USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[Akira 0]

The Supreme Court has adjourned for the summer with the following rulings:

Quote[/b] ]Monday, June 27, 2005

No Rehnquist announcement; Commandments split

Posted by Lyle Denniston at 101 AM

The Supreme Court recessed for the summer Monday morning, with no announcement from Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist of his plans to retire or to remain on the Court. The day's session ended after the announcement of six final rulings. Final orders of the Term, to be prepared after a final Conference today, will be issued at 10 a.m. Tuesday.

Splitting 5-4 in the first of two rulings on government displays of the Ten Commandments, the Supreme Court upheld a federal court order against a display of the religious document on the wall of courthouses in two Kentucky counties.

The Court, in an opinion by Justice David H. Souter, said the ruling does not mean that a sacred text can never be integrated into a governmental display on law and history. It found, however, that the displays in Kentucky were motivated by a religious purpose, which did not change as the display was modified twice during court challenges.

Justice Antonin Scalia announced portions of his dissenting opinion. The case was McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky (03-1693).

Chief Justice Rehnquist announced the second decision on a religious display, finding no constitutional violation in the placement of a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the state capitol building in Austin, Texas. That decision was widely splintered. Announcing the votes of the various Justices, Rehnquist quipped -- to widespread laughter in the courtroom -- that he did not know there were so many Justices on the Court. The case was Van Orden v. Perry (03-1500).

In a 6-3 ruling, the Court decided that cable operators offering high-speed Internet access have no legal duty to open their service to customers of all Internet service providers.

In two consolidated cases, the Court upheld the decision of the Federal Communications Commission that broadband cable modem companies are exempt from mandatory common-carrier regulation. That, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, is a lawful interpretation of the Communications Act, and thus is due the Court's deference. The decisions came in National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X (04-277) and FCC v. Bfand X (04-281).

In a 7-2 decision, the Court ruled that local governments have no constitutional duty to protect from private violence an individual who is shielded by a court's restraining order. Such individuals do not gain an enforceable interest in that protection, the Court declared in an opinion by Justice Scalia. The case was Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales (04-278).

The Court ruled 5-4 that the Sixth Circuit abused its discretion in withdrawing an opinion in a habeas case months after the ruling should have been made final by issuance of a mandate. The Court said it was resolving only the particular case, and was not deciding the scope of an appeals court's authority to withold a mandate in order to resolve a case. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy spoke for the majority.

The decision came in the highly controversial case of a Tennessee death row inmate who is mentally impaired, Gregory Thompson (Bell v. Thompson, 04-514).

Most interesting I find is the restraining order ruling. What good is a restraining order if local authorities don't have to or won't enforce it? What protection will it offer battered women or similiar cases?

[Sandman214155 0]

US stock just took a hundred point plunge today as the US continues to suffer from rising Oil prices...

Why don't we just drill ANWAR? it would help out the US economy a lot, not to metion the people. I hate all this hippie stuff about how we should protect the animals.

[Akira 0]

US stock just took a hundred point plunge today as the US continues to suffer from rising Oil prices...

Why don't we just drill ANWAR? it would help out the US economy a lot, not to metion the people. I hate all this hippie stuff about how we should protect the animals.

And I hate all that selfish BS from people that just want to feed their guzzling SUVs. Take responsibility for the Earth and your own energy consumption and use more practical means, instead of every time gas goes up start crying about more drilling.

[Sandman214155 0]

US stock just took a hundred point plunge today as the US continues to suffer from rising Oil prices...

Why don't we just drill ANWAR? it would help out the US economy a lot, not to metion the people. I hate all this hippie stuff about how we should protect the animals.

And I hate all that selfish BS from people that just want to feed their guzzling SUVs. Take responsibility for the Earth and your own energy consumption and use more practical means, instead of every time gas goes up start crying about more drilling.

We're already using gas-electric hybrids, but at this point nobody has cought on. Its not a that i want to "feed my guzziling SUV" it's that i want to go though the week without loosing a lot of money every time my Cavalier sucks air. Its everyday life, not enjoyment.

[Sophion-Black 0]

when did you come in?

anyways... i'm glad i don't have to do this gas buisness. although i will here in 2 years

[EiZei 0]

US stock just took a hundred point plunge today as the US continues to suffer from rising Oil prices...

Why don't we just drill ANWAR? it would help out the US economy a lot, not to metion the people. I hate all this hippie stuff about how we should protect the animals.

And I hate all that selfish BS from people that just want to feed their guzzling SUVs. Take responsibility for the Earth and your own energy consumption and use more practical means, instead of every time gas goes up start crying about more drilling.

We're already using gas-electric hybrids, but at this point nobody has cought on. Its not a that i want to "feed my guzziling SUV" it's that i want to go though the week without loosing a lot of money every time my Cavalier sucks air. Its everyday life, not enjoyment.

