hold Bush administration officials legally accountable for using at least one coercive interrogation technique--water-boarding--which Holder himself has described as torture.

``Responsibility for the torture program cannot be laid at the feet of a few low-level operatives. Some agents in the field may have gone further than the limits so ghoulishly laid out by the lawyers who twisted the law to create legal cover for the program, but it is the lawyers and the officials who oversaw and approved the program who must be investigated,'' said the Center for Constitutional Rights.

"The attorney general must appoint an independent special prosecutor with a full mandate to investigate those responsible for torture and war crimes, especially the high ranking officials who designed, justified and orchestrated the torture program,'' the center said in a statement.

"We call on the Obama administration not to tie a prosecutor's hands but to let the investigation go as far up the chain of command as the facts lead. We must send a clear message to the rest of the world, to future officials, and to the victims of torture that justice will be served and that the rule of law has been restored."


Minggu, 23 Agustus 2009

Bipartisan Support Only With Co-Op

Bipartisan Support Only With Co-Op
Face the Nation: Senators Grassley and Conrad Both Agree Public Option Won't Pass Senate
Lieberman: Obama should scale back

by Jim Tankersley

With Americans so worried about the struggling economy and Congress prepping for a host of major legislative battles this year, President Barack Obama should scale back his health-care reform push and settle for a smaller, bipartisan bill, a key Senate moderate said this morning.

In particular, Obama should put off his push to cover every American with health insurance, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said on CNN's State of the Union.

"Great changes in our country often have come in steps," Lieberman said. "The civil rights movement occured in steps. Let's focus now on how to reduce costs."

A moment later, he added "Morally, every one of us would like to cover every American with health insurance. But that's where you spend most" of the roughly trillion-dollar health plan. "We should think about putting that off until the economy is out of the recession."

Lieberman, an independent who caucuses with Democrats in the Senate but endorsed Republican John McCain in last year's presidential election, was seconded by Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), who said the nation's "economic malaise" warranted putting off a major health care overhaul until at least next year.

But Senate Democrats continued to push for a wide-scale effort this fall, including covering the uninsured and creating a so-called "public option" for health insurance -- calling both critical to any hopes of reducing rapidly escalating health expenses.

"We've got to offer choice to bring down cost," said Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.).

On Fox News Sunday, Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) blamed "disinformation" for slumping public support for Obama's health plan, and he projected confidence that the president would ultimately prevail.

"I do not think it is in trouble," Specter said of the health bill. "I think it's in a period of analysis and re-analysis...I think we have a good chance to get bipartisan reform done."


Sabtu, 22 Agustus 2009

Possible Obama Visit Shows Bond to Kennedy

Possible Obama Visit Shows Bond to Kennedy
President Speculated to Visit Ailing Senator During Vacation
Clem's Chronicles:The Economy/ABC NEWS poll on Health Care Reform/Hurricane Bill
Happy Friday folks-here's hoping you get a little extra time off with your families and loved ones. So what's going on? THE ECONOMY-What a way to end to the week. If you can remember all the way back to the...
'Outrageous myths' in healthcare: Obama

by Mark Silva and updated

The great health-care debate of August closes, from the vacationing president's perspective, with a White House attempt to dispell some of "the more outrageous myths'' that have built up around the health insurance overhaul the president is promoting.

It "should be an honest debate, not one dominated by willful misrepresentations and outright distortions, spread by the very folks who would benefit the most by keeping things exactly as they are,'' President Barack Obama said today, in his weekly Internet and radio address taped before he left for a week's vacation starting in Camp David this weekend and carrying him and his family to Martha's Vineyard on Sunday.

Rep. Tom Price, a Republican from Georgia and physician before he became a politician, delivers the GOP's weekly response today with a suggestion that "folks of every political persuasion understand the imperative of reform. But they want reform that. keeps what's good with our current systemand fixes what's not workingwithout destroying our quality of care.''

The president insists care will improve.

"Today,'' Obama says in his address, "I want to spend a few minutes debunking some of the more outrageous myths circulating on the internet, on cable TV, and repeated at some town halls across this country.''

So here, from the president, are the Top Three outrageous myths of the health-care debate that Congress and the White House will face when they all return to work in September (the recessed Congress will return after Labor Day.)

-- "The false claim that illegal immigrants will get health insurance under reform. That's not true.''

-- "The charge that reform will somehow bring about a government takeover of health care. I know that sounds scary to many folks. It sounds scary to me, too. But here's the thing: it's not true.''

--"The source of a lot of these fears about government-run health care is confusion over what's called the public option... it would be just an option; those who prefer their private insurer would be under no obligation to shift to a public plan.''

The president allows that "the insurance companies and their allies don't like this idea, or any that would promote greater competition. I get that,,'' he says. "But this one aspect of the health care debate shouldn't overshadow the other important steps we can and must take to reduce the increasing burdens families and businesses face..''

Price, however, asserts that the initiative the Democrats are promoting will put government in everyone's health care, and they won't like it.

"Having navigated federal health care programs for two decades,'' Price says today, "I can tell you that Washington is incapable of processing the personal and unique circumstances that patients and doctors face each and every day. That is why a positive solution will put power in the hands of patients, not insurance companies or the government.

