27 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(04/28/10 5:07am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Top Goldman Sachs officials defended their conduct in the financial crisis Tuesday, flatly disputing the government’s fraud allegations against the giant financial house. “I did not mislead" investors, insisted a trading executive at the heart of the government’s case.But they ran into a wall of bipartisan wrath before a Senate panel investigating Goldman’s role in the financial crisis and the Securities and Exchange Commission fraud suit against it and one of its traders. Democratic Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan accused Goldman of making risky financial bets that “became the chips in a giant casino.”Fabrice Tourre, a 31-year-old trader at Goldman and the only company official directly accused in the SEC suit, testified that he does not recall telling investors that a Goldman hedge fund client had bought into an investment that soured. Instead, the hedge fund, Paulson & Co., bet against the security — and profited handsomely.“I deny — categorically — the SEC’s allegation,” Tourre said. “And I will defend myself in court against this false claim.”Ten days after the SEC action, the panel is looking into allegations that Goldman used a strategy that allowed it to profit from the housing meltdown and reap billions at the expense of clients.“Its conduct brings into question the whole system of Wall Street,” Levin, the committee chairman, said of the investment banking firm.Levin pressed Daniel Sparks, the former head of Goldman’s mortgages department, on whether the company felt it had a moral obligation to disclose to clients that it was making side bets against the same risky investments it was selling them.Sparks said the clients “should look at the assets themselves” that made up the mortgage-based securities they were buying. “Clients who did not want to participate in that deal did not,” he said of one particular transaction.Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, the top Republican on the panel, said Goldman officials were “celebrating the collapse of the housing market when the reality for millions of Americans is loss of homes and disappearing jobs.”“There is something unseemly about Goldman betting against the housing market at the same time it is selling to its clients mortgage-backed securities of toxic loans,” she said.Goldman executives misled investors in complex mortgage securities that turned bad, investigators for the panel said. They pointed to a trove of some two million e-mails and other Goldman documents obtained in an 18-month investigation. Excerpts from the documents were released Monday, a day before the hearing bringing Loyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs, and others before the panel.Blankfein said in his prepared testimony that Goldman didn’t bet against its clients and can’t survive without their trust. He also argued that Goldman wasn’t making an aggressive negative bet — or “short” — on the mortgage market’s meltdown.“We didn’t have a massive short against the housing market, and we certainly did not bet against our clients,” Blankfein said. “Rather, we believe that we managed our risk as our shareholders and our regulators would expect.”The Senate panel provided excerpts of e-mails showing a progression from late 2006 through the full-blown mortgage crisis a year later. Levin said they show Goldman shifted in early 2007 from neutral to a short position, betting that the mortgage market was likely to collapse.“That directional change is mighty clear,” Levin said. “They decided to go gangbusters selling those securities.”Sparks wrote to other executives in March 2007, “We are trying to close everything down, but stay on the short side.”
(03/16/09 4:45pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama declared Monday that insurance giant American International Group is in financial straits because of "recklessness and greed" and said he intends to stop it from paying out millions in executive bonuses."It's hard to understand how derivative traders at AIG warranted any bonuses, much less $165 million in extra pay," Obama said at the outset of an appearance to announce help for small businesses hurt by the deep recession."How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat," the president said.Obama spoke out in the wake of reports that surfaced over the weekend saying that financially strapped American International Group Inc. was paying substantial bonuses to executives.Noting that AIG has "received substantial sums" of federal aid from the federal government, Obama said he has asked Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner "to use that leverage and pursue every legal avenue to block these bonuses and make the American taxpayers whole."Said Obama: "All across the country, there are people who work hard and meet their responsibilities every day, without the benefit of government bailouts or multimillion-dollar bonuses. And all they ask is that everyone, from Main Street to Wall Street to Washington, play by the same rules.""This isn't just a matter of dollars and cents," he added. "It's about our fundamental values."The $165 million was payable to executives by Sunday and was part of a larger total payout reportedly valued at $450 million. The company has benefited from more than $170 billion in a federal rescue.AIG reported this month that it had lost $61.7 billion for the fourth quarter of last year, the largest corporate loss in history. The bulk of the payments at issue cover AIG Financial Products, the unit of the company that sold credit default swaps, the risky contracts that caused massive losses for the insurer.