Yeah, why save a non-renewable resource that is getting spent real quick and instead just blow it all on some latest GM/Ford piece of shit.

American gas prices are still rather affordable (on the average 3 times cheaper than here and even I get by with these prices) if one buys a model that does not suck gas like a cheap hooker.

EDIT: Just looked it up, chevrolet cavalier has less than 30mpg (8l/100km) mileage. Just blame yourself.

[Sandman214155 0]

Its the only thing i could buy at the time . at least i try to keep my head above water then ask for a break. it not like i'm trying... come to think of it... i can't afford anything that has a motor now but, I'm not one of those whining people that don't even try to get out of dodge. it just gets that way.

Hi soph, tom asked me to look around here for anything that seeped out.

[Sophion-Black 0]

nothing here...

how much is gas over were you live? its 2.09 here! do you live in california or something EiZei?

[Akira 0]

nothing here...

how much is gas over were you live? its 2.09 here! do you live in california or something EiZei?

I believe he lives in Germany.

[Sophion-Black 0]

Scheiße!

[Sandman214155 0]

he lives in Finland, or so thats what he put.

duh soph THINK!

[EiZei 0]

nothing here...

how much is gas over were you live? its 2.09 here! do you live in california or something EiZei?

Like stated before, Finland.

And quick conversion by google says that gas prices are 5.9USD per gallon here.

[xawery 0]

Or you could press that small, seemingly insignificant 'profile' button under EiZei's post and find out for yourself that he lives in Finland.

So as not to make this post a mere excerise in spamming, I would like to hear your opinion on the following matter. TBA has recently announced it's plans for resuming the production of Plutonium-238, for use in matters of "national security" and "space missions". The US have ceased producing Plutonium 238 when the Cold War ended.

Plutonium 238 is a hundred times more radioactive than Plutonium 239, but it cannot be used for the manufacturing of nuclear weapons (239 can). 238 has been used in the past as a power source for espionage instruments. There was a number of accidents with such instruments in the sixties which resulted in leakage of radioactive material into the atmosphere.

The US are planning to produce 150 kg of Plutonium 238 over a period of 30 years, which will result in 150,000 barrels of radioactive waste.

Any thoughts on the matter?

[EiZei 0]

I am more concerned about conventional pollution and CO2 exhausts.

So far so good regarding radioactive materials..

[Sandman214155 0]

good thing, living in the USA, wouldn't you say

i bet you're taking dotations for the "I'm broke in finnland" fund. i started the "I'm broke in the USA fund"  .

but anyways... i'd say some geeks need to get working on a better fuel system or fuel. but in the meantime, we need something to keep us alfoat before the models come out. wouldn't you say so Akira?

I would say send it out IN space, figure out what hapends to space if radioactive waste is introduced to it. a little science project for the geekeis

[EiZei 0]

I would say send it out IN space, figure out what hapends to space if radioactive waste is introduced to it. a little science project for the geekeis

Actually something new would be to have space without gamma radiation since it's ridden with it (luckily we have this thing called atmosphere to protect our delicate arses).

Too bad there has not been an economical way to get radioactive waste to space so far, would move nuclear power far up in my book.

[Sandman214155 0]

aw just duct tape it to one of those rockes leaving for space

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]but anyways... i'd say some geeks need to get working on a better fuel system or fuel. but in the meantime, we need something to keep us alfoat before the models come out. wouldn't you say so Akira?

Indeed. But drilling in Alaska isn't it. Drilling anywhere isn't it. Unless you live out in the boonies, most cities have affordable public transport. There are alternatives to high gas prices other than drillin' up more oil which does nothing towards research and production of alternate fuels and energies.

Sorry about that EiZei. Don't know why I thought you lived in Germany.

[Sophion-Black 0]

hmm... car pool, too bad i live out in the coutry were thers only one gas station for 50 miles

[Akira 0]

Well. Shut my mouth.

In the wake of the eminent domain ruling by SCROTUS, a Texas lawmaker actually does something intelligent!

Quote[/b] ]THE SUPREME COURT

Home seizure ruling doesn't play in Texas

After decision, an amendment is quickly proposed to limit powers of eminent domain

By MIKE SNYDER and MATT STILES

Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle

Texas' cultural commitment to private property rights surfaced quickly Thursday as a state legislator moved to blunt the impact of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that local governments may seize land for private development.

ADVERTISEMENT

Hours after the court's 5-4 ruling came down, Rep. Frank Corte Jr., R-San Antonio, said he would seek "to defend the rights of property owners in Texas" by proposing a state constitutional amendment limiting local powers of eminent domain, or condemnation.

Houston Mayor Bill White and Harris County Judge Robert Eckels offered assurances that the city and county do not intend to condemn land for private development projects.

But officials in the beachfront town of Freeport, south of Houston, said they would move aggressively to condemn property owned by two seafood companies to clear the way for an $8 million private marina.