" Unfortunately, the plan being promoted by the White House would give Washington the power to make highly personal medical decisions on behalf of patientson behalf of you. ''

See the president's address above, the Republican response below, and read the texts of each below the fold:

This is the text of the president's address:

""Each and every day in this country, Americans are grappling with health care premiums that are growing three times the rate of wages and insurance company policies that limit coverage and raise out-of-pocket costs. Thousands are losing their insurance coverage each day.

Without real reform, the burdens on America's families and businesses will continue to multiply. We've had a vigorous debate about health insurance reform, and rightly so. This is an issue of vital concern to every American, and I'm glad that so many are engaged.

But it also should be an honest debate, not one dominated by willful misrepresentations and outright distortions, spread by the very folks who would benefit the most by keeping things exactly as they are.

So today, I want to spend a few minutes debunking some of the more outrageous myths circulating on the internet, on cable TV, and repeated at some town halls across this country.

Let's start with the false claim that illegal immigrants will get health insurance under reform. That's not true. Illegal immigrants would not be covered. That idea has never even been on the table. Some are also saying that coverage for abortions would be mandated under reform. Also false. When it comes to the current ban on using tax dollars for abortions, nothing will change under reform. And as every credible person who has looked into it has said, there are no so-called "death panels"an offensive notion to me and to the American people. These are phony claims meant to divide us.

And we've all heard the charge that reform will somehow bring about a government takeover of health care. I know that sounds scary to many folks. It sounds scary to me, too. But here's the thing: it's not true. I no sooner want government to get between you and your doctor than I want insurance companies to make arbitrary decisions about what medical care is best for you, as they do today. As I've said from the beginning, under the reform we seek, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your private health insurance plan, you can keep your plan. Period.

Now, the source of a lot of these fears about government-run health care is confusion over what's called the public option. This is one idea among many to provide more competition and choice, especially in the many places around the country where just one insurer thoroughly dominates the marketplace. This alternative would have to operate as any other insurer, on the basis of the premiums it collects. And let me repeatit would be just an option; those who prefer their private insurer would be under no obligation to shift to a public plan.

The insurance companies and their allies don't like this idea, or any that would promote greater competition. I get that. And I expect there will be a lot of discussion about it when Congress returns.

But this one aspect of the health care debate shouldn't overshadow the other important steps we can and must take to reduce the increasing burdens families and businesses face.

So let me stress them again: If you don't have insurance, you will finally have access to quality coverage you can afford. If you do have coverage, you will benefit from more security and more stability when it comes to your insurance. If you move, lose your job, or change jobs, you will not have to worry about losing health coverage. And we will set up tough consumer protections that will hold insurance companies accountable and stop them from exploiting you with unfair practices.

We'll prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage because of a person's medical history. They will not be able to drop your coverage if you get sick. They will not be able to water down your coverage when you need it most. They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or a lifetime. We'll place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses, because no one in America should go broke because they get sick.


And we will require insurance companies to cover routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies. There's no reason we shouldn't be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer on the front end. That makes sense, it saves lives, and it will also save money over the long-run. Taken together, the reforms we're seeking will help bring down skyrocketing costs, which will mean real savings for families, businesses, and government.

We know what a failure to act would bring: More of the same. More of the same exploding costs. More of the same diminished coverage. If we fail to act, the crisis will grow. More families will go without coverage. More businesses will be forced to drop or water down their plans.

So we can push off the day of reckoning and fail to deal with the flaws in the system, just as Washington has done, year after year, decade after decade. Or we can take steps that will provide every American family and business a measure of security and stability they lack today.

It has never been easy, moving this nation forward. There are always those who oppose it, and those who use fear to block change. But what has always distinguished America is that when all the arguments have been heard, and all the concerns have been voiced, and the time comes to do what must be done, we rise above our differences, grasp each others' hands, and march forward as one nation and one people, some of us Democrats, some of us Republicans, all of us Americans.

This is our chance to march forward. I cannot promise you that the reforms we seek will be perfect or make a difference overnight. But I can promise you this: if we pass health insurance reform, we will look back many years from now and say, this was the moment we summoned what's best in each of us to make life better for all of us. This was the moment when we built a health care system worthy of the nation and the people we love. This was the moment we earned our place alongside the greatest generations. And that is what our generation of Americans is called to do right now.'''

Here is the text of Rep. Tom Price's response:

"Hello, I'm Congressman Tom Price. And I have the privilege of representing the Sixth District of Georgia. (Just north of Atlanta) Before coming to Congress I was a physician, taking care of patients on the north side of Atlanta for more than 20 years.

Right now, Americans from coast to coast are debating the monumental task of reforming our health system. Folks of every political persuasion understand the imperative of reform. But they want reform that. keeps what's good with our current systemand fixes what's not workingwithout destroying our quality of care.

The status quo in American health care is clearly unacceptable. Rising costs, shrinking access, and third-party decision making are driving patients away from their doctors and the desired care that they seek. The challenge, however, is providing Americans more accessible and affordable care without impairing the quality, innovation, and choices that define American medicine. And this is simply impossible with the one-size-fits-all approach taken by the President and Democrats in charge of Congress.

Experience tells me that as a doctor, no two patients are exactly alike. While the same diagnosis can be reached for two people, the proper treatment for each may be completely different, based on a countless number of factors that only a patient, their family and a caring and compassionate physician truly understand.

Having navigated federal health care programs for two decades, I can tell you that Washington is incapable of processing the personal and unique circumstances that patients and doctors face each and every day. That is why a positive solution will put power in the hands of patients, not insurance companies or the government.

