Tuesday, May 4, 2010
DailyPuglet — April 16, 2010 — http://dailypuglet.com : Pug sorts paper from plastic, rides mass transit, swaps carrots for cows and a whole bunch of other stuff that proves being green is totally easy!
** Song is Ray Charles' rendition of Kermit's 'It's Not Easy Being Green' **
Obama Supreme Court pick could come this week
By Patricia Zengerle
Reuters
updated 3:28 p.m. ET, Tues., May 4, 2010
U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens poses for an official photograph with the other Justices at the Supreme Court in Washington, September 29, 2009 file photo. REUTERS/Jim Young
WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama could announce his second nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court as soon as this week, administration officials said, although they declined on Tuesday to say how many names were left on his short list of candidates.
Obama has been expected to decide quickly on who he would like to fill the seat being vacated by retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, with critical congressional elections looming in November.
Elena Kagan, the U.S. solicitor general; Diane Wood, a U.S. appeals court judge in Chicago; Merrick Garland, an appeals court judge in Washington, D.C.; and Sidney Thomas, an appeals court judge in San Francisco, are the four names most generally considered as favorites for the pick.
Administration officials have confirmed that all are on Obama's short list of candidates, and that Obama has interviewed at least some of them in person. They had said the short list included about 10 names.
Stevens is the Supreme Court's leading liberal. The Democratic president's pick is not expected to shift the ideological balance of the closely divided court, which now has five conservatives and four liberals.
Republicans have had little to say about any of Obama's potential picks since Stevens announced his retirement last month, which could be a sign that there will not be an intense confirmation battle on Capitol Hill.
White House officials had said they expected a tough confirmation fight with Republicans in Congress, no matter whom Obama nominates.
Stevens is known as a consensus builder whose intellect and persuasiveness have in some cases helped move the conservative-leaning court toward his opinions.
Administration officials say Obama is seeking a liberal of intellectual heft who also possesses consensus-building skills.
Obama has said he wants to announce his pick by the end of May, so the confirmation process can be finished in time for the new justice. He announced his first Supreme Court nominee, then-appeals court Judge Sonia Sotomayor, on May 26, 2009, and she was confirmed in early August.
Other names on Obama's short list are: Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano; Martha Minow, the dean of Harvard Law School; Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm; Ann Claire Williams, a judge on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals; and Leah Ward Sears, who retired last year as chief justice of the Supreme Court of Georgia.
Copyright 2010 Reuters. Click for restrictions.
Ex-con Traficant to run for old Ohio House seat
Former congressman served 7 years in jail for racketeering, bribery
DANGER DANGER DOES ANYONE BELIEVE THAT THIS CONVICTED EX CONGRESS PERSON SHOULD BE RE-ELECTED TO HIS HOME REGION. I DO NOT THINK THAT ANY PERSON CONVICTED WHILE IN CONGRESS SHOULD EVER BE ALLOWED TO RUN AGAIN. THAT IS LIKE TELLING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT IT IS OKAY TO DO WRONG BECAUSE THEY WILL LET YOU BACK IN. I DO NOT THINK THIS IS THE WAY OUR COUNTRY SHOULD BE RUN.......
Former Rep. James Traficant was convicted of racketeering, bribery and other crimes.
The Associated Press
updated 12:18 p.m. ET, Mon., May 3, 2010
WARREN, Ohio - James A. Traficant Jr., who served nearly two decades in Congress and seven years in prison for corruption, filed petitions Monday to run as an independent in his northeast Ohio home turf.
Trumbull County elections board director Kelly Pallante said Traficant came to the board's offices around 9:30 a.m. to file the paperwork, which will be reviewed by a July 15 deadline.
The seat is currently held by Democrat Tim Ryan, who once worked for Traficant and beat Traficant when the incumbent ran for re-election from prison. There was no immediate comment from Ryan, whose campaign said it was preparing a response.
The 68-year-old Traficant was elected to nine terms in Congress as a Democrat from Youngstown before serving time for racketeering, bribery, obstruction of justice and tax evasion. He left federal prison in September. His conviction does not bar him from running for Congress.
The 17th Congressional District borders were redrawn before Traficant's loss to Ryan. It is now split in two, represented by Ryan and Rep. Charlie Wilson.
Traficant was one of Congress' most colorful members. He was known for a distinctive toupee and hairstyle — Jay Leno called it Washington's worst haircut — and a penchant for Star Trek references, including brief floor speeches typically punctuated with the phrase, "Beam me up."
He routinely railed against America's rivals, imported goods and the Internal Revenue Service, an agency that Traficant wants to eliminate.
He was convicted in 2002 of accepting bribes from businessmen and taking kickbacks from staff members. He then was expelled from Congress, only the second House member since the Civil War to be ousted for unethical conduct.
The trial marked the third time Traficant had represented himself in court. He won acquittal on mob payoff charges in 1983 but lost a U.S. Tax Court case on similar issues in 1987.
He was convicted in 2002 of accepting bribes from businessmen and taking kickbacks from staff members. He then was expelled from Congress, only the second House member since the Civil War to be ousted for unethical conduct.
The trial marked the third time Traficant had represented himself in court. He won acquittal on mob payoff charges in 1983 but lost a U.S. Tax Court case on similar issues in 1987.
Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Obama wrestles with growing stack of crises
Oil spill, attempted NYC bombing, and court pick add to president's plate
"Safe to say, there is a lot on the president's plate," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Monday.
By TOM RAUM
The Associated Press
updated 12:34 p.m. ET, Tues., May 4, 2010
WASHINGTON - Unpredictable and tough to solve, the stack of problems on President Barack Obama's desk is growing unwieldy. It's presenting him with a tough juggling act.
Two wars, a financial crisis, lingering high unemployment and an exhausting battle over health care. And that was just the start.
Now throw in an environmental disaster in the Gulf of Mexico and an attempted car bombing in Times Square.
And there are other pressing matters, such as dealing with the increasing menace of Iran's nuclear program, trying to get the Middle East peace process back on track, searching for a new Supreme Court justice and trying to persuade Congress to approve the most sweeping rewrite of financial rules in 70 years.
And there are other pressing matters, such as dealing with the increasing menace of Iran's nuclear program, trying to get the Middle East peace process back on track, searching for a new Supreme Court justice and trying to persuade Congress to approve the most sweeping rewrite of financial rules in 70 years.
And Obama is striving to juggle these problems while he and his party brace for potentially big midterm election losses in November.
"Safe to say, there is a lot on the president's plate," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said at his daily briefing on Monday when pressed by a reporter on Obama's timetable for interviewing and selecting a new Supreme Court justice.
He was stating the obvious.
Obama underscored his multiple challenges in a speech Tuesday designed to be about the economy. In addition, he wound up addressing the Times Square scare, telling his audience of business leaders: "This incident is another sobering reminder of the times in which we live." He also spoke about the oil spill and his push for financial regulation overhaul, and he defended health care.
All modern presidents get bombarded with multiple problems and have to learn to multitask. But Obama seems to be getting more than his share.
"These are coming at him fast. And many are things where it's very hard for him to act. They're not win-win propositions," said Stephen Hess, a presidential scholar at the Brookings Institution who worked in the Eisenhower and Nixon administrations and was an adviser to Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.
"Obama, in a sense, didn't create any of these situations. But the public, as they do with all presidents, holds him responsible for all of them," Hess said.
An oil spill, spewing 200,000 gallons a day into the Gulf of Mexico and threatening major environmental damage as the slick drifts toward a fragile shoreline, comes just weeks after Obama called for expanding oil drilling in the eastern Gulf and for opening drilling areas off the southeast Atlantic seaboard and in Alaska.
The disaster raises serious questions about that initiative.
Obama acted quickly to make a show of federal involvement — a lesson no doubt learned from the Bush administration's sluggish and at times tone-deaf reaction to Hurricane Katrina in the Gulf in 2005.
Still, some of Obama's critics, including some on the political left, have suggested Obama's concern wasn't registered quickly enough.
A public grown highly skeptical of government's capabilities is bound to judge Obama's performance in a harsher light because of President George W. Bush's stumbling.
The challenges have been piling up quickly.
The weekend before last, Obama was in West Virginia at a memorial service for 29 miners killed in a coal mine explosion that is now at the center of an FBI criminal investigation. Suddenly, there was another major explosion to deal with, this one on a deepwater oil rig in the Gulf owned by Transocean LTD and operated by BP PLC. Eleven workers died in that explosion.
Even as Obama talked with reporters about the catastrophe on Sunday during a quickly arranged visit to the Gulf, he found he also had to offer calming words over Saturday's failed car bombing in New York's Times Square.
"What we have here is a situation in which the president of the United States is dealing with a wide variety of problems," said pollster Andrew Kohut, president of the nonpartisan Pew Research Center. "Economic discontent is now being augmented by concerns about what happened in the Gulf and whether we're safe from truck and car bombs.