The Supreme Court ruled against a group of property owners in New London, Conn., who challenged a city plan to demolish their riverfront homes to make way for offices, a hotel and other commercial buildings.

Justice John Paul Stevens, in the majority opinion, said such projects are within the scope of a clause in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution that authorizes condemning property for "public use."

Stevens wrote that promoting economic development, the stated goal of the New London project, "is a traditional and long accepted governmental function, and there is no principled way of distinguishing it from the other public purposes the court has recognized," such as taking land for roads, parks or libraries.

In a sharply worded dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the majority's interpretation of "public use" was so broad that "the specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."

Joining Stevens in the majority were Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. Dissenting with O'Connor were Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

The opinion said states concerned about excessive use of condemnation were free to pass laws restricting it, and Corte said he intended to do just that.

Corte said he would ask Gov. Rick Perry to add the condemnation issue to the agenda of the special legislative session now under way so that the proposed constitutional amendment could appear on the November ballot.

Perry spokeswoman Kathy Walt said the governor would consider requests to add items to the agenda, but probably not until legislators resolve the school finance issue. She said Perry supports property rights and was concerned about the Supreme Court ruling.

Corte said in a news release that his proposed amendment would "limit a local governmental entity's power of eminent domain, preventing them from bulldozing residences in favor of private developers."

White and Eckels said such concerns were unfounded in Houston and Harris County.

"The city of Houston has not, and likely never will, use eminent domain powers as aggressively as some cities simply for the purposes of economic development," White said in a statement. "We do respect property rights, and believe that eminent domain should not be used in a way that might simply benefit one economic interest versus another."

The mayor said, however, that he is pleased the court upheld the use of eminent domain to reduce blight.

Eckels said Commissioners Court has shown no inclination to condemn land for private development, and he would not support any move to do so.

The Metropolitan Transit Authority, empowered by the law that created it to condemn property within 1,500 feet of transit stations, is not "currently planning" to use that authority for projects along the Main Street light rail line or elsewhere, spokesman Ken Connaughton said.

Asked if the agency might exercise the authority in the future, Connaughton said, "Who knows what happens tomorrow? But there are no plans to do it."

Barry Klein, president of the Houston Property Rights Association, said he considers Metro's condemnation authority excessive. He said quasi-governmental agencies such as management districts and tax increment reinvestment zones might also try to take advantage of the court ruling.

"I'm sure there are some self-servingly creative people in the leadership of these organizations who will try to find a way to do this," Klein said.

Developer Ed Wulfe of Houston-based Wulfe & Co. said Houston's public entities have long resisted acquiring property through eminent domain unless it was for road improvements or other public uses.

Wulfe said, however, that governments and developers can use the type of condemnation cited in the New London case as a tool to redevelop inner-city neighborhoods that stand to benefit economically.

"I think on a very, very careful and selective basis it could be used to improve neighborhoods," said Wulfe. "Whether it's creating affordable housing or jobs, it could be an interesting way to remove blight."

Matthew Deal of Lewis Realty Advisors, a property appraisal and consulting firm that deals in condemnation, said Houston's new downtown sports arenas offer a good example of the benefits of local governments taking full advantage of their eminent domain powers.

The sports arenas energized parts of downtown that were "ridden with crime, boarded-up buildings and dangerous to be in," said Deal, calling the Supreme Court ruling "a score for governments and their development partners."

The case is Kelo et al v. City of New London, 04-108.

[walker 0]

hi all

The US Dollar continues to drop  

Quote[/b] ]AP-NA FIN MKT US DOLLAR

Dollar down vs euro despite talk of ECB rate cut

By The Associated Press

NEW YORK (AP) - The dollar fell across the board Tuesday, giving up early gain which had come amid renewed speculation about a European Central Bank rate cut.

After hitting record highs Monday, oil prices fell back Tuesday, helping the yen to make strong gains versus both the dollar and the euro.

Late afternoon, the euro was at $1.2169 from $1.2143 late Monday. The dollar was at 108.21 yen from Y109.33 and at 1.2662 Swiss francs from 1.2718 francs. The euro continued to weaken versus the yen throughout the day, and was at 131.70 yen from Y132.81. The pound was at $1.8289 from $1.8237.

The dollar started the New York session on the rise, lifting after Sweden slashed its benchmark lending rate, the securities repurchase rate, 50 basis points to 1.50 percent, double the 25-basis-point cut expected.

The move raised the market's focus on whether the ECB might consider a rate reduction in an effort to boost anemic growth across much of the euro zone. The talk was heightened when officials of Sveriges Riksbank, the Swedish central bank, gave declining demand in Europe for Swedish exports as a central reason for taking their action.

On Tuesday, ECB President Jean-Claude Trichet noted in a speech that nominal interest-rates - at 2 percent for the past two years - are at historically low levels, a point echoed by other bank officials in recent days. Nonetheless, the bank has shifted ground of late. After flatly ruling out the possibility of future rate cuts for most of 2005, ECB officials are now saying they are neutral.