(03/31/08 3:45am)
WASHINGTON – Sens. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain have diagnosed the swooning U.S. economy and have come up with rival plans to revive it. If the downturn lasts as long as some economists predict, one of the three will get a chance to try to sell his or her proposal to Congress as president.\nOr if the economy hits bottom before Inauguration Day and then turns up, the victor may be handed a rare gift: the chance to begin a presidency presiding over the early stages of a rebound.\nTake your pick. Who knows where the economy will be in nine and a half months?\nAs economic clouds darkened last week, all three candidates delivered major speeches on the economy while the Bush administration prepared a plan to give the Federal Reserve new regulatory powers over the financial system.\nDemocrats Clinton and Obama outlined competing $30 billion stimulus packages to help homeowners facing foreclosure and other victims of the financial crisis. This would be on top of the $168 billion stimulus package of rebates and temporary tax cuts passed by Congress last month and signed by President Bush. Both Clinton and Obama also called for broader financial regulation.\nRepublican McCain advocated voluntary action by lenders, more transparency in the lending process and the convening of a national conference of accountants and mortgage lenders to review how real estate is valued. He opposed large, taxpayer-financed bailouts but backed cuts in corporate tax rates and making permanent expiring Bush tax cuts.\nThe two Democrats are calling for a more activist role for the U.S. government to protect individuals. McCain is echoing standard GOP dogma of protecting markets and opposing bailouts.\nAll three praised recent intervention by the Fed and the Treasury Department to calm the financial storm, including sharp Fed interest rate cuts and a $29 billion rescue plan for investment giant Bear Stearns.\nSince all three are members of the U.S. Senate, they can influence congressional action now. But political reality being what it is, their time for impact – \nat least for one of them – probably lies in the future, not \nthe present.\nAnd there already is a welter of antirecessionary proposals pending in Congress – including major bills by Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., and Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., to let the government step in and back up to $400 billion in troubled loans. Both Clinton and Obama have endorsed \nthis legislation.\nEconomic statistics last week painted a bleak picture, reflecting continuing housing, credit and financial woes.\nThe Commerce Department reported the gross domestic product increased at an anemic 0.6 percent annual rate from October through December, and that consumer spending slowed to a crawl last month, edging up just 0.1 percent for the poorest showing in 17 months.\nConsumers – whose spending traditionally accounts for about two-thirds of the overall economy – have been reeling under the credit crisis, job cuts and soaring energy costs. Many – if not most – economists say the country already is in \na recession.\n“It’s clear the economy is in a slowdown,” said Dennis Lockhart, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. He said the slowdown “has been sharper than I had expected” and that “the recovery in growth I had expected in the second half of this year may \nbe delayed.”\nPolls show an interesting disconnect, however.\nA recent survey by the Pew Research Center showed that only 11 percent of those questioned said the U.S. economy was in “good or excellent” shape. But when asked about their own finances, 47 percent said they were “good \nto excellent.”\nAn AP-Ipsos poll in February produced similar results – with only 14 percent saying their personal finances were in poor shape but 61 percent agreeing the U.S. was in \na recession.
(05/09/07 11:01pm)
BAGHDAD – Vice President Dick Cheney and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki acknowledged problems in the pace of reducing violence in Iraq on Wednesday, but both pledged their governments would continue working together toward a solution.\nThe Iraqi leader said he and Cheney discussed “practical steps ... to support our efforts working on both the security front as well as the domestic political issues.” He and Cheney made brief remarks to reporters, with al-Maliki speaking through an interpreter.\nAl-Maliki is coming under increasing pressure from Washington to demonstrate progress in easing sectarian violence, and Cheney’s unannounced visit to Iraq was depicted by U.S. officials as an attempt to press al-Maliki and other Iraqi leaders to do more to achieve reconciliation among factions.\nCheney said he and al-Maliki “talked about the way ahead in terms of our mutual efforts to help build an Iraq that is safe and secure, is self-governing and free of the threats of the insurgency and al-Qaida.”\nEarlier, Cheney got a firsthand briefing on conditions in Iraq and the effectiveness of the U.S. military buildup from the top U.S. commander in Iraq.\n“There’s a lot going on. This is a very important time. There’s a lot to talk about,” Cheney said as he met with Gen. David Petraeus and the new U.S. ambassador here, Ryan Crocker.\nPetraeus said recently that conditions in Iraq may get harder before they get easier and will require “an enormous commitment” over time by the United States.\nCheney made Iraq the first stop on a weeklong tour of the Middle East that will also include stops in the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. The Baghdad stop had not been announced publicly.\nCheney also met with Iraq’s Kurdish president, Jalal Talabani, Sunni and Shiite vice presidents, and other government and political leaders.\nAides said the vice president wanted to emphasize that ending the conflict in Iraq cannot done by military means alone and that his mission was to get a sense of the situation on the ground in Iraq and to deliver a message that more work is needed on the political front to overcome divisions and \ndelays.\nThe visit follows a secure video conference earlier this week between al-Maliki and President Bush about the need to move forward on legislation to help repair the rift between majority-party Shiite Arabs and minority Sunni Arabs.\nSunni legislators have been threatening to pull out of the government.\nCheney also was likely to renew a U.S. request that the Iraqi parliament not take a scheduled two-month break during these troubling times, said Crocker.\n“For the Iraqi parliament to take a two-month vacation in the middle of summer is impossible to understand,” said Crocker, who traveled with Cheney from Washington. He has only been on the job since March.\nCheney’s message with Iraqi leaders, according to a senior administration official who briefed reporters, was to be: “We’ve all got challenges together. We’ve got to pull together. We’ve got to get this work done. It’s game time.”\nThe official spoke on condition of anonymity since he talked before Cheney’s meetings and did not want to upstage the vice president.