Unfortunately, the plan being promoted by the White House would give Washington the power to make highly personal medical decisions on behalf of patientson behalf of you.

Now whether it's the government choosing what should be in your family's health care plan, or a bureaucratic board deciding what treatments are appropriate and who should receive them, the President's plan is a 1,000-page expression supporting the notion that Washington knows best when it comes to your family's health care. And that's simply not true.

As opposition to the Democrats' government-run health plan is mounting, the President has said he'd like to stamp out some of the disinformation floating around out there.

On the stump, the President regularly tells Americans that 'if you like your plan, you can keep your plan.' But if you read the bill, that just isn't so. For starters, within five years, every health care plan will have to meet a new federal definition for coverageone that your current plan might not match, even if you like it.

What's more, experts agree that under the House bill, millions of Americans will be forced off their personal, private coverage and shuffled onto the government plan.

Now the President has also said that he thinks the government should compete with your current health care plan. But we all know that when the government is setting the rules and is backed by tax dollars, it will destroynot compete withthe private sector. The reality is, whether or not you get to keep your plan, or your doctor, is very much in question under the President's proposal.

But perhaps the most striking misinformation the President has put forth is that there are only two options out there for Americathat it's his way or the highway. That it's either the government running the showor insurance companies. The truth is there is a third waya better way, a patient-centered way to reform health care.

Rather than allowing insurance companies or the government to call the shots, Republicans want to put patients in charge of their family's health care. We have plans to increase coverage and lower costs without putting a bureaucrat between you and your doctor. We believe that what's good for patients is good for American health care.

If anything has been learned from the debate in August, it's that the American people think that we can do better. They seek reform, but they reject a government-centered approach. With people on the left, and the right, and everywhere in between dissatisfied with the process, it's time that we start over to create a truly bipartisan solution that puts patients in charge.

Honoring the transparency promised the American people, and the principles of quality care we all hold dear, we can create a patient-centered proposal that all may support. We look forward to working with the President, and on behalf of the American people, to make patient-centered health reform a reality. I'm Congressman Tom Price. Thanks so much for listening''



Jumat, 21 Agustus 2009

'Dear God,' Florida thanks you'Charlie'

Lockerbie Victim's Mom Upset with Obama
Calls President's Remarks over Release of Pan Am 103 Bomber Soft
Hurricane Bill Foils Clintons' Bermuda Getaway
One of the world’s most powerful couples, in recent weeks the Clintons have stared down dictators and barnstormed through Africa. But they weren’t impervious to the aptly named Hurricane Bill, which upset their romantic getaway to Bermuda. The State Department...
'Dear God,' Florida thanks you'Charlie'

by Mark Silva

This one reminds us of Bill Gunter, a former insurance commissioner and good Baptist in Florida who was running for Senate and happily told a ballroom full of elderly Jewish voters in South Florida once that he had met his wife in Israel.

On a tour bus. She was American.

So who says the Republicans won't have a prayer in next year's Senate races?

Charlie Crist.jpg

Charlie Crist, the Christian (Methodist) governor of Florida who is running for Senate in 2010, has a suggestion for why Florida has been spared major hurricanes on his watch.

The governor told some real estate agents in Orlando today that he has had prayer notes placed in the Western Wall in Jerusalem each year, and no major storms have hit Florida. Just before his election in 2006, the former attorney general and state legislator noted, Florida had been affected by eight hurricanes alone in 2004 and 2005.

"Do you know the last time it was we had a hurricane in Florida? It's been awhile. In 2007, I took my first trade mission. Do you know where I went?" said Crist, telling of his trip to the Western Wall and inserting a note with a prayer. He said it read, "Dear God, please protect our Florida from storms and other difficulties. Charlie."

"Time goes on -- May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December -- no hurricanes," Crist said. "Thank God."

Last year, when state Sen. Nan Rich was traveling to Israel and Crist asked her to place another note in the Western Wall. "It was the same note, by the way,'' Crist said, "the same prayer.

This year he gave a friend bound for Israel another note.

"You can do it on the Internet now,'' Crist noted. "but I'd rather have it physically in there.''

The note went in in May.

"May, June, July, August -- we're getting closer," the governor said today. "Knock on wood. I would ask you all to say a prayer."

Afterward, he conceded that he's not taking real credit for the absence of storms in his hurricane-prone state.

"I give that to God," Crist said. "But it's nice."

( With thanks, and apologies, to Brendan Farrington of the Associated Press. Photo of Florida Gov. Charlie Crist at the announcement of Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) that he will step down before his term ends by Chris O'Meara / )


Kamis, 20 Agustus 2009

Obama Wants House Arrest for Pan Am Bomber

Obama Wants House Arrest for Pan Am Bomber
President Says He Objects to al-Megrahi's Release, Says Libya Should Not Give Him Hero's Welcome
Former CIA Director Michael Hayden Weighs in on Controversial Al Qaeda Assassination Program
ABC News' Luis Martinez reports: Former CIA Director Michael Hayden participated in a timely National Press Club panel today on the use of contractors within the intelligence community. Timely, given today’s New York Times report that in 2004 the agency...
Summertime: 'Wee-weed' in Washington

by Mark Silva

It's never too late for a new phrase to find its way into the Washington lexicon, political parlance always in need of some refreshing.

But "wee-weed?''

We're waiting for the White House's official transcription of the words voiced by the president today for a clearer take on the spelling.