Talks of a rate cut come atop a pile of other problems for the single currency. Last week's failed summit on the EU budget, the French and Dutch "no" votes and the region's economic problems have pushed the euro more than 7 percent lower versus the dollar over the last few months.

Nonetheless, the dollar was unable to hold onto its gains Tuesday and the euro was at a session high in late New York trading. Traders said the euro was due a bounce back after it held above its overnight low during morning New York trading. An unexpectedly strong pickup in Germany's ZEW June economic sentiment indicator may also have added momentum to the euro's recovery...

http://www.casperstartribune.net/article....9f2.txt

The main cause is still rising gas prices which have hit record after record mainly as a result of failures in the middle east and the failure of the US market to stop using gas guzling cars like the SUV.

That said car producers are also heading for a disaster with even the once mighty Chrysler and even GM threatened with bankruptcy and looking at massive lay offs to try and rescue the company. Ford would probably be facing the same problem if it were not for the fact that it moved most of its production out of the US years ago. The threat of GM lay offs has caused U.A.W. to warn of possible strikes.

Quote[/b] ]A U.A.W. Chief Awaits a G.M. Showdown

By DANNY HAKIM

Published: June 23, 2005

Correction Appended

DETROIT, June 22 - As a negotiator, Ron Gettelfinger, the United Automobile Workers president, is known more for the carrot than the stick. Just don't mistake him for easygoing.

This year, he briefly banned marines stationed near Solidarity House, the union's headquarters, from parking in the union lot if they drove foreign cars or had Bush bumper stickers. And in 2001, shortly after being nominated for the union presidency, he summed up his style in one word: "abrasive."

This summer, as he faces the fight of his union life in a showdown with General Motors, his penchant for compromising with the beleaguered domestic automakers is checked by a belief that his workers deserve their wages and health care benefits. Whether he chooses the carrot or stick will have broad implications for the future of the American auto worker and help determine whether the Big Three automakers can slash costs to compete against Toyota and other foreign rivals with lower labor costs.

Rick Wagoner, G.M.'s chief executive, is betting he can force Mr. Gettelfinger to blink. Fighting for his job after G.M.'s $1.1 billion first quarter loss, Mr. Wagoner is threatening to make steep cuts to the health benefits with or without the union's support, a hard line that has puzzled some analysts.

Mr. Gettelfinger, a 60-year-old former marine, says he is willing to offer some help to G.M., but will not be pushed into a corner and will not re-open the company's labor contract before it expires in 2007.

Whether the outcome leads him to settle or strike is an open question.

"I can be as cooperative as they'll let you be and as militant as they'll make you be," Mr. Gettelfinger said of his approach in an interview last week at Solidarity House. "I don't think saber rattling and that stuff, I don't see a lot of value in it. But I think if people think that cooperation means capitulation, they'll be in for a surprise, and I've always said that. Cooperation is certainly not capitulation." What seems increasingly clear is that Mr. Gettelfinger's job as president is the most difficult since the early days of the U.A.W., which turns 70 this summer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005....omepage

Standard and Poor and a report in the Economist have already rated GM Ford stock to Junk status and that with GM's decline there goes America also.

Quote[/b] ]The Battle To Save GM Is the

Battle To Save the Nation

The battle lines are drawn around the future of the U.S. auto industry, particularly the General Motors Corporation—and the outcome of that battle may well determine the future of the United States as an industrial power. On the one side is the international banking establishment, which has signalled loud and clear its intent to strip and bury the productive core of the industry, in a desperate attempt to save their financial assets and power. On the other side, are the forces led by Lyndon LaRouche, who has the only plan on the table for protecting, and expanding, the machine-tool capability and skilled labor force which the auto industry represents.

As LaRouche's May 10 leaflet explains (see box), a successful outcome in the battle to save GM requires immediate action by the U.S. Senate. Delay in implementing the necessary measures will in effect hand the victory to the predatory financier oligarchy, and spell disaster for the future of the nation, and the world.

There is no more blunt voice for the financial oligarchy than the London Economist, which speaks for the City of London financial circles. In an article in its May 6 edition, entitled "Two Piles of Junk?" the magazine said that "it remains to be seen how long both firms [GM and Ford—ed.] can remain solvent if their core operations continue to bleed money and their legacy costs continue to grow. Bankruptcy no longer seems far-fetched. Indeed, the opportunity to emerge from Chapter 11 as smaller, leaner operations ... may be starting to look like an appealing option."

The Economist report, coming after the downgrading of GM and Ford stock to junk, and the circling of vultures, such as "King of Las Vegas" Kirk Kerkorian and "bankruptcy specialist" Wilbur Ross, around the auto industry, dramatically underscores LaRouche's warnings. Either leading figures in the Senate, the Democratic Party at large, and the financial community come together now to promote an emergency action plan such as the one LaRouche issued on April 13 (see EIR, April 22 or www.larouchepac.com), or it will soon be too late...