"I think it adds to a sense of his burden. But I don't think it's going to deal a devastating blow to his image at this point," Kohut said.
The multiple crises weigh on Obama's political calculus as he decides how hard to push his remaining agenda while Democrats still control Congress.
The outlook isn't all gloomy. The elections are still six months off and a lot can happen between now and then.
The economy does seem to be improving, if slowly.
Obama does face a likely confirmation fight in the Senate over his Supreme Court choice. But at least he has a chance to place a second justice on the court. Carter, for instance, never had a single opening on the high court during his one-term presidency.
Some recent events, such as the government's civil fraud suit against giant investment bank Goldman Sachs, could work in Obama's favor on the financial regulation front by helping Democrats to harness voter anger against Wall Street.
The would-be Times Square bombing could have had devastating consequences. But the device failed to detonate. Within days, federal authorities had in custody a Pakistan-born, naturalized U.S. citizen, Faisal Shahzad, 30, on charges that he drove a bomb-laden SUV to mid-Manhattan.
It's still not clear how much environmental damage will result from the Gulf oil spill. But various government agencies appear to be working the problem and BP PLC has given some assurances to shrimpers, oil workers and scores of others that they will be paid for damage and injuries.
Either way, the multiple crises will leave an indelible mark on Obama's presidency, suggested Thomas E. Cronin, a presidential scholar at Colorado College in Colorado Springs.
Many successful presidential candidates like Obama "go to Washington to change the way Washington does business," Cronin said. "The fact is, once you're there, your agenda gets changed and shaped more than you are the shaper. This once again shows that events shape leaders more than leaders shape events."
Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
|
 | Video: White House |
 Obama: 'We will not be terrorized' President Barack Obama says an investigation into an attempted car bombing at Times Square will seek to determine if a suspect in the case had links to foreign extremist groups. The president also remarked in light of Saturday's failed bombing attempt that the nation "will not be terrorized." |
Race to the Top High School Commencement Challenge
The President launched the Race to the Top High School Commencement Challenge back in February to give the nation's public high schools a chance to demonstrate their commitment to academic excellence, personal responsibility, and ability to prepare students to graduate ready for college and a career. The response was overwhelming. Over 1,000 schools submitted outstanding applications, and more than 170,000 people weighed in on the six finalists.
I couldn't be prouder of these schools. Each of the finalists represents the best that American public education has to offer and has demonstrated tremendous dedication and grace throughout the competition. Thank you for all of your hard work.
This was a tough competition. The six finalists -- Blue Valley Northwest High School in Overland Park, KS, Clark Montessori in Cincinnati, OH, Denver School of Science and Technology in Denver, CO, Environmental Charter High School in Lawndale, CA, Kalamazoo Central High School in Kalamazoo, MI and MAST Academy in Miami, FL -- are extraordinary schools, and each has done a tremendous job over the past few months to demonstrate the unique aspects of their school.
In recognition of their extraordinary achievements, we will work to provide a Cabinet secretary or senior Administration official to deliver the commencement address at each of the five schools not selected as the national winner.
Ultimately, there could only be one winner, and I'm thrilled about the President's final choice.
Getting a good education is critical to each student's future and to the future of the country. That's why President Obama has made unprecedented investments in education reform through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the Race to the Top.
These investments are designed to raise the bar and spur innovative techniques to help schools and students achieve success. The winner of the Commencement Challenge and all of the finalists are excellent examples of these kinds of innovations and creative problem solving.
Thank you to all of the schools who participated in the first annual Commencement Challenge and congratulations to our winner!
Sincerely,
Melody Barnes
Director, Domestic Policy Council
Homeless feared killed in Nashville floodingTent city was wiped out; death toll across South now at 29 My comment: What the heck is going on just because we have this oilpaloosa in the gulf, a threatened terrorist attack that sort of fell apart, we did have severe flooding in Tenn. We need to show that we are aware of their plight and not to lose them like New Orleans We can handle several emergencies at once we are multitasking as a nation. Now let your voice be heard and tell Washington what they can do. |
|
NBC News and news services
updated 2 hours, 5 minutes ago
NASHVILLE, Tenn. - Rescuers feared even more bodies would emerge as muddy flood waters ebb from torrential weekend rains that swamped Nashville, much of Tennessee and two neighboring states, leaving at least 29 dead.
In Nashville, police told NBC News that they managed to evacuate some from a tent city of homeless people downtown, but fear they may end up finding bodies soon.
The Cumberland River, which submerged parts of Nashville's historic downtown, began to slowly recede Tuesday after cresting Monday night. It had been swollen by flash floods in creeks that feed into it.
Residents and authorities know they'll find widespread property damage in inundated areas, but dread even more devastating discoveries.
"Those in houses that have been flooded and some of those more remote areas, do we suspect we will find more people? Probably so," Nashville Fire Chief Kim Lawson said. "We certainly hope that it's not a large number."
Power outage
Businesses along Nashville's riverfront lost electricity early Tuesday. Laurie Parker, a spokeswoman for Nashville Electric Service, said a main circuit failed before dawn, knocking out power to many downtown businesses, including the 33-story AT&T Building and a Hilton hotel.
Businesses along Nashville's riverfront lost electricity early Tuesday. Laurie Parker, a spokeswoman for Nashville Electric Service, said a main circuit failed before dawn, knocking out power to many downtown businesses, including the 33-story AT&T Building and a Hilton hotel.
|
The flooding also prompted election officials to delay the city's local primary, which had been set for Tuesday.
Restaurant and bars clustered on a downtown street remained closed because of the power outage. Bar manager Susan Zoesch said the closure would be hardest on servers who rely on tips.
"We're trying to figure out what we can do for them if we're going to be shut down for a while," Zoesch said.
Andy Mason, the concierge at a high-rise building of condominiums, said he was been advising residents to leave the 330-unit building because power wasn't expected to be restored for three days.
Thousands of people fled rising water and hundreds were rescued, but bodies were recovered Monday from homes, a yard, even a wooded area outside a Nashville supermarket.
Counting the deaths
By Monday night, the rapidly rising waters were blamed in the deaths of 18 people in Tennessee alone, including 10 in Nashville.
By Monday night, the rapidly rising waters were blamed in the deaths of 18 people in Tennessee alone, including 10 in Nashville.
The weekend storms also killed six people in Mississippi and four in Kentucky, including one man whose truck ran off the road and into a flooded creek. One person was killed by a tornado in western Tennessee.
In Nashville, the Cumberland also deluged some of the city's most important revenue sources: the Gaylord Opryland Hotel and Convention Center, whose 1,500 guests were whisked to a shelter; the adjacent Opry Mills Mall; even the Grand Ole Opry House, considered by many to be the heart of country music.
Floodwaters also edged into areas of downtown, damaging the Country Music Hall of Fame, LP Field where the Tennessee Titans play and the Bridgestone Arena, home to the NHL's Nashville Predators and one of the city's main concert venues.
Carly Horvat, 29, lives in a downtown condo and ventured out with a few friends to look at damage Monday night.
"I have never heard the city so quiet," Horvat said. "Usually, you hear whooping and hollering from Broadway."
Damage estimates range into the tens of millions of dollars. Gov. Phil Bredesen declared 52 of Tennessee's 95 counties disaster areas after finishing an aerial tour from Nashville to western Tennessee during which he saw flooding so extensive that treetops looked like islands.
Nearly 14 inches over 2 daysThe severity of the storms caught everyone off guard. More than 13.5 inches of rainfall were recorded Saturday and Sunday, according to the National Weather Service, making for a new two-day record that doubled the previous mark.
Dramatic rescues continued into Monday as water crept into areas that had remained safe during weekend downpours.
Authorities and volunteers in fishing boats, an amphibious tour bus and a canoe scooped up about 500 trapped vacationers at the Wyndham Resort along the river near Opryland. Rescuers had to steer through a maze of underwater hazards, including submerged cars, some with tops barely visible above floodwaters the color of milk chocolate.
Bill Crousser was riding his Jet Ski past a neighbor's house when he rescued a man, his wife and their dog moments before flames from a fire in the garage broke through the roof.
|
"We just got the hell out of there," Crousser said.
The water swelled most of the area's lakes, minor rivers, creeks, streams and drainage systems far beyond capacity. It flowed with such force that bridges were washed out and thousands of homes were damaged. Much of that water then drained into the Cumberland, which snakes through Nashville.
The Cumberland topped out around 6 p.m. Monday at 51.9 feet, about 12 feet above flood stage and the highest it's reached since 1937. It began to recede just in time to spare the city's only remaining water treatment plant.
Still, about 50 Nashville schools were damaged and floodwaters submerged hundreds of homes in the Bellevue suburb alone, including Lisa Blackmon's. She escaped with her dog and her car but feared she lost everything else.