"Sometimes it seems like one loud voice can drown out all the sensible voices out there,'' President Barack Obama told supporters at a meeting of the Democratic Party-sponsored Organizing for America today Web-cast to a national network watching on the Internet, plus an audience listening to a telephone conference.

"There is something about August going into September where everybody in Washington gets all wee-weed up,'' Obama said, calling on his network of first campaign and now party supporters to mobilize against myths that critics of his health-care plan are spreading.

""Instead of being preoccupied with the polls and all the cable chatter... we're going to have to cut through a lot of nonsense out there, a lot of absurd claims that have been made about health care,'' said Obama, pointing to an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showing that most people believe things that aren't true about the plansuch as the notion that it will "pull the plug on Grandma.'

'Come on!" the president said.

"Look, we know where these lies are coming from... If you just flick channels and then just stop on.... certain ones.... then you'll see, you know, you'll see who's propagating this stuff,'' the president said, elicitng laughter with his thinly veiled allusion.

"The truth is, there is no plan that has ever been considered (by Congress)... that covers illegal immigrants... Yet a huge percentage believe that's the case,'' Obama said. "There are no plans under health-reform to revoke the existing federal prohibition against using federal dollars for abortions... Nobody has proposed anything even remotely close to a federal takeover of health care.... The death-panel idea... this is sort of an interesting example of tracing how misinformation spreads.''

Yet it's not only myths that are making things difficult, he suggested -- it's also an obsession with polls and talk radio and a relatively few boisterous town-hall meetings.

"Unfortunately, Washington is obsessed with the snap poll... what's said on talk radio,'' said Obama, who had just come from a talk radio show where he promoted his plans.

"We cannot be intimidated by some of these scare tactics,'' the president said, calling on his supporters to press the case for health-care reform in their communities.

And not, presumably, to get "all wee-weed'' up.


Rabu, 19 Agustus 2009

Exclusive: Gen. McChrystal On Front Line of Defense for Afghan Elections

Mom of Bristol Palin's Ex Cops Plea
Mother of Bristol Palin's Former Fiance Pleads Guilty to Possession with Intent to Deliver Painkiller
Exclusive: Gen. McChrystal On Front Line of Defense for Afghan Elections
ABC's Senior Foreign Correspondent Jim Sciutto reports from Afghanistan: On the eve of crucial presidential elections here, we traveled the capital with the commander of US forces, General Stanley McChrystal. His mission today was to coordinate with the Afghan police...
Health-care misinformation: Big numbers

by Mark Silva

Misinformation has taken hold in the health-care debate.

Most people surveyed by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal say it's likely that the president's health-care plans will provide insurance coverage to illegal immigrants, lead to a government takeover of the health system and use taxpayers' dollars to pay for abortions. Forty-five percent also think the plans would allow the government to decide about ceasing medical care for the elderly.

All of this is refuted by fact-checking of the plans emerging from Congress so far, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee has cited the chapter and verse that dispells the illegal-alien myth, and the president has personally addressed the "pulling the plug on Grandma'' question: "I am not in favor of that.''

Yet all of this could well be contributing to the dim view that much of the public holds of the health-care reform debate.

The president's job approval in this poll stands at 51 percentthe same result found in a Pew Research Center poll released today. It's down 2 points from last month in the NBC poll and down 10 points from April.

Only 41 percent of those surveyed approve of the president's handing of health care, with 47 percent voicing disapproval. But then, 62 percent say they disapprove of the way that Republicans in Congress are handling the issue, with just 21 percent voicing approval.

And these responses could have a lot to do with it:


Will the proposed health-care plan give health insurance to illegal immigrants?

55 percent say that's likely to happen.

Will it lead to a government takeover of the health-care system?

54 percent say that's likely.

Will it use taxpayer dollars to pay for abortion?

50 percent yes.

Will it allow the government to make decisions about when to stop providing medical care to the elderly?

45 percent yes.

Where are people getting all this from?

The survey asked which television news sources people get most of their information about the health-care debate from.

Forty percent said the leading broadcast networks: ABC, CBS and NBC.

17 percent said the cable channel, CNN.

Seven percent MSNBC.

Nearly one in four23 percentsaid FOX News.


Selasa, 18 Agustus 2009

Obama To Attend Cronkite Memorial

Obama To Attend Cronkite Memorial
CBS Plans Memorial For Walter Cronkite With President Obama, Others
Move Over Octomom. Is there a Duodecaplets Mom?
We’ve all heard of the Octomom from California but apparently she’s about to be upstaged as rumors are spreading like wildfire that a 30-something teacher in Tunisia is pregnant with 12 fetuses. Yes, twelve. The woman has not been named...
Obama vs. Palin in 2012: A 23-point gap

by Mark Silva

Let's stipulate a few things first:

Sarah Palin has not announced that she is running for president.

President Barack Obama and V.P. Joe Biden soundly defeated the Republican ticket of John McCain and Palin last year.

Mooseburger makes a great chili, we hear from Wasilla, but quitting midway through the term as governor doesn't make for a great political resume -- even a narrow majority of Republicans surveyed say so of the former governor of Alaska.

All that said, more than three years out from any such potential matchup, Obama holds a good 20-percentage point advantage over Palin, the Republican former governor and 2008 vice presidential nominee, in a theoretical matchup for the presidency in 2012.