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2005/3220auto_n_nation.html

When is america going to realise that it is the economy stupid and ditch this lame duck administration?

TBA still has not done anything about the rampant corruption and mismanagement of US business. probably because the two top people in TBA are business failures them selves. SHRUB oil any one? Or how about Halliburton the company that after bankruptcy survives on the worlds biggest social security cheque that 6 billion dollar no bid contract.

Meanwhile as US Middle Class Tax Payers pensions go underfunded to a shocking extent that will leave many future pensioners paupers and the companies profits fall through the floor their exectives grab big payouts.

Quote[/b] ]While pensions fall short, CEOs fly high

Ford, GM, United Airlines, Continental. They're just four of the companies struggling with falling profits and pension problems as their executives get huge payouts.

By Michael Brush

At companies across the country, workers are watching their pensions dwindle.

At UAL’s (UALAQ, news, msgs) United Airlines, workers stand to lose more than $3 billion in promised benefits as the airline passes its pension obligations on to the government.

Unfunded pension obligations at Ford (F, news, msgs) have risen to a whopping $12.3 billion, and General Motors (GM, news, msgs) is looking at shortfalls of $7.5 billion.

In the executive suites of these companies, however, there's no pain to be found. United Airlines chief executives John Creighton, Jr. and Glenn Tilton collected $13.1 million in the two years leading up to its 2002 bankruptcy.

And while the pension pit grows at Ford, chief executive William Clay Ford Jr. has collected $53 million over the past three years. At GM, G. Richard Wagoner Jr. got $40.7 million over that period.

It's no secret that corporate bigwigs have paid themselves handsomely while stiffing their workers and sending jobs overseas. It's particularly galling, though, to see these same executives locking in their own lifetime of luxury while rolling the dice with their workers' retirement years...

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/P119362.asp

Mean while Gas Prices just keep on rising.

Quote[/b] ]Gasoline prices near all-time high

Motorists to see higher prices over July 4th holiday and beyond

Reuters

Updated: 5:37 p.m. ET June 27, 2005

WASHINGTON - U.S. motorists should prepare to pay more at the pump over the Fourth of July holiday, after a government survey on Monday showed gasoline prices rose for the fourth straight week, nearing an all-time high set April.

The national average pump price for regular unleaded gasoline rose 5.4 cents to $2.215 a gallon, up 29.4 cents from a year ago, according to the latest weekly survey of more than 800 service stations by the Energy Information Administration (EIA).

Gasoline prices are now 6 cents below a record high of $2.28 a gallon set on April 11. Still, when adjusted for inflation, the most expensive price at the pump was $3.08 a gallon in March 1981.

“We’re not going to see prices below $2 this summer,†said Neil Gamson, an EIA economist.

Gamson said it was unlikely prices would fall given the current price of crude oil. “If (crude oil) stays at these levels that will be passed to consumers at the pump.â€

U.S. truckers saw retail diesel prices rise 2.3 cents to a record average $2.336 per gallon last week, EIA said. The average cost for a gallon of diesel is 63.6 cents per gallon higher than it was one year ago...

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8367429/

Never have I heard of a countries economy being so decisivley and utterly mismanaged to the extent that TBA have achieved in such a short time.

Sadly walker

[Sophion-Black 0]

i'd say China is growing more and more powerfull, its tough to say that the US might be over-shadowed by China but it seems like its happening. If the US doen't straighten up we will be looking at other countries ordering us around

[SFWanabe 0]

Quote[/b] ]If the US doen't straighten up we will be looking at other countries ordering us around

I doubt it will go that far.......

[Akira 0]

It's possible. Should the US get knocked down to size for any variety of reasons, I can picture hundreds of countries that would like to give us our just desserts.

[Akira 0]

I missed the speech being stuck at work. Anyone watch it? Here's the text by the way:

Quote[/b] ]Thank you. Please be seated. Good evening. I am pleased to visit Fort Bragg, home of the Airborne and Special Operations Forces. It is an honor to speak before you tonight.

My greatest responsibility as president is to protect the American people, and that is your calling as well. I thank you for your service, your courage and your sacrifice. I thank your families, who support you in your vital work. The soldiers and families of Fort Bragg have contributed mightily to our efforts to secure our country and promote peace. America is grateful and so is your commander in chief.

The troops here and across the world are fighting a global war on terror. The war reached our shores on September 11, 2001. The terrorists who attacked us and the terrorists we face murder in the name of a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance and despises all dissent. Their aim is to remake the Middle East in their own grim image of tyranny and oppression by toppling governments, driving us out of the region and by exporting terror.

To achieve these aims, they have continued to kill in Madrid, Istanbul, Jakarta, Casablanca, Riyadh, Bali and elsewhere. The terrorists believe that free societies are essentially corrupt and decadent, and with a few hard blows they can force us to retreat. They are mistaken. After September 11, I made a commitment to the American people: This nation will not wait to be attacked again. We will defend our freedom. We will take the fight to the enemy.

Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war. Many terrorists who kill innocent men, women and children on the streets of Baghdad are followers of the same murderous ideology that took the lives of our citizens in New York, in Washington and Pennsylvania. There is only one course of action against them: to defeat them abroad before they attack us at home. The commander in charge of coalition operations in Iraq, who is also senior commander at this base, General John Vines, put it well the other day. He said, "We either deal with terrorism and this extremism abroad, or we deal with it when it comes to us."

Our mission in Iraq is clear. We are hunting down the terrorists. We are helping Iraqis build a free nation that is an ally in the war on terror. We are advancing freedom in the broader Middle East. We are removing a source of violence and instability and laying the foundation of peace for our children and our grandchildren.

The work in Iraq is difficult and it is dangerous. Like most Americans, I see the images of violence and bloodshed. Every picture is horrifying and the suffering is real. Amid all this violence, I know Americans ask the question: Is the sacrifice worth it? It is worth it, and it is vital to the future security of our country. And tonight I will explain the reasons why.

Some of the violence you see in Iraq is being carried out by ruthless killers who are converging on Iraq to fight the advance of peace and freedom. Our military reports that we have killed or captured hundreds of foreign fighters in Iraq who have come from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Egypt, Sudan, Yemen, Libya and others. They are making common cause with criminal elements, Iraqi insurgents and remnants of Saddam Hussein's regime who want to restore the old order. They fight because they know that the survival of their hateful ideology is at stake. They know that as freedom takes root in Iraq, it will inspire millions across the Middle East to claim their liberty as well. And when the Middle East grows in democracy, in prosperity and hope, the terrorists will lose their sponsors, lose their recruits and lose their hopes for turning that region into a base for attacks on America and our allies around the world.

Some wonder whether Iraq is a central front in the war on terror. Among the terrorists, there is no debate. Hear the words of Osama Bin Laden: "This Third World War is raging" in Iraq. "The whole world is watching this war." He says it will end in "victory and glory or misery and humiliation."

The terrorists know that the outcome will leave them emboldened or defeated. So they are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to take.

We see the nature of the enemy in terrorists who exploded car bombs along a busy shopping street in Baghdad, including one outside a mosque. We see the nature of the enemy in terrorists who sent a suicide bomber to a teaching hospital in Mosul. And we see the nature of the enemy in terrorists who behead civilian hostages and broadcast their atrocities for the world to see.

These are savage acts of violence but they have not brought the terrorists any closer to achieving their strategic objectives. The terrorists, both foreign and Iraqi, failed to stop the transfer of sovereignty. They failed to break our coalition and force a mass withdrawal by our allies. They failed to incite an Iraqi civil war. They failed to prevent free elections. They failed to stop the formation of a democratic Iraqi government that represents all of Iraq's diverse population. And they failed to stop Iraqis from signing up in large numbers with the police forces and the army to defend their new democracy.

The lesson of this experience is clear: The terrorists can kill the innocent but they cannot stop the advance of freedom. The only way our enemies can succeed is if we forget the lessons of September 11, if we abandon the Iraqi people to men like Zarqawi and if we yield the future of the Middle East to men like bin Laden. For the sake of our nation's security, this will not happen on my watch.

A little over a year ago, I spoke to the nation and described our coalition's goals in Iraq. I said that America's mission in Iraq is to defeat an enemy and give strength to a friend, a free, representative government that is an ally in the war on terror and a beacon of hope in a part of the world that is desperate for reform. I outlined the steps we would take to achieve this goal: We would hand authority over to a sovereign Iraqi government; we would help Iraqis hold free elections by January 2005; we would continue helping Iraqis rebuild their nation's infrastructure and economy; we would encourage more international support for Iraq's democratic transition; and we would enable Iraqis to take increasing responsibility for their own security and stability.

In the past year, we have made significant progress: One year ago today, we restored sovereignty to the Iraqi people.

In January 2005, more than 8 million Iraqi men and women voted in elections that were free and fair and took place on time.

We continued our efforts to help them rebuild their country. Rebuilding a country after three decades of tyranny is hard and rebuilding while a country is at war is even harder. Our progress has been uneven but progress is being made. We are improving roads and schools and health clinics and working to improve basic services like sanitation, electricity and water. Together with our allies, we will help the new Iraqi government deliver a better life for its citizens.

In the past year, the international community has stepped forward with vital assistance. Some 30 nations have troops in Iraq, and many others are contributing nonmilitary assistance. The United Nations is in Iraq to help Iraqis write a constitution and conduct their next elections. Thus far, some 40 countries and three international organizations have pledged about 34 billion dollars in assistance for Iraqi reconstruction. More than 80 countries and international organizations recently came together in Brussels to coordinate their efforts to help Iraqis provide for their security and rebuild their country. And next month, donor countries will meet in Jordan to support Iraqi reconstruction.