"I know God doesn't give us more than we can take," said Blackmon, 45, who lost her job at a trucking company in December. "But I'm at my breaking point."
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Suspect in Times Square plot faces terror charges
http://news.yahoo.com/video/us-15749625/nyc-bomb-suspect-will-face-terror-charges-19459090
NEW YORK – A Pakistani-born U.S. citizen was hauled off a plane about to fly to the Middle East and will face terrorism charges in the failed attempt to explode a bomb-laden SUV in the heart of Times Square, authorities said Tuesday. One official said he claimed to be acting alone.
Faisal Shahzad has admitted his role in the botched bombing attempt and is talking to investigators, providing them with valuable information, Attorney General Eric Holder said.
Shahzad was on board a Dubai-bound flight that was taxiing away from the gate at Kennedy Airport late Monday when the plane was stopped and FBI agents and New York Police Department detectives took him into custody, law enforcement officials said.
Shahzad, scheduled to appear later Tuesday in federal court in Manhattan, will face terrorism and weapons of mass destruction charges, Holder said.
"Based on what we know so far, it is clear that this was a terrorist plot aimed at murdering Americans in one of the busiest places in our country," he added.
In Pakistan, intelligence officials said at least one man has been detained in the southern city of Karachi in connection with the Times Square case: a man named Tauseef who was a friend of Shahzad. He did not say when the man was picked up.
Another Pakistani official said several people had been taken into custody since the failed attack. Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of their work.
President Barack Obama said the FBI was investigating possible ties between Shahzad and terrorist groups.
Obama said "hundreds of lives" may have been saved Saturday night by the quick action of ordinary citizens and law enforcement authorities who saw the smoking SUV parked in Times Square.
"As Americans and as a nation, we will not be terrorized. We will not cower in fear. We will not be intimidated," Obama said.
Shahzad, 30, had recently returned from a five-month trip to Pakistan, where he had a wife, according to law enforcement officials who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the investigation into the failed car bombing.
Shahzad became a naturalized U.S. citizen last year shortly before traveling to Pakistan, a federal law enforcement official in Washington said, speaking on condition of anonymity amid the ongoing investigation.
Investigators hadn't established an immediate connection to the Pakistani Taliban — which had claimed responsibility for the botched bombing in three videos — or any foreign terrorist groups, a law enforcement official told the AP.
"He's claimed to have acted alone, but these are things that have to be investigated," the official said.
A Pakistani TV station reported that Shahzad spent time in Karachi and visited the northwestern city of Peshawar during his stay in Pakistan. Peshawar is a gateway for foreigners seeking to travel into nearby tribal regions, where militant groups have long had sanctuary.
In Washington, Pakistani Embassy spokesman Nadeem Haider Kiani said it's too soon to tell what motivated the bomber. Asked whether there were ties to foreign terrorist groups, Kiani said early indications suggest the bomber was "a disturbed individual."
Another law enforcement official said Shahzad was not known to the U.S. intelligence community before the failed bombing attempt, in which authorities found a crude bomb of gasoline, propane and fireworks in a 1993 Nissan Pathfinder parked on a bustling street in Times Square.
FBI agents searched the home at a known address for Shahzad in Bridgeport, Conn., early Tuesday, said agent Kimberly Mertz, who wouldn't answer questions about the search.
Authorities removed filled plastic bags from the house in a mixed-race, working-class neighborhood of multifamily homes in Connecticut's largest city. A bomb squad came and went without entering as local police and FBI agents gathered in the cordoned-off street. FBI agents appeared to have found fireworks in the driveway that they were marking off as evidence.
Shahzad was being held in New York and couldn't be contacted. A phone number at a listed address for Shahzad in Shelton, Conn., wasn't in service.
He used to live in a two-story grayish-brown colonial with a sloping yard in a working-class neighborhood in Shelton. The home looked as if it had been unoccupied for a while, with grass growing in the driveway and bags of garbage lying about.
Shahzad graduated from the University of Bridgeport with a bachelor's degree in computer applications and information systems in 2000 and later returned to earn a master's of business administration in 2005, the school said.
A neighbor in Bridgeport described him as quiet.
"Nobody ever had a problem with him," said Dawn Sampson, 34, who lives across the street from Shahzad's third-floor apartment. She said he had remodeled it and had put on the market to rent for $1,200, a fee she thought was much too high.
Law enforcement officials say Shahzad paid $1,300 cash three weeks ago for the Pathfinder, going first for a test-drive in a mall and offering less than the $1,800 advertised price. Peggy Colas, 19, of Bridgeport, sold the car to Shahzad after he answered an Internet ad, law enforcement officials said. The officials spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the case.
The vehicle identification number had been removed from the Pathfinder's dashboard, but it was stamped on the engine, and investigators used it to find the owner of record, who told them a stranger bought it. As the SUV buyer came into focus, investigators backed off other leads.
The SUV was parked near a theater where the musical "The Lion King" was being performed. The bomb inside it had cheap-looking alarm clocks connected to a 16-ounce can filled with fireworks, which were apparently intended to detonate gas cans and set off propane tanks in a chain reaction "to cause mayhem, to create casualties," police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said.
A metal rifle cabinet in the SUV's cargo area was packed with fertilizer, but NYPD bomb experts believe it was not a type volatile enough to explode like the ammonium nitrate grade fertilizer used in previous terrorist bombings.
Police said the SUV bomb could have produced "a significant fireball" and sprayed shrapnel with enough force to kill pedestrians and knock out windows.
A vendor alerted a police officer to the parked SUV, which was smoking. Times Square, clogged with tourists on a warm evening, was shut down for 10 hours. A bomb squad dismantled the bomb and no one was hurt.
Holder urged Americans should remain vigilant.
"It's clear that the intent behind this terrorist act was to kill Americans," he said.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg said the arrest should not be as used as an excuse for anti-Muslim actions. "We will not tolerate any bias or backlash against Pakistani or Muslim New Yorkers," he said.
Authorities did not address Shahzad's plans in Dubai. The airport there is the Middle East's busiest and is a major transit point for passengers traveling between the West and much of Asia, particularly India and Pakistan.
Dubai-based Emirates airline said three passengers were pulled from Flight EK202, which was delayed for about seven hours. The airline did not identify Shahzad by name or name the other two passengers.
The aircraft and passengers were then screened again before taking off Tuesday morning, and the airline is "cooperating with the local authorities," Emirates said in a statement e-mailed to the AP. The other two passengers who had been removed were allowed to get back aboard the flight, the airline said.
Pakistan Interior Minister Rehman Malik told the AP that authorities had not been formally asked for help in the investigation but would cooperate if asked.
More than a dozen people with U.S. citizenship or residency, like Shahzad, have been accused in the past two years of supporting, attempting or carrying out attacks on U.S. soil, illustrating the threat of violent extremism from within the U.S.
Among them are Army Maj. Nidal Hasan, a U.S.-born Army psychiatrist of Palestinian descent, charged with fatally shooting 13 people last year at Fort Hood, Texas; Najibullah Zazi, a Denver-area airport shuttle driver who pleaded guilty in February in a plot to bomb New York subways; and a Pennsylvania woman who authorities say became radicalized online as "Jihad Jane" and plotted to kill a Swedish artist whose work offended Muslims.
___
Contributing to this report were Associated Press writers Eileen Sullivan, Pete Yost, Matt Apuzzo and Julie Pace in Washington; Sara Kugler in New York, Chris Brummitt in Islamabad, Adam Schreck in Dubai, AP Video journalist Ted Shaffrey and writer John Christoffersen in Bridgeport, Conn.; and AP photojournalist Doug Healey in Shelton, Conn.
AP – In this photo from the social networking site Orkut.com, a man who was identified by neighbors in Connecticut …
NEW YORK – A Pakistani-born U.S. citizen was hauled off a plane about to fly to the Middle East and will face terrorism charges in the failed attempt to explode a bomb-laden SUV in the heart of Times Square, authorities said Tuesday. One official said he claimed to be acting alone.
Faisal Shahzad has admitted his role in the botched bombing attempt and is talking to investigators, providing them with valuable information, Attorney General Eric Holder said.
Shahzad was on board a Dubai-bound flight that was taxiing away from the gate at Kennedy Airport late Monday when the plane was stopped and FBI agents and New York Police Department detectives took him into custody, law enforcement officials said.
Shahzad, scheduled to appear later Tuesday in federal court in Manhattan, will face terrorism and weapons of mass destruction charges, Holder said.
"Based on what we know so far, it is clear that this was a terrorist plot aimed at murdering Americans in one of the busiest places in our country," he added.
In Pakistan, intelligence officials said at least one man has been detained in the southern city of Karachi in connection with the Times Square case: a man named Tauseef who was a friend of Shahzad. He did not say when the man was picked up.