(11/29/06 3:52am)
RIGA, Latvia -- Under intense pressure to change course, President Bush on Tuesday rejected suggestions Iraq has fallen into civil war and vowed not to pull U.S. troops out "until the mission is complete."\nAt the opening of a NATO summit, Bush also urged allies to increase their forces in Afghanistan to confront a strengthening Taliban insurgency.\nOn the eve of his visit to Jordan for meetings with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Bush portrayed the battles in both Afghanistan and Iraq as central fronts in a war "against the extremists who desire safe havens and are willing to kill innocents anywhere to achieve their objectives."\nThe stakes in Iraq are huge for Bush. His war policies were repudiated in U.S. midterm elections that handed control of Congress to Democrats. A bipartisan blue-ribbon panel is about to issue a report proposing changes in the administration's approach in Iraq. And al-Maliki's government itself sometimes seems to be at cross purposes with Washington.\nBush set the stage for the Jordan talks with a speech at the NATO summit here and at an earlier news conference in neighboring Estonia. The president said he was flexible and eager to hear al-Maliki's ideas on how to ease the violence.\n"There's one thing I'm not going to do: I'm not going to pull our troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete," Bush declared in his speech. There are about 140,000 U.S. forces in Iraq.\nEarlier, speaking with reporters in Tallinn during a joint news conference with Estonia's president, Bush would not debate whether Iraq had fallen into civil war and blamed the increasing bloodshed on a pattern of sectarian violence that he said was set in motion last winter by al-Qaida followers.\n"I'm going to bring this subject up, of course, with Prime Minister Maliki," Bush said. "My questions to him will be: What do you need to do to succeed? What is your strategy in dealing with the sectarian violence?"\nBush said he realized that "no question it's dangerous there, and violent. And the Maliki government is going to have to deal with that violence, and we want to help them do so."\nBush has been coming under increasing pressure, both overseas and at home, to reach out more to other countries, particularly to Syria and Iran to help with a solution in Iraq.\nSuch a recommendation may be among those issued by the Iraq Study Group headed by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton. The group is expected to finish its work next month.\nBush has resisted such talks, and he renewed a warning on Tuesday to both Iran and Syria not to meddle in Iraq. Still, al-Maliki's government itself has made overtures to both countries.\n"As far as Iraq goes, the Iraqi government is a sovereign government capable of handling its own foreign policies and is in the process of doing so," Bush said in Tallinn.\nLater, Bush's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, said that Bush and al-Maliki have "a relationship of candor."\n"A lot of discussion has been about (Bush) pushing Maliki. Maliki has done a lot of pushing himself," Hadley said. "There has been a coordinated effort between the Iraqi government and allied forces to get greater control. ... It has not produced satisfactory progress in a satisfactory timeframe."\nMeanwhile, in Washington, House Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi said Bush must work with Democrats on stopping the violence in Iraq.\n"We want to work in a bipartisan way to settle this," Pelosi said. "If the president persists on the course that he is on, that will be more difficult."\nIn Riga, Bush pressed many of the 26 NATO allies to do more to marshal resources and troops in Afghanistan, particularly in the volatile south.\nBush said the Afghanistan mission -- which has mobilized over 32,000 troops-- is NATO's top operation and defeating Taliban forces "will require the full commitment of our alliance."\n"The commanders on the ground must have the resources and flexibility they need to do their jobs," he said.\nBush met individually with NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer and joined other leaders in attending a working dinner.\nHadley, Bush's national security adviser, said Bush brought up a need for "additional defense capabilities and additional defense spending" in the meeting with the secretary-general and also intended to discuss it at the dinner.