In the midst of what is proving to be a difficult summer for Obama, enmeshed in a fierce debate over health-care and apparently losing support (polls show) for his handling of a number of key domestic issues, more than half the voters surveyed for the Marist Poll56 percentsaid they would vote for Obama in a contest with Palin.Just 33 percent said they would vote for Palin.

The numbers fall along party lines, as may be expected: With 92 percent of the Democrats surveyed favoring the president in a Palin match, and 73 percent of the Republicans surveyed favoring Palin.

For that matter, the Marist Poll finds no clear favorite among any of the Republicans tested in this survey: With 21 percent saying they could support former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in a GOP primary, 20 percent Palin and 19 percent former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

Among the names most widely known now, support falls off after the top three: Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich drawing the support of 10 percent of the Republicans surveyed, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal 5 percent and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty 1 percent.

Palin's decision to quit the governor's office little more than midway through her term after serving as the GOP's nominee for vice president last year " did not help her cause,'' Marist reports.

"In fact, voters say her action hurt her prospects for a presidential bid,'' Marist notes61 percent of all voters surveyed view Palin's resignation was a bad political move while just 15 percent say it should help her political aspirations. A slim majority of Republicans -- 51 percent -- say stepping down hurt her political future.

The Marist survey of 938 adults, including 854 registered voters, was conducted Aug. 3-6 and carries a possible margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percent.


Senin, 17 Agustus 2009

Obama: Two wars, one promise

Video: Unplugged: Inside The Secret Service
Ronald Kessler's spoke with Steve Chaggaris about his new book Inside The Secret Service, unlocking secrets inside the White House never before revealed. Plus, CBS' Erin Lyall with a report on 'Obama Tours' in Chicago.
Bolt from the Blue
ABC's Stu Schutzman from New York: A funny thing happened to Tyson Gay on the way to the finish line. The great American sprinter was poised to break the US record for 100 meters when a bolt from the blue...
Obama: Two wars, one promise

by Mark Silva

President Barack Obama, who has pledged to bring the troops home from Iraq while the American deployment in Afghanistan grows, faced the Veterans of Foreign Wars today in Phoenix. The U.S. has placed more than 60,000 troops in Afghanistan, and is scaling back its onetime deployment of more than twice as many in Iraq.

He made a promise today:

"As President, my greatest responsibility is the security and safety of the American people. As I've said before, this is the first thing that I think about when I wake up in the morning. It's the last thing that I think about when I go to sleep at night. And I will not hesitate to use force to protect the American people or our vital interests.

"But as we protect America, our men and women in uniform must always be treated as what they are: America's most precious resource. As Commander-in-Chief I have a solemn responsibility for their safety. And there is nothing more sobering than signing a letter of condolence to the family of serviceman or woman who has given their life for our country.

"That is why I have made this pledge to our armed forces: I will only send you into harm's way when it is absolutely necessary. When I do, it will be based on good intelligence and guided by a sound strategy. And I will give you a clear mission, defined goals and the equipment and support you need to get the job done.''

This is the text of the president's address to the VFW:

Thank you, Commander Gardner, for your introduction and for your lifetime of service. I was proud to welcome Glen and your executive director, Bob Wallace, to the Oval Office just before the Fourth of July, and I look forwarding to working with your next commander--Tommy Tradewell.

Let me also salute Jean Gardner and Sharon Tradewell, as well as Dixie Hild, Jan Title and all the spouses and family of the Ladies Auxiliary. America honors your service as well.

Members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, I am honored and humbled to stand before you as Commander-in-Chief of the finest military the world has ever known. And we're joined by some of those who make it the finest force in world--from Luke Air Force Base, members of the 56th Fighter Wing.

Whether you wear the uniform today, or wore it decades ago, you remind us of a fundamental truth. It's not the powerful weapons that make our military the strongest in the world. It's not the sophisticated systems that make us the most advanced. No, the true strength of our military lies in the spirit and skill of our men and women in uniform.

You know this. It is the story of your lives. When fascism seemed unstoppable and our harbor was bombed, you battled across rocky Pacific islands and stormed the beaches of Europe, marching across a continent--my own grandfather and uncle among your ranks--liberating millions and turning enemies into allies.

When communism cast its shadow across so much of the globe, you stood vigilant in a long Cold War--from an airlift in Berlin to the mountains of Korea to the jungles of Vietnam. When that Cold War ended and old hatreds emerged anew, you turned back aggression from Kuwait to Kosovo.

And long after you took off the uniform, you've continued to serve: supporting our troops and their families when they go to war and welcoming them when they come home; working to give our veterans the care they deserve; and when America's heroes are laid to rest, giving every one that final fitting tribute of a grateful nation. We can never say it enough: for your service in war and in peace, thank you VFW.

Today, the story of your service is carried on by a new generation--dedicated, courageous men and women who I have the privilege to lead and meet every day.

They're the young sailors--the midshipmen at the Naval Academy who raised their right hand at graduation and committed themselves to a life of service.

They're the soldiers I met in Baghdad who have done their duty, year after year, on a second, third or fourth tour.

They're the Marines of Camp Lejeune, preparing to deploy and now serving in Afghanistan to protect Americans here at home.

They're the airmen, like those here today, who provide the close air support that saves the lives of our troops on the ground.

They're the wounded warriors--at Landstuhl and Walter Reed and Bethesda and across America--for whom the battle is not to fight, but simply to speak, to stand, to walk once more.