Another Pakistani official said several people had been taken into custody since the failed attack. Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of their work.
President Barack Obama said the FBI was investigating possible ties between Shahzad and terrorist groups.
Obama said "hundreds of lives" may have been saved Saturday night by the quick action of ordinary citizens and law enforcement authorities who saw the smoking SUV parked in Times Square.
"As Americans and as a nation, we will not be terrorized. We will not cower in fear. We will not be intimidated," Obama said.
Shahzad, 30, had recently returned from a five-month trip to Pakistan, where he had a wife, according to law enforcement officials who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the investigation into the failed car bombing.
Shahzad became a naturalized U.S. citizen last year shortly before traveling to Pakistan, a federal law enforcement official in Washington said, speaking on condition of anonymity amid the ongoing investigation.
Investigators hadn't established an immediate connection to the Pakistani Taliban — which had claimed responsibility for the botched bombing in three videos — or any foreign terrorist groups, a law enforcement official told the AP.
"He's claimed to have acted alone, but these are things that have to be investigated," the official said.
A Pakistani TV station reported that Shahzad spent time in Karachi and visited the northwestern city of Peshawar during his stay in Pakistan. Peshawar is a gateway for foreigners seeking to travel into nearby tribal regions, where militant groups have long had sanctuary.
In Washington, Pakistani Embassy spokesman Nadeem Haider Kiani said it's too soon to tell what motivated the bomber. Asked whether there were ties to foreign terrorist groups, Kiani said early indications suggest the bomber was "a disturbed individual."
Another law enforcement official said Shahzad was not known to the U.S. intelligence community before the failed bombing attempt, in which authorities found a crude bomb of gasoline, propane and fireworks in a 1993 Nissan Pathfinder parked on a bustling street in Times Square.
FBI agents searched the home at a known address for Shahzad in Bridgeport, Conn., early Tuesday, said agent Kimberly Mertz, who wouldn't answer questions about the search.
Authorities removed filled plastic bags from the house in a mixed-race, working-class neighborhood of multifamily homes in Connecticut's largest city. A bomb squad came and went without entering as local police and FBI agents gathered in the cordoned-off street. FBI agents appeared to have found fireworks in the driveway that they were marking off as evidence.
Shahzad was being held in New York and couldn't be contacted. A phone number at a listed address for Shahzad in Shelton, Conn., wasn't in service.
He used to live in a two-story grayish-brown colonial with a sloping yard in a working-class neighborhood in Shelton. The home looked as if it had been unoccupied for a while, with grass growing in the driveway and bags of garbage lying about.
Shahzad graduated from the University of Bridgeport with a bachelor's degree in computer applications and information systems in 2000 and later returned to earn a master's of business administration in 2005, the school said.
A neighbor in Bridgeport described him as quiet.
"Nobody ever had a problem with him," said Dawn Sampson, 34, who lives across the street from Shahzad's third-floor apartment. She said he had remodeled it and had put on the market to rent for $1,200, a fee she thought was much too high.
Law enforcement officials say Shahzad paid $1,300 cash three weeks ago for the Pathfinder, going first for a test-drive in a mall and offering less than the $1,800 advertised price. Peggy Colas, 19, of Bridgeport, sold the car to Shahzad after he answered an Internet ad, law enforcement officials said. The officials spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the case.
The vehicle identification number had been removed from the Pathfinder's dashboard, but it was stamped on the engine, and investigators used it to find the owner of record, who told them a stranger bought it. As the SUV buyer came into focus, investigators backed off other leads.
The SUV was parked near a theater where the musical "The Lion King" was being performed. The bomb inside it had cheap-looking alarm clocks connected to a 16-ounce can filled with fireworks, which were apparently intended to detonate gas cans and set off propane tanks in a chain reaction "to cause mayhem, to create casualties," police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said.
A metal rifle cabinet in the SUV's cargo area was packed with fertilizer, but NYPD bomb experts believe it was not a type volatile enough to explode like the ammonium nitrate grade fertilizer used in previous terrorist bombings.
Police said the SUV bomb could have produced "a significant fireball" and sprayed shrapnel with enough force to kill pedestrians and knock out windows.
A vendor alerted a police officer to the parked SUV, which was smoking. Times Square, clogged with tourists on a warm evening, was shut down for 10 hours. A bomb squad dismantled the bomb and no one was hurt.
Holder urged Americans should remain vigilant.
"It's clear that the intent behind this terrorist act was to kill Americans," he said.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg said the arrest should not be as used as an excuse for anti-Muslim actions. "We will not tolerate any bias or backlash against Pakistani or Muslim New Yorkers," he said.
Authorities did not address Shahzad's plans in Dubai. The airport there is the Middle East's busiest and is a major transit point for passengers traveling between the West and much of Asia, particularly India and Pakistan.
Dubai-based Emirates airline said three passengers were pulled from Flight EK202, which was delayed for about seven hours. The airline did not identify Shahzad by name or name the other two passengers.
The aircraft and passengers were then screened again before taking off Tuesday morning, and the airline is "cooperating with the local authorities," Emirates said in a statement e-mailed to the AP. The other two passengers who had been removed were allowed to get back aboard the flight, the airline said.
Pakistan Interior Minister Rehman Malik told the AP that authorities had not been formally asked for help in the investigation but would cooperate if asked.
More than a dozen people with U.S. citizenship or residency, like Shahzad, have been accused in the past two years of supporting, attempting or carrying out attacks on U.S. soil, illustrating the threat of violent extremism from within the U.S.
Among them are Army Maj. Nidal Hasan, a U.S.-born Army psychiatrist of Palestinian descent, charged with fatally shooting 13 people last year at Fort Hood, Texas; Najibullah Zazi, a Denver-area airport shuttle driver who pleaded guilty in February in a plot to bomb New York subways; and a Pennsylvania woman who authorities say became radicalized online as "Jihad Jane" and plotted to kill a Swedish artist whose work offended Muslims.
___
Contributing to this report were Associated Press writers Eileen Sullivan, Pete Yost, Matt Apuzzo and Julie Pace in Washington; Sara Kugler in New York, Chris Brummitt in Islamabad, Adam Schreck in Dubai, AP Video journalist Ted Shaffrey and writer John Christoffersen in Bridgeport, Conn.; and AP photojournalist Doug Healey in Shelton, Conn.
Boehner Takes Credit For Ideas In Health Law, Then Calls For Its Repeal
Earlier this year, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) took credit for parts of the health care law he opposes and today, during an interview with NPR, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) also highlighted the Republican ideas in the bill, while promising to repeal it:INSKEEP: As you know, Democrats are already pointing to things that are changing in America because of this bill. They will point to the fact that college seniors, who would have been kicked off their families’ insurance plans when they graduated, will get to stay on. Insurance companies are now saying they’re going to end the practice of “rescission,” where they take, or at least modify…Listen:
BOEHNER: Both of those ideas, by the way, came from Republicans, and are part of the common sense ideas that we ought to have in the law.
INSKEEP: Well, are you going to repeal those two specific things?
BOEHNER Uh, what I want to repeal are the other 158 mandates, commissions, boards that set up all the infrastructure for the government to take control of our health care system.
If Boehner is unwilling to repeal the Republican ideas in the health care law, he’ll have to preserve a good deal of the legislation, which at its core is built on the Republican principles of personal responsibility and managed competition.
His refusal to call for a full repeal, moreover, could cause a rift with the more conservative members of the Republican party. Last week, for instance, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) — who has proposed a bill calling for complete repeal — warned leadership that “if we leave any component of it in there, it has, it’s just become a malignant tumor that’s attacking our liberty and our freedom and it’s diminishing our aspirations and it saps our overall productivity as a nation,” King said. “If we can’t come to that conclusion, then I want some new people to come help me.”
Currently, repeal legislation has has no more than 62 co-sponsors in the House and 20 in the Senate.
Five Months Before Disaster, BP Testified Offshore Drilling Is ‘Safe And Protective Of The Environment’
Five months and one day before its Deepwater Horizon rig exploded while exploring the Macondo Prospect off the coast of Louisiana, BP’s top Gulf of Mexico official testified its practices were “both safe and protective of the environment.” In June, the U.S. Minerals Management Service proposed stricter safety and environmental rules, opposed by BP and the rest of the offshore drilling industry as unnecessary. In a Senate hearing on offshore drilling “environmental stewardship policies” on November 19, 2009, BP America’s vice president of Gulf of Mexico exploration, David Rainey, opposed the proposed MMS rules and defended the existing regulatory system. Rainey claimed that drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) has been shown to be “both safe and protective of the environment”:
Letter from Bp stating that Off shore Drilling is safe for the Environment
Rainey’s testimony followed a September 14, 2009, letter from his predecessor Richard Morrison, which said “we are not supportive of the extensive and prescriptive regulations” in the proposed rule, because “[w]e believe industry’s current safety and environmental statistics demonstrate that the voluntary programs” since the American Petroleum Institute codified those programs in 2004 “have been and continue to be very successful.”