(10/30/06 5:12am)
WASHINGTON -- Republicans on Sunday said a major voter turnout effort would help them stay in power after the Nov. 7 elections, while Democrats claimed momentum as they seek to tap into voter unhappiness over Iraq.\nBoth sides agreed that the war in Iraq was a leading, if not central, issue in the contests to decide control of the House and Senate.\n"This election is becoming more and more a referendum on George Bush, his failed policies both overseas and at home with a rubber stamp Congress," said Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, head of the Senate Democratic campaign committee.\nHis Republican counterpart, Sen. Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina, said Iraq and the broader fight against terrorism were important issues, but "President Bush's name is not on the ballot." Democrats, she said, were trying "to make it a national referendum."\nSchumer and Dole were among the politicians and party leaders who sparred on the Sunday talk shows just nine days before the elections.\nDemocrats need a gain of 15 seats to win control of the 435-member House and six seats to claim the 100-member Senate.\nWith approval slumping for both the war and the president, recent polls show Democrats have their best chance to reclaim the House since the GOP swept them from power in 1994 and a shot at capturing the Senate as well.\nAs the candidates entered their final full week of campaigning, House Democrats worked to emphasize the GOP role in the Iraq war. The party's campaign committee said it would air television commercials criticizing Republicans for supporting the war in about a dozen competitive races in the coming days.\n"Despite a war gone wrong and no plan for victory, politicians like (Rep.) Rob Simmons keep voting to stay the course again and again," says one commercial, airing in Connecticut.\nDemocrats have increased the number of races where they are advertising in recent days, a sign of confidence as the election approaches. In addition to new offensives in Kansas, Kentucky and New Hampshire, officials disclosed plans to run commercials against Republican Rep. Jim Walsh this week in the area around Syracuse, N.Y.\nHouse Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said polls showing a Democratic advantage, especially in the House, "don't mean anything because what we have are 435 individual races all around the country, local candidates running on local issues."\n"If we mobilize all our voters, we'll do well on Election Day," Boehner said.\n"The pundits are looking at this as a national election," said House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill. "This election is district-by-district. It's about members of Congress getting out and talking to their constituents about what they've been able to accomplish."\nKen Mehlman, chairman of the Republican National Committee, sounded a common Republican theme -- that a Democratic-led Congress would mean higher taxes. Democrats accused him of scare tactics.\nMehlman suggested "across-the-board tax increases affecting millions of Americans" if Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel became chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee. The New York lawmaker is now the panel's senior Democrat.\nLast week, Vice President Dick Cheney contended Rangel wanted to undo popular tax cuts enacted during Bush's first term. Cheney's claim was based in part on Rangel's own remark that he could not think of one of Bush's tax cuts that merited renewal.