They're the families that my wife Michelle has met at bases across the country. The spouses back home doing the parenting of two. The children who wonder when mom or dad is coming home. The parents who watch their sons and daughters go off to war. The families who lay a loved one to rest--and the pain that lasts a lifetime.

To all those who have served America--our forces, your families, our veterans--you have done your duty. You have fulfilled your responsibilities. And now a grateful nation must fulfill ours. And that is what I want to talk about today.

First, we have a solemn responsibility to always lead our men and women in uniform wisely. This starts with a vision of American leadership that recognizes that military power alone cannot be the first or only answer to the threats facing our nation.

In recent years, our troops have succeeded in every mission America has given them, from toppling the Taliban to deposing a dictator in Iraq to battling brutal insurgencies. At the same time, forces trained for war have been called upon to perform a whole host of missions. Like mayors, they've run local governments and delivered water and electricity. Like aid workers, they've mentored farmers and built new schools. Like diplomats, they've negotiated agreements with tribal sheikhs and local leaders.

But let us never forget. We are a country of more than 300 million Americans. Less than one percent wears the uniform. And that one percent--our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen--have borne the overwhelming burden of our security. In fact, perhaps never in American history have so few protected so many.

The responsibility for our security must not be theirs alone. That is why I have made it a priority to enlist all elements of our national power in defense of our national security--our diplomacy and development, our economic might and our moral example. Because one of the best ways to lead our troops wisely is prevent the conflicts that cost American blood and treasure tomorrow.

As President, my greatest responsibility is the security and safety of the American people. As I've said before, this is the first thing that I think about when I wake up in the morning. It's the last thing that I think about when I go to sleep at night. And I will not hesitate to use force to protect the American people or our vital interests.

But as we protect America, our men and women in uniform must always be treated as what they are: America's most precious resource. As Commander-in-Chief I have a solemn responsibility for their safety. And there is nothing more sobering than signing a letter of condolence to the family of serviceman or woman who has given their life for our country.

That is why I have made this pledge to our armed forces: I will only send you into harm's way when it is absolutely necessary. When I do, it will be based on good intelligence and guided by a sound strategy. And I will give you a clear mission, defined goals and the equipment and support you need to get the job done.

That is our second responsibility to our armed forces--giving them the resources and equipment and strategies to meet their missions. We need to keep our military the best trained, the best-led, the best-equipped fighting force in the world. That's why--even with our current economic challenges--my budget increases defense spending.

We will ensure that we have the force structure to meet today's missions. That is why we've increased the size of the Army and Marines Corps two years ahead of schedule and have approved another temporary increase in the Army. And we've halted personnel reductions in the Navy and Air Force. This will give our troops more time home between deployments, which means less stress on families and more training for the next mission. And it will help us put an end, once and for all, to stop-loss for those have done their duty.

We will equip our forces with the assets and technologies they need to fight and win. So my budget funds more of the Army helicopters, crews and pilots urgently needed in Afghanistan; the intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance that gives our troops the advantage; the special operations forces that can deploy on a moment's notice. And for all those serving in Afghanistan and Iraq, including our National Guard and Reserve, more of the protective gear and armored vehicles that saves lives.

As we fight in two wars, we will plan responsibly, budget honestly and speak candidly about the costs and consequences of our actions. That is why I've made sure my budget includes the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In Iraq, after more than six years of war, we took an important step forward in June. We transferred control of all cities and towns to Iraq's security services. The transition to full Iraqi responsibility for their own security is now underway. This progress is a testament to all those who have served in Iraq, uniformed and civilian. And our nation owes these Americans--and all who have given their lives--a profound debt of gratitude.

As they take control of their destiny, Iraqis will be tested and targeted. Those who seek to sow sectarian division will attempt more senseless bombings, more killing of innocents. This we know.

But as we move forward, the Iraqi people must know that the United States will keep its commitments. And the American people must know that we will move forward with our strategy. We will begin removing our combat brigades from Iraq later this year. We will remove all our combat brigades by the end of next August. And we will remove all our troops from Iraq by the end of 2011. And for America, the Iraq war will end.

By moving forward in Iraq, we're able to refocus on the war against al Qaeda and its extremist allies in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That is why I announced a new, comprehensive strategy in March. This strategy recognizes that al Qaeda and its allies had moved their base to the remote, tribal areas of Pakistan. This strategy acknowledges that military power alone will not win this war--that we also need diplomacy and development and good governance. And our new strategy has a clear mission and defined goals--to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda and its extremist allies.

In the months since, we've begun to put this comprehensive strategy into action. And in recent weeks, we've seen our troops do their part. They've have gone into new areas--taking the fight to the Taliban in villages and towns where residents have been terrorized for years. They're adopting new tactics, knowing that it's not enough to kill extremists and terrorists; we also need to protect the Afghan people and improve their daily lives. And today, our troops are helping to secure polling places for this week's election so Afghans can choose the future they want.

These new efforts have not been without a price. The fighting has been fierce. More Americans have given their lives. And as always, the thoughts and prayers of every American are with those who make the ultimate sacrifice in our defense.

As I said when I announced this strategy, there will be more difficult days ahead. The insurgency in Afghanistan didn't just happen overnight. And we won't defeat it overnight. This will not be quick. This will not be easy.

But we must never forget. This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is fundamental to the defense of our people.

Going forward, we will constantly adapt our tactics to stay ahead of the enemy and give our troops the tools and equipment they need to succeed. And at every step of the way, we will assess our efforts to defeat al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and to help the Afghan and Pakistani people build the future they seek.