It appears that the MMS was correct when they argued in their proposed rule that existing safety rules were not sufficient. “The MMS believes that if OCS oil and gas operations are better planned and organized, then the likelihood of injury to workers and the risk of environmental pollution will be further reduced,” they wrote in 2009.
Five months and one day before its Deepwater Horizon rig exploded while exploring the Macondo Prospect off the coast of Louisiana, BP’s top Gulf of Mexico official testified its practices were “both safe and protective of the environment.” In June, the U.S. Minerals Management Service proposed stricter safety and environmental rules, opposed by BP and the rest of the offshore drilling industry as unnecessary. In a Senate hearing on offshore drilling “environmental stewardship policies” on November 19, 2009, BP America’s vice president of Gulf of Mexico exploration, David Rainey, opposed the proposed MMS rules and defended the existing regulatory system. Rainey claimed that drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) has been shown to be “both safe and protective of the environment”:
I think we should remember that scientific knowledge is always moving forward. And actually using the best available and the most up-to-date scientific information is part of the current regulatory system. And it supports the OCS leasing, exploration, and development program. And I think we need to remember that OCS has been going on for the last 50 years, and it has been going on in a way that is both safe and protective of the environment.Watch it:
Letter from Bp stating that Off shore Drilling is safe for the Environment
Rainey’s testimony followed a September 14, 2009, letter from his predecessor Richard Morrison, which said “we are not supportive of the extensive and prescriptive regulations” in the proposed rule, because “[w]e believe industry’s current safety and environmental statistics demonstrate that the voluntary programs” since the American Petroleum Institute codified those programs in 2004 “have been and continue to be very successful.”
It appears that the MMS was correct when they argued in their proposed rule that existing safety rules were not sufficient. “The MMS believes that if OCS oil and gas operations are better planned and organized, then the likelihood of injury to workers and the risk of environmental pollution will be further reduced,” they wrote in 2009.
Establish An Independent Commission To Investigate The BP Disaster
Our guest blogger is Daniel J. Weiss, a Senior Fellow and Director of Climate Strategy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
We cannot predict the full scope of public health, economic, or environmental damages of the BP disaster until BP is able to halt the flood of oil. But the horrible calamity has claimed 11 lives and contaminated the water with millions of gallons of oil. The best-case scenario at this point is that oil will continue to flood from the ocean floor for another week until BP is able to cap the well. If that effort fails, it could be several months before BP is able to drill another well to capture the oil currently fouling the Gulf Coast waters.
The federal government can look to past administrations for guidance in understanding the causes of this devastating situation and taking measures to minimize future occurrences. Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan — after the Three Mile Island near-nuclear meltdown and the Challenger Space Shuttle explosion, respectively — appointed independent commissions of high-profile public officials and experts to thoroughly investigate the causes of these events and make recommendations to prevent future tragedies. President Barack Obama should follow their lead by appointing an independent commission to completely examine the causes of the BP disaster and offer guidance for how we can make sure it never happens again:
This is an important start, but it is not a complete response to a disaster of this colossal magnitude. Any investigation must focus not only on BP, but also on the performance of federal and state agencies responsible for oversight of offshore oil production.
An independent commission is particularly necessary since the Minerals Management Service was scandal-ridden during the Bush administration. The Obama administration has had only 16 months to reform this agency. It is simply too much to ask it to assess its own performance.
An independent commission investigating the BP disaster should have subpoena power and conduct public hearings. The TMI and NASA commissions had six months and four months, respectively, to conduct their investigation and issue their reports. The BP disaster commission should similarly also have a limited period of time and the authority to conduct a thorough review.
The Obama administration swiftly responded to the BP disaster from day one and mobilized the U.S. government’s resources to attempt to minimize the harm from this unprecedented event on the health, economy, and environment of the Gulf Coast. President Obama should now ensure complete scrutiny of the explosion and its aftermath by appointing an independent commission to assess the causes and damages and make recommendations to prevent future tragedies.
We cannot predict the full scope of public health, economic, or environmental damages of the BP disaster until BP is able to halt the flood of oil. But the horrible calamity has claimed 11 lives and contaminated the water with millions of gallons of oil. The best-case scenario at this point is that oil will continue to flood from the ocean floor for another week until BP is able to cap the well. If that effort fails, it could be several months before BP is able to drill another well to capture the oil currently fouling the Gulf Coast waters.
The federal government can look to past administrations for guidance in understanding the causes of this devastating situation and taking measures to minimize future occurrences. Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan — after the Three Mile Island near-nuclear meltdown and the Challenger Space Shuttle explosion, respectively — appointed independent commissions of high-profile public officials and experts to thoroughly investigate the causes of these events and make recommendations to prevent future tragedies. President Barack Obama should follow their lead by appointing an independent commission to completely examine the causes of the BP disaster and offer guidance for how we can make sure it never happens again:
One of the charges of the President’s Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island, for instance, was to evaluate the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s licensing, inspection, operation, and enforcement procedures as applied to this facility since the NRC could not undertake a truly objective review of its own procedures.President Obama asked Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar after the initial explosion to “conduct a thorough review of this incident and report back to me in 30 days.” The Departments of Interior and Homeland Security agreed to conduct a joint investigation, with the Interior Department’s Minerals Management Service and the U.S. Coast Guard sharing the lead for this evaluation.
The Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident was similarly able to review NASA’s management structure and procedures and more objectively assess its contribution to the accident. Both independent commissions issued findings that were critical of the agencies’ performances and made recommendations for management changes.
This is an important start, but it is not a complete response to a disaster of this colossal magnitude. Any investigation must focus not only on BP, but also on the performance of federal and state agencies responsible for oversight of offshore oil production.
An independent commission is particularly necessary since the Minerals Management Service was scandal-ridden during the Bush administration. The Obama administration has had only 16 months to reform this agency. It is simply too much to ask it to assess its own performance.
An independent commission investigating the BP disaster should have subpoena power and conduct public hearings. The TMI and NASA commissions had six months and four months, respectively, to conduct their investigation and issue their reports. The BP disaster commission should similarly also have a limited period of time and the authority to conduct a thorough review.
The Obama administration swiftly responded to the BP disaster from day one and mobilized the U.S. government’s resources to attempt to minimize the harm from this unprecedented event on the health, economy, and environment of the Gulf Coast. President Obama should now ensure complete scrutiny of the explosion and its aftermath by appointing an independent commission to assess the causes and damages and make recommendations to prevent future tragedies.
Interview With David Gregory of NBC's Meet the Press
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
May 2, 2010
Editor's Note: This interview was taped on April 30, 2010 and broadcast on May 2.
QUESTION: Welcome back. Thanks for being here.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, David, I’m thrilled to be here on the new set. Thank you.
QUESTION: Thanks very much. There’s a lot of important issues to talk about with certainly in the headlines this weekend is this oil spill off the coast of Louisiana and Mississippi. And it becomes a bigger issue, and even a national security issue, as it applies to climate change, which is an issue that you’ve dealt with. How will the Administration approach this particularly given the President’s interest in offshore drilling? Does that have to stop now?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, David, I think that the President has ordered the departments that deal with this – Homeland Security, Interior, Environmental Protection, Defense – to all immediately not only do everything possible to mitigate the effects of this spill, but to try to come up with recommendations going forward. The first order of business, however, is to try to get this spill under control, which has been, as you know, very difficult, and to prevent further damage to the coastline along Louisiana to the fishing waters, to the wildlife.
I think it does raise questions which the President has said have to be answered. He put forth a very comprehensive approach that included the potential of drilling off of our own shore. That is a national security concern because we have to do better to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. But it has to be done safely. It can’t be done at the risk of having to spend billions of dollars cleaning up these spills.
So as with so much in these difficult areas, it’s going to require a balancing act.
QUESTION: Another area that has become a domestic political debate over immigration has also taken on some international ramifications. Mexico, because of the law – the stringent law against – the anti-immigration law passed in Arizona, has issued a pretty unusual alert to its own citizens traveling to Arizona. I’ll put it up on the screen. This is the alert – a travel alert over Arizona immigration law. This is how the USA Today reported it on Wednesday: “The country warned that the state’s adoption of a strict immigration enforcement law has created ‘a negative political environment from migrant communities and for all Mexican visitors.’ ‘It must be assumed that every Mexican citizen may be harassed and questioned without further cause at any time,’ according to the foreign ministry.”
The president, President Calderon, with whom you will meet soon, has talked about criminalizing – this law criminalizes a largely social and economic phenomenon of migration. This is a pretty big shot across the bow to America here.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, it is. And I think if you look at it, again, you have a lot of unanswered questions. This law, which is clearly a result of the frustration that people in Arizona and their elected officials feel about the difficulty of enforcing the law along our border and preventing the continued immigration of people who are not documented, but on the other hand, it is written so broadly that if you were visiting in Arizona and you had an accent and you were a citizen from my state of New York, you could be subjected to the kind of inquiry this law permits.