(10/23/06 2:56am)
WASHINGTON -- The White House is bracing for guerrilla warfare on the homefront politically if Republicans lose control of the House, the Senate or both -- and with it, the president's ability to shape and dominate the national agenda.\nRepublicans are battling to keep control of Congress. But polls and analysts in both parties increasingly suggest Democrats will capture the House and possibly the Senate on Election Day Nov. 7.\nDemocrats need a 15-seat pickup to regain the House and a gain of six seats to claim the Senate.\nEverything could change overnight for President Bush, who has governed for most of the past six years with a Republican Congress and with little support from Democrats.\n"Every session you change the way you do business with the Congress. And you test the mood of the Congress, find out what their appetite will be. But it doesn't change your priorities," the president told ABC News.\nFormer President Clinton had to deal with the Democrats' loss of control of Congress in 1994. But Clinton had something Bush does not: six more years to regain his footing.\nBush has just more than two years left. The loss of either house in voting next month could hasten Bush's descent into a lame-duck presidency.\n"If he loses one house here, President Bush will enter the last two years very wounded," said David Gergen, a former White House adviser who served in the administrations of Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton.\n"He will have the capacity to say no to Democratic legislation, but he won't have the capacity to say yes to his own legislation," said Gergen, who teaches at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government.\nDemocratic victories essentially could block Bush's remaining agenda and usher in a period of intense partisan bickering over nearly every measure to come before Congress.\nLoss of either chamber also could subject his administration to endless congressional inquiries and investigations.\nThe president and chief political strategist Karl Rove last week expressed renewed confidence of retaining both the House and Senate; others are not so upbeat.\n"All of our numbers look pretty bad and there's no question that there's a jet stream in our face," said House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.\nFurthermore, some of Bush's fighting in the trenches is likely to be with fellow Republicans as they seek to find a new standard bearer for 2008 -- and distance themselves from an unpopular war, the unpopular president who waged it and congressional scandals that include inappropriate e-mails to House pages from ex-Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla.\n"There's no question that the Republican coalition is stressed over the way Washington has been handling fiscal matters, the Foley affair, the Iraq war," said GOP consultant Scott Reed. "All of these are coming together at the same time."\nAlready, Republicans are showing divisions on Iraq policy. Fresh skepticism has come from Senate Armed Services Chairman John Warner of Virginia, Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, a longtime Bush family loyalist.\nIf Republicans lose their majorities, it will be that much harder for Bush to hold together already splintering GOP cohesion on Iraq.\nBush has been quoted by journalist Bob Woodward as saying: "I'll stay in Iraq even if the only support I have left is from my wife and my dog." \nA Democratic takeover and Republican defections could make that day seem closer.\nWhile the Senate has been difficult for Bush, even with GOP control, the House for most of his presidency has delivered for him. That could be about to change.\nThe White House traditionally loses seats in midterm congressional races. The most recent exception was 2002, when Bush's party picked up seats.\nMany Democrats see the upcoming elections as a mirror image of 1994, with the parties reversed.\nThen, Republicans rallied behind firebrand Rep. Newt Gingrich of Georgia, announced a "Contract with America" and stormed to victory, seizing both House and Senate from Democrats.\nIt was a huge blow to Clinton, made worse by the lavish and almost-presidential reception Gingrich received around Washington as he was inaugurated as House speaker.\nDoug Schoen, Clinton's pollster then, said those times were bleak, including Clinton's baleful insistence to reporters in early 1995 that "the president is relevant."\nBut Clinton soon figured out how to enhance his relevance and influence, reaching out to Republicans on some of their own issues, such as welfare law overhaul and "talking about the common good," said Schoen. Clinton went on to easily win re-election in 1996.\nBut Schoen said he doubts Bush can do the same: "After 9/11, except for a brief period, he's governed from the right. There's so much bitterness and division, it's going to be tougher for him to do it than perhaps it was for Clinton."\nSome of Bush's sharpest critics would rise to top positions with a Democratic takeover.\nHouse Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., probably would become speaker. Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., a foe of extending Bush tax cuts, would become chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee.\nRep. John Conyers of Michigan, who has sponsored legislation calling for steps that could open the way to Bush's impeachment, would lead the Judiciary Committee.