Even as we lead and equip our troops for the missions of today, we have a third responsibility to fulfill. We must prepare our forces for the missions of tomorrow.

Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen adapt to new challenges everyday. But as we all know, much of our defense establishment has yet to fully adapt to the post-Cold War world, with doctrine and weapons better suited to fight the Soviets on the plains of Europe than insurgents in the rugged terrain of Afghanistan. Twenty years after the Cold War ended, this is not simply unacceptable. It is irresponsible. And our troops and taxpayers deserve better.

That is why our defense review is taking a top-to-bottom look at our priorities and posture, questioning conventional wisdom, rethinking old dogmas and challenging the status quo. We're asking hard questions about the forces we need and the weapons we buy. And when we're finished, we'll have a new blueprint for the 21st century military we need. In fact, we're already on our way.

We're adopting new concepts--because the full spectrum of challenges demands a full range of military capabilities--the conventional and the unconventional, the ablilty to defeat both the armored division and the lone suicide bomber; the Intercontinental Ballistic Missile and the Improvised Explosive Device; 18th-century-style piracy and 21st century cyber threats. No matter the mission, we must maintain America's military dominance.

So even as we modernize our conventional forces, we're investing in the capabilities that will reorient our force of the future: an Army that is more mobile and expeditionary and missile defenses that protect our troops in the field; a Navy that not only projects power across the oceans but operates nimbly in shallow, coastal waters; an Air Force that dominates the airspace with next-generation aircraft--manned and unmanned; a Marine Corps that can move ashore more rapidly in more places. And across the force, we're investing in new skills and specialties. Because in the 21st century, military strength will be measured not only by the weapons our troops carry, but by the languages they speak and the cultures they understand.

But here's the simple truth. We can't build the 21st century military we need--and maintain the fiscal responsibility that Americans demand--unless we fundamentally reform the way our defense establishment does business. It's a simple fact. Every dollar wasted in our defense budget is a dollar we can't spend to care for our troops, protect America or prepare for the future.

You know the story. The indefensible no-bid contracts that cost taxpayers billions and make contractors rich. The special interests and their exotic projects that are years behind schedule and billions over budget. The entrenched lobbyists pushing weapons that even our military says it doesn't want. The impulse in Washington to protect jobs back home building things we don't need at a cost we can't afford.

This waste would be unacceptable at any time. But at a time when we're fighting two wars and facing a serious deficit, it's inexcusable. It's unconscionable. It's an affront to the American people and to our troops. And it's time for it to stop.

This isn't a Democratic issue or a Republican issue. It's about giving our troops the support they need. And that's something on which all Americans can agree. So I'm glad that I have a partner in this effort in a great veteran, a great Arizonan, and a great American who has shown the courage to stand and fight this waste--Senator John McCain. And I'm proud to have Secretary of Defense Robert Gates--who has served under eight presidents of both parties--leading this fight at the Pentagon.

Already, I've put an end to unnecessary no-bid contracts. I signed bipartisan legislation to reform defense procurement so weapons systems don't spin out of control. And even as we increase spending on the equipment and weapons our troops do need, we have proposed cutting tens of billions of dollars in waste we don't need.

Think about it. Hundreds of millions of dollars for an alternate second engine for the Joint Strike Fighter--when one reliable engine will do just fine. Nearly two billion dollars to buy more F-22 fighter jets when we can move ahead with a fleet of newer, more affordable aircraft. Tens of billions of dollars to put an anti-missile laser on a fleet of vulnerable 747s.

And billions of dollars for a new presidential helicopter. Maybe you heard about this. Among other capabilities, it would let me cook a meal while under nuclear attack. I'll tell you something. If the United States of America is under nuclear attack, the last thing on my mind will be whipping up a snack.

It's simple enough. Cut the waste. Save taxpayer dollars. Support the troops. But we all know how Washington works. The special interests, contractors and entrenched lobbyists are invested in the status quo. And they're putting up a fight.

But make no mistake, so are we. If a project doesn't support our troops, we will not fund it. If a system doesn't perform, we will terminate it. And if Congress sends me a defense bill loaded with that kind of waste, I will veto it. We will do right by our troops and taxpayers. We will build the 21st century military we need.

Finally, we will fulfill our responsibility to those who serve by keeping our promises to our people.

We will fulfill our responsibility to our forces and families. That is why we're increasing military pay, building better family housing and funding more childcare and counseling to help families cope with the stresses of war. And we've changed the rules so military spouses can better compete for federal jobs and pursue their careers.

We will fulfill our responsibility to our wounded warriors. For those still in uniform, we're investing billions of dollars for more treatment centers, more case managers and better medical care so our troops can recover and return to where they want to be--with their units.

But for so many veterans the war rages on--the flashbacks that won't go away, the loved ones who now seem like strangers, the heavy darkness of depression that has led too many of our troops to take their own lives. Post-Traumatic Stress and Traumatic Brain Injury are the defining injuries of today's wars. So caring for those affected by them is a defining purpose of my budget--billions of dollars for more treatment and mental health screening to reach our troops on the frontlines and more mobile and rural clinics to reach veterans back home. We will not abandon these American heroes.