QUESTION: Do you think it invites profiling, racial profiling?
SECRETARY CLINTON: I don’t think there’s any doubt about that, because clearly, as I understand the way the law is being explained, if you’re a legal resident, you still have to carry papers. Well, how is a law enforcement official supposed to know? So, again, we have to try to balance the very legitimate concerns that Americans – not just people in Arizona but across the country have about safe and secure borders, about trying to have comprehensive immigration reform, with a law that I think does what a state doesn't have the authority to do, try to impose their own immigration law that is really the province of the federal government.
QUESTION: That is important. Do you think this law will not stand up legally?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don’t want to offer a legal opinion. I think I’ll leave that to the Justice Department. But I know the Attorney General of Arizona has raised questions about the legality. And you’re right; we have a visit from President Calderon coming up, a state visit. He’s a very important partner to us on trying to stop illegal activity along our border – the importation of drugs, of arms, of human beings – all of the crime that that’s associated with. And we believe that he has really done the best he can under very difficult circumstances to get this under control. We don’t want to make his life any harder either. We want to try to support him in what has been a courageous campaign against the drug traffickers.
QUESTION: Let me move on to some other issues that are obviously on your plate, which is a big plate of issues. Let’s talk about Afghanistan. A big offensive is being planned for Kandahar. A very important visit by President Karzai is coming up after a period of turbulence between the U.S. and Karzai which I know the Administration has tried to tamp down. And yet, it’s the nature of the insurgency that our fighting men and women are dealing with. And the Pentagon issued a report that was reported on by the Los Angeles Times on Thursday. Let me put it up on the screen. It says the report presented a sobering new assessment Wednesday of the Taliban-led insurgency in the country, saying that its abilities are expanding and its operations are increasing in sophistication despite major offenses by U.S. forces in the militant heartland, like Marjah. The new report offers a grim take on the likely difficulty of establishing lasting security, especially in southern Afghanistan, where the insurgency enjoys broad support. The conclusions raise the prospect that the insurgency in the south may never be completely vanquished, but instead must be contained to prevent it from threatening the government of President Hamid Karzai.
A narrow question here: Are you resigned to the fact that the Taliban, the insurgency, will have to be a part of this government in the future?
SECRETARY CLINTON: No. And let me start by putting the recent report from the Pentagon into context. It was a look-back. It goes from last October through March. When we were devising the strategy that the President announced at West Point in early December, it was during the August, September, October, November period, and there was no doubt that the Taliban had the initiative, that there was a very serious threat to not only our forces, obviously, on the ground, but to the stability and security of Afghanistan.
QUESTION: But you hear all this talk and Karzai wants some kind of reconciliation with the Taliban as well.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, but, David, I think that we have to sort of sort out what we mean by that. We talk about reconciliation and reintegration. They may sound the same, but they’re somewhat different concepts. Reintegration refers to the foot soldiers on the field who are coming in increasing numbers and saying, look, we’re fighting because we get paid, we’re fighting because we were volunteered to fight because the Taliban came to our village and intimidated our elders. So there seems to be an ongoing movement of people sort of out of the battlefield. And General McChrystal and his commanders on the ground are seeing that and kind of organizing and running that.
The larger question about reconciliation – I don’t know any conflict in recent times that didn’t have some political resolution associated with it. People either got tired of fighting and decided they would engage in a peace process; they were defeated enough so that they were willing to lay down their arms. What President Karzai is saying – and we agree with this direction – is that you’ve got to look to see who is reconcilable. Not everybody will be. We don’t expect Mullah Omar to show up and say, oh yeah, I’m giving up on my association with al-Qaida, et cetera. But we do think that there are leaders within the Taliban – in fact, there are some already – who have come over to the other side.
Now, if they do so, they have to renounce al-Qaida, they have to renounce violence, they have to give up their arms, and they have to be willing to abide by the Afghan constitution.
QUESTION: Another adversary, of course, gets us to Iran and the fact that President Ahmadinejad from Iran will be coming to New York to the UN for a nonproliferation meeting.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Right.
QUESTION: You’re moving down a path of sanctions. We understand what that is. Do you feel like he’s going to try to show up here the early part of next week and steal the show?
SECRETARY CLINTON: I don’t know what he’s showing up for, because the purpose of the Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference is to reiterate the commitment of the international community to the three goals: disarmament, nonproliferation, the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. So the vast majority of countries are coming to see what progress we can make. And this is a very high priority for President Obama. It’s why he pressed so hard for the START treaty, which he signed with President Medvedev in Prague. It’s why we convened a Nuclear Security Summit to highlight the threat posed by nuclear terrorism. It’s why we have begun to work out deals with India and others for the peaceful use of nuclear energy, which countries are entitled to under the nonproliferation regime.
If Iran is coming to say we’re willing to abide by the Nonproliferation Treaty, that would be very welcome news. I have a feeling that’s not what they’re coming to do. I think they’re coming to try to divert attention and confuse the issue. And there is no confusion. They have violated the terms of the NPT. They have been held under all kinds of restrictions and obligations that they have not complied with by the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, by the UN Security Council. So we’re not going to permit Iran to try to change the story from their failure to comply and in any way upset the efforts we are in the midst of, which is to get the international community to adopt a strong Security Council resolution that further isolates them and imposes consequences for their behavior.
QUESTION: Madam Secretary, I’d like to spend a couple minutes on some other global hotspots which you’re dealing with.
The first one is actually with America’s strong ally. In the UK, in Great Britain, very interesting election going on. You’ve got three candidates, a resurgent third party in the Social Democrats, televised debates. You know something about those.
SECRETARY CLINTON: I do.
QUESTION: And as you watch what’s going on there, do you think there’s a movement that could spread? Do you see a third party becoming viable in the United States?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, let’s see whether it’s viable in the UK. I don’t know the answer to that. We’ve had in my lifetime, and certainly long before, viable third-party candidates. We had Ross Perot, John Anderson just within my voting history. I think there’s always room in democracy for people to bring their views to the forefront. But I think one of the real strengths of our system has been our two-party approach, where each party may frustrate some of its own members because they do have a broad cross-section of voters and opinions.
But look, I’m going to be as interested as anybody to see what happens in the election in Great Britain.
QUESTION: Final one has to do with the election in Sudan, where you have Bashir as the victor, and yet this is Sudan, is a sponsor of state terror, according to the State Department, and this is someone who is boasting about the results and keeping the United States at bay. Nicholas Kristof wrote this in The New York Times: “Until he reached the White House, President Obama repeatedly insisted the U.S. apply more pressure on Sudan so as to avoid a humanitarian catastrophe in Darfur and elsewhere. Yet as president, Mr. Obama and his aides have caved, leaving Sudan gloating at American weakness. President Bashir, al-Bashir of Sudan, a man wanted for crimes against humanity in Darfur, has been celebrating. His regime called itself the National Congress Party, or NCP, and he was quoted in Sudan as telling a rally in the Blue Nile region: ‘Every America – even America is becoming an NCP member, no one is against our will.’
“Memo to Mr. Obama, when a man who has been charged with crimes against humanity tells the world that America is in his pocket, it’s time to review your policy.”
What do you say?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I would say that, number one, I can’t take anything seriously that Bashir says. He is an indicted war criminal. The United States is very committed to seeing him brought to justice. But let’s look at what’s happening in Sudan, because I have the greatest respect, of course, for Nick Kristof and others who share my deep dismay at events in Sudan.
But here’s what we’re trying to do. When we came into office, Bashir threw out the groups, the nongovernmental organizations, who were providing most of the aid in the camps in Darfur, which could have been a disastrous humanitarian crisis. We were able to get a lot of the help back in and we’re beginning to see some slight progress in Darfur. I don’t want to overstate it because it is still a deplorable situation. But we are working to try to get the people back to their homes, out of the camps.
At the same time, you had this election going on. It was, by any measure, a flawed election. There were many, many things wrong with it. But there hadn’t been an election in many years, and so part of our goal was to try to empower opposition parties, empower people to go out and vote. Thousands and thousands did. The result, I think, was pretty much foreordained that Bashir would come out the winner, and that’s unfortunate. We are turning all of our attention to trying to help the South and to mitigate against the attitudes of the North. I can’t sit here and say that we are satisfied, because I’m certainly not satisfied with where we are and what we’re doing, but it is an immensely complicated arena.
Now, the United States could back off and say we won’t deal with these people, we’re not going to have anything to do with them, Bashir is a war criminal. I don’t think that will improve the situation. So along with our partners – the UK, Norway, neighboring countries – we are trying to manage what is a very explosive problem.