Whatever our differences in the past, the world understands that success in Iraq is critical to the security of our nations. As German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said at the White House yesterday, "There can be no question a stable and democratic Iraq is in the vested interest of not just Germany, but also Europe.

Finally, we have continued our efforts to equip and train Iraqi security forces. We have made gains in both the number and quality of those forces. Today Iraq has more than 160,000 security forces trained and equipped for a variety of missions. Iraqi forces have fought bravely helping to capture terrorists and insurgents in Najaf, Samarra, Fallujah and Mosul. And in the past month, Iraqi forces have led a major anti-terrorist campaign in Baghdad called Operation Lightning, which has led to the capture of hundreds of suspected insurgents. Like free people everywhere, Iraqis want to be defended by their own countrymen, and we are helping Iraqis assume those duties.

The progress in the past year has been significant and we have a clear path forward. To complete the mission, we will continue to hunt down the terrorists and insurgents. To complete the mission, we will prevent al-Qaida and other foreign terrorists from turning Iraq into what Afghanistan was under the Taliban -- a safe haven from which they could launch attacks on America and our friends. And the best way to complete the mission is to help Iraqis build a free nation that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself.

advertisement

advertisement

So our strategy going forward has both a military track and a political track.

The principal task of our military is to find and defeat the terrorists and that is why we are on the offense. And as we pursue the terrorists, our military is helping to train Iraqi security forces so that they can defend their people and fight the enemy on their own. Our strategy can be summed up this way: As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.

We have made progress but we have a lot more work to do. Today Iraqi security forces are at different levels of readiness. Some are capable of taking on the terrorists and insurgents by themselves. A larger number can plan and execute anti-terrorist operations with coalition support. The rest are forming and not yet ready to participate fully in security operations. Our task is to make the Iraqi units fully capable and independent. We are building up Iraqi security forces as quickly as possible, so they can assume the lead in defeating the terrorists and insurgents.

Our coalition is devoting considerable resources and manpower to this critical task. Thousands of coalition troops are involved in the training and equipping of Iraqi security forces. NATO is establishing a military academy near Baghdad to train the next generation of Iraqi military leaders, and 17 nations are contributing troops to the NATO training mission. Iraqi army and police are being trained by personnel from Italy, Germany, Ukraine, Turkey, Poland, Romania, Australia and the United Kingdom. Today dozens of nations are working toward a common objective: an Iraq that can defend itself, defeat its enemies and secure its freedom.

To further prepare Iraqi forces to fight the enemy on their own, we are taking three new steps:

First, we are partnering coalition units with Iraqi units. These coalition-Iraqi teams are conducting operations together in the field. These combined operations are giving Iraqis a chance to experience how the most professional armed forces in the world operate in combat.

Second, we are embedding coalition "transition teams" inside Iraqi units. These teams are made up of coalition officers and noncommissioned officers who live, work and fight together with their Iraqi comrades. Under U.S. command, they are providing battlefield advice and assistance to Iraqi forces during combat operations. Between battles, they are assisting the Iraqis with important skills such as urban combat and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance techniques.

Third, we are working with the Iraqi Ministries of Interior and Defense to improve their capabilities to coordinate anti-terrorist operations. We are helping them develop command and control structures. We are also providing them with civilian and military leadership training, so Iraq's new leaders can more effectively manage their forces in the fight against terror.

The new Iraqi security forces are proving their courage every day. More than 2,000 members of the Iraqi security forces have given their lives in the line of duty. Thousands more have stepped forward and are now training to serve their nation. With each engagement, Iraqi soldiers grow more battle-hardened and their officers grow more experienced. We have learned that Iraqis are courageous and that they need additional skills. That is why a major part of our mission is to train them so they can do the fighting and our troops can come home.

I recognize that Americans want our troops to come home as quickly as possible. So do I. Some contend that we should set a deadline for withdrawing U.S. forces. Let me explain why that would be a serious mistake. Setting an artificial timetable would send the wrong message to the Iraqis, who need to know that America will not leave before the job is done. It would send the wrong signal to our troops, who need to know that we are serious about completing the mission they are risking their lives to achieve. And it would send the wrong message to the enemy, who would know that all they have to do is to wait us out. We will stay in Iraq as long as we are needed and not a day longer.

Some Americans ask me, if completing the mission is so important, why don't you send more troops? If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them. But our commanders tell me they have the number of troops they need to do their job. Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight. And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever, when we are in fact working for the day when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave. As we determine the right force level, our troops can know that I will continue to be guided by the advice that matters: the sober judgment of our military leaders.