We will fulfill our responsibility to our veterans as they return to civilian life. I was proud to co-sponsor the Post-9/11 GI Bill as a senator. Thanks to VFW members across the country--and leaders like Arizona's Harry Mitchell in Congress--it's now the law of the land. And as President, I'm committed to seeing that it is successfully implemented.

For so many of you, like my grandfather, the original GI Bill changed your life--helping you to realize your dreams. And it transformed America--helping to build the largest middle class in history. We're saying the same thing to today's Post-9/11 veterans--you pick the school, we'll help pick up the bill.

And as these veterans start showing up on campuses, I'm proud that we're making this opportunity available to all those who have sacrificed, including reservists and National Guard members and spouses and children, including kids who've lost their mom or dad. In an era when so many people and institutions have acted irresponsibly, we chose to reward the responsibility and service of our forces and their families.

Whether you left the service in 2009 or 1949, we will fulfill our responsibility to deliver the benefits and care that you earned. That's why I've pledged to build nothing less than a 21st-century VA. And I picked a lifelong soldier and a wounded warrior from Vietnam to lead this fight--General Ric Shinseki.

We're dramatically increasing funding for veterans health care. This includes hundreds of millions of dollars to serve veterans in rural areas as well as the unique needs of our growing number of women veterans. We're restoring access to VA health care for a half-million veterans who lost their eligibility in recent years--our Priority 8 veterans.

And since there's been so much misinformation out there about health insurance reform, let me say this. One thing that reform won't change is veterans health care. No one is going to take away your benefits. That's the truth.

We're keeping our promise on concurrent receipt. My budget ensures that our severely disabled veterans will receive both their military retired pay and their VA disability benefits. And I look forward to signing legislation on advanced appropriations for the VA so that the medical care you need is never held up by budget delays.

I've also directed Secretary Shinseki to focus on a top priority--reducing homelessness among veterans. Because after serving their country, no veteran should be sleeping on the streets.

And we're keeping our promise to fulfill another top priority at the VA--cutting the red tape and inefficiencies that cause backlogs and delays in the claims process. This spring, I directed the departments of defense and veterans affairs to create one unified lifetime electronic health record for members of the armed forces--a single electronic record, with privacy guaranteed, that will stay with them forever. Because after fighting for America, you shouldn't have to fight over paperwork to receive the benefits you earned.

Today, I can announce that we're taking another step. I have directed my Chief Performance Officer, my Chief Technology Officer and my Chief Information Officer to join with Secretary Shinseki in a new reform effort. We're launching a new competition to capture the very best ideas of our VA employees who work with you every day.

We're going to challenge each of our 57 regional VA offices to come up with the best ways of doing business, harnessing the best information technologies, breaking through the bureaucracy.

And then we're going to fund the best ideas and put them into action. All with a simple mission--cut those backlogs, slash those wait times and deliver your benefits sooner. I know, you've heard this for years. But with the leadership and resources we're providing, I know we can do this. And that is our mission.

Taken together, these investments represent an historic increase in our commitment to America's veterans--a 15 percent increase over last year's funding levels and the largest increase in the VA budget in more than 30 years. And over the next five years we'll invest another $25 billion more.

These are major investments, and these are difficult times. Fiscal discipline demands that we make hard decisions--sacrificing certain things we cannot afford. But let me be clear. America's commitments to its veterans are not just lines in a budget. They are bonds that are sacrosanct--a sacred trust we are honor bound to uphold. And we will.

These are the commitments we make to the patriots who serve--from the day they enlist to the day they are laid to rest. Patriots like you. Patriots like Jim Norene.

His story is his own, but in it we see the larger story of all who serve. A child of the Depression who grew up to join that greatest generation. A paratrooper in the 502nd Parachute Infantry Regiment of the 101st Airborne. Jumping in a daring daylight raid into Holland to liberate a captive people. Rushing to Bastogne at the Battle of the Bulge where his commanding general--surrounded by the Germans and asked to surrender--declared, famously, "Nuts."

For his bravery, Jim was awarded the Bronze Star. But like so many others, he rarely spoke of what he did or what he saw--reminding us that true love of country is not boisterous or loud but, rather, the "tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime."

He returned home and built a life. Went to school on the GI Bill. Got married. Raised a family in his small Oregon farming town. And every Veterans Day, year after year, he visited schoolchildren to speak about the meaning of service. And he did it all as a proud member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

Then, this spring, Jim made a decision. He would return to Europe once more. Eighty-five years old, frail and gravely ill, he knew he might not make it back home. But like the paratrooper he always was, he was determined.

Near Bastogne, he returned to the places he knew so well. At a Dutch town liberated by our GIs, schoolchildren lined the sidewalks and sang The Star-Spangled Banner. And in the quiet clearing of an American cemetery, he walked among those perfect lines of white crosses of fellow soldiers who had fallen long ago, their names forever etched in stone.

Then--back where he had served 65 years before--Jim Norene passed away. At night. In his sleep. Quietly. Peacefully. The "tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime."

The next day, I was privileged to join the commemoration at Normandy to mark that day when the beaches were stormed and a continent was freed. There were presidents and prime ministers and veterans from the far corners of the earth. But long after the bands stopped playing and the crowds stopped cheering, it was the story of a departed VFW member that echoed in our hearts.

Veterans of Foreign Wars, you have done your duty--to your fallen comrades, to your communities, to your country. You've always fulfilled your responsibilities to America. And so long as I am President, America will always fulfill its responsibilities to you.

God bless you. God bless all our veterans. And God bless the United States of America.