QUESTION: Just a couple minutes left. I want to ask you about another big thrust of your time as Secretary of State, and that is forging – well, I should say a realization that there are limits to what government can accomplish around the world. You have spent a lot of time working with the private sector to achieve certain commercial goals, also to achieve goals like the empowerment of women. You’ve got an announcement this weekend having to do with the China Expo and the U.S. role in the China Expo, as well as efforts to empower women around the world in developing countries through the help of the private sector.
Why is this really the route of the future for the government?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you for asking me that, because that is exactly what I believe, that diplomacy today is not just government-to-government. Part of what I had to do when I became Secretary of State was to rebuild America’s image, standing, and leadership in the world. And certainly, President Obama is our greatest advocate at that. But you can’t just do that by the government saying things or even by our President making incredibly important speeches. You have to begin to engage the people in other countries. And in order to do that effectively, I want more people-to-people contacts, I want more private sector partnerships with our public sector and with people around the world.
Let me give two quick examples. You mentioned the Shanghai Expo. There’ll probably be 70 million-plus people who go through that Expo. When I became Secretary of State, there was no money raised because we don’t put public money into a project like that. So with the help of a lot of very dedicated corporate sponsors, we now will be a player in that Expo.
Now, what does that mean? Well, when those 70 million Chinese – mostly Chinese but people from elsewhere in the world go through, they’re going to learn something about America. They’re going to learn something about our values, about our products, about how we live. I think that helps to build the kind of understanding and connection that is at the root of good relations.
And on women’s issues, we just had a great announcement through the combined efforts of a number of corporate sponsors, foundations like the Rockefeller Foundation, we’re going to be working to help empower women doing what they do best and to try to up their education levels, their health levels.
Why does this matter? Because it’s the United States doing it. And it’s not just the United States Government. It’s the people of the United States.
QUESTION: Before you go, a question about whether you think it’s realistic that you will stay on as Secretary of State for the balance of the first term.
SECRETARY CLINTON: (Laughter.) Well, I intend to. Yeah, I intend to.
QUESTION: You do intend to?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Yeah. But I mean, people have been asking me this. And in the interest of full disclosure, it is an exhausting job. But I enjoy it. I have a great time doing it. I feel like we’re making a difference around the world, that I’m a big believer in setting goals, having a vision of where we’re trying to get, but then trying to translate that into what we do today and what we do tomorrow. And we’ve made a lot of progress. We face incredibly difficult problems.
QUESTION: So you think you’ll stay for the whole first term?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think so. I think so. I mean, look, ask me next month and the month after that, but that certainly is my intention.
QUESTION: And yet you don’t care to be on the Supreme Court?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, never. I mean, I’m glad you (inaudible).
QUESTION: You’re a lawyer with all that background.
SECRETARY CLINTON: I am – I do not and have never wanted to be a judge, ever. I mean, that has never been anything that I even let cross my mind, because it’s just not my personality.
QUESTION: Do you think the President should pick another women – woman this time?
SECRETARY CLINTON: I think he should pick a very well-qualified, people-savvy, young person to be on the Court to really help to shape the jurisprudence going forward. I think that it’s not a surprise that there’s a real division on the Court, and a lot of decisions that have great ramifications for the people of our country that I would like to see someone put on the Court who can really try to shift the direction of the current Court.
QUESTION: Secretary Clinton, thank you, as always.
SECRETARY CLINTON: You’re welcome.
# # #
QUESTION: Welcome back. Thanks for being here.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, David, I’m thrilled to be here on the new set. Thank you.
QUESTION: Thanks very much. There’s a lot of important issues to talk about with certainly in the headlines this weekend is this oil spill off the coast of Louisiana and Mississippi. And it becomes a bigger issue, and even a national security issue, as it applies to climate change, which is an issue that you’ve dealt with. How will the Administration approach this particularly given the President’s interest in offshore drilling? Does that have to stop now?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, David, I think that the President has ordered the departments that deal with this – Homeland Security, Interior, Environmental Protection, Defense – to all immediately not only do everything possible to mitigate the effects of this spill, but to try to come up with recommendations going forward. The first order of business, however, is to try to get this spill under control, which has been, as you know, very difficult, and to prevent further damage to the coastline along Louisiana to the fishing waters, to the wildlife.
I think it does raise questions which the President has said have to be answered. He put forth a very comprehensive approach that included the potential of drilling off of our own shore. That is a national security concern because we have to do better to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. But it has to be done safely. It can’t be done at the risk of having to spend billions of dollars cleaning up these spills.
So as with so much in these difficult areas, it’s going to require a balancing act.
QUESTION: Another area that has become a domestic political debate over immigration has also taken on some international ramifications. Mexico, because of the law – the stringent law against – the anti-immigration law passed in Arizona, has issued a pretty unusual alert to its own citizens traveling to Arizona. I’ll put it up on the screen. This is the alert – a travel alert over Arizona immigration law. This is how the USA Today reported it on Wednesday: “The country warned that the state’s adoption of a strict immigration enforcement law has created ‘a negative political environment from migrant communities and for all Mexican visitors.’ ‘It must be assumed that every Mexican citizen may be harassed and questioned without further cause at any time,’ according to the foreign ministry.”
The president, President Calderon, with whom you will meet soon, has talked about criminalizing – this law criminalizes a largely social and economic phenomenon of migration. This is a pretty big shot across the bow to America here.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, it is. And I think if you look at it, again, you have a lot of unanswered questions. This law, which is clearly a result of the frustration that people in Arizona and their elected officials feel about the difficulty of enforcing the law along our border and preventing the continued immigration of people who are not documented, but on the other hand, it is written so broadly that if you were visiting in Arizona and you had an accent and you were a citizen from my state of New York, you could be subjected to the kind of inquiry this law permits.
QUESTION: Do you think it invites profiling, racial profiling?
SECRETARY CLINTON: I don’t think there’s any doubt about that, because clearly, as I understand the way the law is being explained, if you’re a legal resident, you still have to carry papers. Well, how is a law enforcement official supposed to know? So, again, we have to try to balance the very legitimate concerns that Americans – not just people in Arizona but across the country have about safe and secure borders, about trying to have comprehensive immigration reform, with a law that I think does what a state doesn't have the authority to do, try to impose their own immigration law that is really the province of the federal government.
QUESTION: That is important. Do you think this law will not stand up legally?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don’t want to offer a legal opinion. I think I’ll leave that to the Justice Department. But I know the Attorney General of Arizona has raised questions about the legality. And you’re right; we have a visit from President Calderon coming up, a state visit. He’s a very important partner to us on trying to stop illegal activity along our border – the importation of drugs, of arms, of human beings – all of the crime that that’s associated with. And we believe that he has really done the best he can under very difficult circumstances to get this under control. We don’t want to make his life any harder either. We want to try to support him in what has been a courageous campaign against the drug traffickers.
QUESTION: Let me move on to some other issues that are obviously on your plate, which is a big plate of issues. Let’s talk about Afghanistan. A big offensive is being planned for Kandahar. A very important visit by President Karzai is coming up after a period of turbulence between the U.S. and Karzai which I know the Administration has tried to tamp down. And yet, it’s the nature of the insurgency that our fighting men and women are dealing with. And the Pentagon issued a report that was reported on by the Los Angeles Times on Thursday. Let me put it up on the screen. It says the report presented a sobering new assessment Wednesday of the Taliban-led insurgency in the country, saying that its abilities are expanding and its operations are increasing in sophistication despite major offenses by U.S. forces in the militant heartland, like Marjah. The new report offers a grim take on the likely difficulty of establishing lasting security, especially in southern Afghanistan, where the insurgency enjoys broad support. The conclusions raise the prospect that the insurgency in the south may never be completely vanquished, but instead must be contained to prevent it from threatening the government of President Hamid Karzai.
A narrow question here: Are you resigned to the fact that the Taliban, the insurgency, will have to be a part of this government in the future?
SECRETARY CLINTON: No. And let me start by putting the recent report from the Pentagon into context. It was a look-back. It goes from last October through March. When we were devising the strategy that the President announced at West Point in early December, it was during the August, September, October, November period, and there was no doubt that the Taliban had the initiative, that there was a very serious threat to not only our forces, obviously, on the ground, but to the stability and security of Afghanistan.
QUESTION: But you hear all this talk and Karzai wants some kind of reconciliation with the Taliban as well.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, but, David, I think that we have to sort of sort out what we mean by that. We talk about reconciliation and reintegration. They may sound the same, but they’re somewhat different concepts. Reintegration refers to the foot soldiers on the field who are coming in increasing numbers and saying, look, we’re fighting because we get paid, we’re fighting because we were volunteered to fight because the Taliban came to our village and intimidated our elders. So there seems to be an ongoing movement of people sort of out of the battlefield. And General McChrystal and his commanders on the ground are seeing that and kind of organizing and running that.