The other critical element of our strategy is to help ensure that the hopes Iraqis expressed at the polls in January are translated into a secure democracy. The Iraqi people are emerging from decades of tyranny and oppression. Under the regime of Saddam Hussein, the Shia and Kurds were brutally oppressed and the vast majority of Sunni Arabs were also denied their basic rights, while senior regime officials enjoyed the privileges of unchecked power. The challenge facing Iraqis today is to put this past behind them and come together to build a new Iraq that includes all of its people.

They are doing that by building the institutions of a free society, a society based on freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion and equal justice under law. The Iraqis have held free elections and established a transitional national assembly. The next step is to write a good constitution that enshrines these freedoms in permanent law. The assembly plans to expand its constitutional drafting committee to include more Sunni Arabs. Many Sunnis who opposed the January elections are now taking part in the democratic process, and that is essential to Iraq's future.

After a constitution is written, the Iraqi people will have a chance to vote on it. If approved, Iraqis will go to the polls again to elect a new government under their new, permanent constitution. By taking these critical steps and meeting their deadlines, Iraqis will bind their multiethnic society together in a democracy that respects the will of the majority and protects minority rights.

As Iraqis grow confident that the democratic progress they are making is real and permanent, more will join the political process. And as Iraqis see that their military can protect them, more will step forward with vital intelligence to help defeat the enemies of a free Iraq. The combination of political and military reform will lay a solid foundation for a free and stable Iraq.

As Iraqis make progress toward a free society, the effects are being felt beyond Iraq's borders. Before our coalition liberated Iraq, Libya was secretly pursuing nuclear weapons. Today the leader of Libya has given up his chemical and nuclear weapons programs. Across the broader Middle East, people are claiming their freedom. In the last few months, we have witnessed elections in the Palestinian territories and Lebanon. These elections are inspiring democratic reformers in places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Our strategy to defend ourselves and spread freedom is working. The rise of freedom in this vital region will eliminate the conditions that feed radicalism and ideologies of murder and make our nation safer.

We have more work to do, and there will be tough moments that test America's resolve. We are fighting against men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons who are capable of any atrocity. They wear no uniform; they respect no laws of warfare or morality. They take innocent lives to create chaos for the cameras. They are trying to shake our will in Iraq just as they tried to shake our will on September 11, 2001. They will fail. The terrorists do not understand America. The American people do not falter under threat and we will not allow our future to be determined by car bombers and assassins.

America and our friends are in a conflict that demands much of us. It demands the courage of our fighting men and women, it demands the steadfastness of our allies and it demands the perseverance of our citizens. We accept these burdens because we know what is at stake. We fight today because Iraq now carries the hope of freedom in a vital region of the world, and the rise of democracy will be the ultimate triumph over radicalism and terror. And we fight today because terrorists want to attack our country and kill our citizens, and Iraq is where they are making their stand. So we will fight them there, we will fight them across the world and we will stay in the fight until the fight is won.

America has done difficult work before. From our desperate fight for independence, to the darkest days of a Civil War, to the hard-fought battles against tyranny in the 20th century, there were many chances to lose our heart, our nerve or our way. But Americans have always held firm, because we have always believed in certain truths. We know that if evil is not confronted, it gains in strength and audacity and returns to strike us again. We know that when the work is hard, the proper response is not retreat, it is courage. And we know that this great ideal of human freedom entrusted to us in a special way and that the ideal of liberty is worth defending.

In this time of testing, our troops can know: The American people are behind you. Next week, our nation has an opportunity to make sure that support is felt by every soldier, sailor, airman, Coast Guardsman and Marine at every outpost across the world. This Fourth of July, I ask you to find a way to thank the men and women defending our freedom by flying the flag, sending letters to our troops in the field or helping the military family down the street. The Department of Defense has set up a Web site, AmericaSupportsYou.mil. You can go there to learn about private efforts in your own community. At this time when we celebrate our freedom, let us stand with the men and women who defend us all.

To the soldiers in this hall, and our servicemen and women across the globe: I thank you for your courage under fire and your service to our nation. I thank our military families; the burden of war falls especially hard on you. In this war, we have lost good men and women who left our shores to defend freedom and did not live to make the journey home. I have met with families grieving the loss of loved ones who were taken from us too soon. I have been inspired by their strength in the face of such great loss. We pray for the families. And the best way to honor the lives that have been given in this struggle is to complete the mission.

I thank those of you who have re-enlisted in an hour when your country needs you. And to those watching tonight who are considering a military career, there is no higher calling than service in our Armed Forces. We live in freedom because every generation has produced patriots willing to serve a cause greater than themselves. Those who serve today are taking their rightful place among the greatest generations that have worn our nation's uniform. When the history of this period is written, the liberation of Afghanistan and the liberation of Iraq will be remembered as great turning points in the story of freedom.

After September 11, 2001, I told the American people that the road ahead would be difficult and that we would prevail. Well, it has been difficult. And we are prevailing. Our enemies are brutal, but they are no match for the United States of America and they are no match for the men and women of the United States military.

May God bless you all.

First impressions

Nice try at tying 9.11 and Iraq together.