The larger question about reconciliation – I don’t know any conflict in recent times that didn’t have some political resolution associated with it. People either got tired of fighting and decided they would engage in a peace process; they were defeated enough so that they were willing to lay down their arms. What President Karzai is saying – and we agree with this direction – is that you’ve got to look to see who is reconcilable. Not everybody will be. We don’t expect Mullah Omar to show up and say, oh yeah, I’m giving up on my association with al-Qaida, et cetera. But we do think that there are leaders within the Taliban – in fact, there are some already – who have come over to the other side.
Now, if they do so, they have to renounce al-Qaida, they have to renounce violence, they have to give up their arms, and they have to be willing to abide by the Afghan constitution.
QUESTION: Another adversary, of course, gets us to Iran and the fact that President Ahmadinejad from Iran will be coming to New York to the UN for a nonproliferation meeting.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Right.
QUESTION: You’re moving down a path of sanctions. We understand what that is. Do you feel like he’s going to try to show up here the early part of next week and steal the show?
SECRETARY CLINTON: I don’t know what he’s showing up for, because the purpose of the Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference is to reiterate the commitment of the international community to the three goals: disarmament, nonproliferation, the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. So the vast majority of countries are coming to see what progress we can make. And this is a very high priority for President Obama. It’s why he pressed so hard for the START treaty, which he signed with President Medvedev in Prague. It’s why we convened a Nuclear Security Summit to highlight the threat posed by nuclear terrorism. It’s why we have begun to work out deals with India and others for the peaceful use of nuclear energy, which countries are entitled to under the nonproliferation regime.
If Iran is coming to say we’re willing to abide by the Nonproliferation Treaty, that would be very welcome news. I have a feeling that’s not what they’re coming to do. I think they’re coming to try to divert attention and confuse the issue. And there is no confusion. They have violated the terms of the NPT. They have been held under all kinds of restrictions and obligations that they have not complied with by the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, by the UN Security Council. So we’re not going to permit Iran to try to change the story from their failure to comply and in any way upset the efforts we are in the midst of, which is to get the international community to adopt a strong Security Council resolution that further isolates them and imposes consequences for their behavior.
QUESTION: Madam Secretary, I’d like to spend a couple minutes on some other global hotspots which you’re dealing with.
The first one is actually with America’s strong ally. In the UK, in Great Britain, very interesting election going on. You’ve got three candidates, a resurgent third party in the Social Democrats, televised debates. You know something about those.
SECRETARY CLINTON: I do.
QUESTION: And as you watch what’s going on there, do you think there’s a movement that could spread? Do you see a third party becoming viable in the United States?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, let’s see whether it’s viable in the UK. I don’t know the answer to that. We’ve had in my lifetime, and certainly long before, viable third-party candidates. We had Ross Perot, John Anderson just within my voting history. I think there’s always room in democracy for people to bring their views to the forefront. But I think one of the real strengths of our system has been our two-party approach, where each party may frustrate some of its own members because they do have a broad cross-section of voters and opinions.
But look, I’m going to be as interested as anybody to see what happens in the election in Great Britain.
QUESTION: Final one has to do with the election in Sudan, where you have Bashir as the victor, and yet this is Sudan, is a sponsor of state terror, according to the State Department, and this is someone who is boasting about the results and keeping the United States at bay. Nicholas Kristof wrote this in The New York Times: “Until he reached the White House, President Obama repeatedly insisted the U.S. apply more pressure on Sudan so as to avoid a humanitarian catastrophe in Darfur and elsewhere. Yet as president, Mr. Obama and his aides have caved, leaving Sudan gloating at American weakness. President Bashir, al-Bashir of Sudan, a man wanted for crimes against humanity in Darfur, has been celebrating. His regime called itself the National Congress Party, or NCP, and he was quoted in Sudan as telling a rally in the Blue Nile region: ‘Every America – even America is becoming an NCP member, no one is against our will.’
“Memo to Mr. Obama, when a man who has been charged with crimes against humanity tells the world that America is in his pocket, it’s time to review your policy.”
What do you say?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I would say that, number one, I can’t take anything seriously that Bashir says. He is an indicted war criminal. The United States is very committed to seeing him brought to justice. But let’s look at what’s happening in Sudan, because I have the greatest respect, of course, for Nick Kristof and others who share my deep dismay at events in Sudan.
But here’s what we’re trying to do. When we came into office, Bashir threw out the groups, the nongovernmental organizations, who were providing most of the aid in the camps in Darfur, which could have been a disastrous humanitarian crisis. We were able to get a lot of the help back in and we’re beginning to see some slight progress in Darfur. I don’t want to overstate it because it is still a deplorable situation. But we are working to try to get the people back to their homes, out of the camps.
At the same time, you had this election going on. It was, by any measure, a flawed election. There were many, many things wrong with it. But there hadn’t been an election in many years, and so part of our goal was to try to empower opposition parties, empower people to go out and vote. Thousands and thousands did. The result, I think, was pretty much foreordained that Bashir would come out the winner, and that’s unfortunate. We are turning all of our attention to trying to help the South and to mitigate against the attitudes of the North. I can’t sit here and say that we are satisfied, because I’m certainly not satisfied with where we are and what we’re doing, but it is an immensely complicated arena.
Now, the United States could back off and say we won’t deal with these people, we’re not going to have anything to do with them, Bashir is a war criminal. I don’t think that will improve the situation. So along with our partners – the UK, Norway, neighboring countries – we are trying to manage what is a very explosive problem.
QUESTION: Just a couple minutes left. I want to ask you about another big thrust of your time as Secretary of State, and that is forging – well, I should say a realization that there are limits to what government can accomplish around the world. You have spent a lot of time working with the private sector to achieve certain commercial goals, also to achieve goals like the empowerment of women. You’ve got an announcement this weekend having to do with the China Expo and the U.S. role in the China Expo, as well as efforts to empower women around the world in developing countries through the help of the private sector.
Why is this really the route of the future for the government?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you for asking me that, because that is exactly what I believe, that diplomacy today is not just government-to-government. Part of what I had to do when I became Secretary of State was to rebuild America’s image, standing, and leadership in the world. And certainly, President Obama is our greatest advocate at that. But you can’t just do that by the government saying things or even by our President making incredibly important speeches. You have to begin to engage the people in other countries. And in order to do that effectively, I want more people-to-people contacts, I want more private sector partnerships with our public sector and with people around the world.
Let me give two quick examples. You mentioned the Shanghai Expo. There’ll probably be 70 million-plus people who go through that Expo. When I became Secretary of State, there was no money raised because we don’t put public money into a project like that. So with the help of a lot of very dedicated corporate sponsors, we now will be a player in that Expo.
Now, what does that mean? Well, when those 70 million Chinese – mostly Chinese but people from elsewhere in the world go through, they’re going to learn something about America. They’re going to learn something about our values, about our products, about how we live. I think that helps to build the kind of understanding and connection that is at the root of good relations.
And on women’s issues, we just had a great announcement through the combined efforts of a number of corporate sponsors, foundations like the Rockefeller Foundation, we’re going to be working to help empower women doing what they do best and to try to up their education levels, their health levels.
Why does this matter? Because it’s the United States doing it. And it’s not just the United States Government. It’s the people of the United States.
QUESTION: Before you go, a question about whether you think it’s realistic that you will stay on as Secretary of State for the balance of the first term.
SECRETARY CLINTON: (Laughter.) Well, I intend to. Yeah, I intend to.
QUESTION: You do intend to?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Yeah. But I mean, people have been asking me this. And in the interest of full disclosure, it is an exhausting job. But I enjoy it. I have a great time doing it. I feel like we’re making a difference around the world, that I’m a big believer in setting goals, having a vision of where we’re trying to get, but then trying to translate that into what we do today and what we do tomorrow. And we’ve made a lot of progress. We face incredibly difficult problems.
QUESTION: So you think you’ll stay for the whole first term?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think so. I think so. I mean, look, ask me next month and the month after that, but that certainly is my intention.
QUESTION: And yet you don’t care to be on the Supreme Court?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, never. I mean, I’m glad you (inaudible).
QUESTION: You’re a lawyer with all that background.
SECRETARY CLINTON: I am – I do not and have never wanted to be a judge, ever. I mean, that has never been anything that I even let cross my mind, because it’s just not my personality.
QUESTION: Do you think the President should pick another women – woman this time?
SECRETARY CLINTON: I think he should pick a very well-qualified, people-savvy, young person to be on the Court to really help to shape the jurisprudence going forward. I think that it’s not a surprise that there’s a real division on the Court, and a lot of decisions that have great ramifications for the people of our country that I would like to see someone put on the Court who can really try to shift the direction of the current Court.
QUESTION: Secretary Clinton, thank you, as always.
SECRETARY CLINTON: You’re welcome.
# # #
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)