(05/08/06 12:43am)
WASHINGTON -- America's economy is strong. Or it's in trouble. It just depends on who's talking.\nTrying to retool his message and right his listing presidency, President Bush is speaking out more frequently and forcefully on the economy.\nIt's in good shape right now, his advisers say, and they want him to take more credit for it.\nThe latest reports show healthy increases in economic growth, job creation, home ownership, retail sales and consumer spending. The Dow Jones Industrial Average is at a six-year high.\n"This economy is powerful, productive and prosperous and we intend to keep it that way," Bush says.\nAcross town, Democrats are peddling a different message: soaring gasoline and health care costs are burdening ordinary people; mortgage costs and credit card rates are on the rise; jobs are threatened by outsourcing.\nAs for those tax cuts treasured by Bush, Democrats argue they have benefited mainly the wealthy.\n"There's no sharing in the prosperity that the president likes to herald," House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California said.\nFriday's unemployment report, showing the jobless rate holding steady at 4.7 percent with a lower-than-expected job-creation rate of 138,000 in April, was seized by both sides to buttress their great-economy/troubled-economy arguments.\nEach party accuses the other of "cherry picking" statistics to bolster its case.\nNearly every major national issue -- Iraq, energy policy, immigration -- already is politically polarized. Thus it's no surprise the economy is, too.\nSo much so that Republicans and Democrats depict it in terms that are 180 degrees apart.\n"One reason the president can't get a lot of traction when talking about the good economy is because it's not good for everyone," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com.\n"If you're from a wealthier household, the economy is performing very well. You have a job, your income is rising, your net worth is about as strong as it's ever been," Zandi said.\n"If you're a lower or middle-income household, you're struggling. Your incomes aren't rising, certainly not as fast as inflation, so your standard of living is falling. You have debt and interest rates are rising," Zandi said.\nFormer Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, the Democratic nominee for vice president in 2004 and a 2008 presidential prospect, talks about "two Americas" -- one for the poor, one for the rich. Many economists suggest parallel economies exist as well.\nSince former budget director Joshua Bolten took over as Bush's chief of staff late last month, the president and his lieutenants have been busy emphasizing good economic news.\nBush called a Rose Garden news conference to trumpet the stronger-than-expected 4.8 percent economic growth for the January-March period. He welcomed Friday's jobs report as more good news. He credits tax cuts passed during his first term for putting $880 billion into the hands of consumers and businesses and fueling a five-year recovery.\nWhile the administration acknowledges that rising energy prices pose a potential drag, officials insist they are moving to ease the pain at the pump.\nBush relaxed environmental standards on gasoline additives; called for a temporary halt in filling the nation's emergency petroleum reserve; and pushed lawmakers to act to encourage alternative energy supplies. He also ordered a federal investigation into price gouging, although said he has seen no evidence of it.\nEven so, a new AP-Ipsos poll shows public approval of Bush's handling of gas prices at just 23 percent.\nSenate Republicans jumped into the act by proposing to send out $100 checks to help defray higher pump prices. That backfired and was widely scorned. It was withdrawn.\nDemocrats have proposed suspending the federal tax on gasoline, which amounts to 18.4 cents a gallon. That proposal hasn't generated much enthusiasm, either.\nTrying to benefit from Bush's misfortunes, Democrats are working hard to stamp high oil prices as a proxy for the overall economy.\n"If economists have their set of leading economic indicators, so do ordinary citizens. And for ordinary citizens, these are the cost of gas and the cost of health care," said Mark Mellman, a Democratic pollster and consultant. "When they see health care costs high and gasoline prices through the roof, they think the economy is in trouble."\nLamented GOP conservative consultant Greg Mueller: "We've let the good economy become a discussion about gas prices."\nEconomists are concerned that high gasoline prices eventually will take a toll on overall consumer spending. But so far, there have been few signs of a weakening economy.\n"The economy's doing fine. We just don't know what's going to happen next," said David Wyss, chief economist at Standard and Poor's in New York.\nRising gasoline prices, he said, serve as a constant reminder of potential dangers ahead.\n"If I was a Republican, I'd be running a little scared. Either way, you're going to get blamed -- blamed for Iraq, blamed for oil prices which are connected to Iraq in people's minds," Wyss said. "People always want to blame someone else when things go wrong and take credit with things go right"
(10/07/05 5:10am)
WASHINGTON -- President Bush, trying to reverse a slide in public support for the war in Iraq, said Thursday that Islamic radicals are seeking to "enslave whole nations and intimidate the world," calling that a prime reason not to cut and run in Iraq.\n"There's always a temptation in the middle of a long struggle to seek the quiet life, to escape the duties and problems of the world and to hope the enemy grows weary of fanaticism and tired of murder," he said, seeking to address calls from anti-war activists for a U.S. troop withdrawal.\nIn a speech before the National Endowment for Democracy, Bush said Islamic militants have made Iraq their main front in a war against civilized society.\n"The militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region and establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia," Bush said.\nThe president has been stepping up his defense of his Iraq policy in the face of declining public support for the war and a crucial test in Iraq with the Oct. 15 constitutional referendum.\nSen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, said the speech was "one he should've made a few years ago. I'm glad he made it now."\n"I've been saying for a long time the president needs to better define this war," Santorum said.\nBush likened the ideology of Islamic militants to communism. He said they are being "aided by elements of the Arab news media that incites hatred and anti-Semitism."\n"Against such an enemy, there's only one effective response: We never back down, never give in and never accept anything less than complete victory," Bush declared.\nHe spoke as recent polls show declining American support for the war that has thus far claimed more than 1,940 members of the U.S. military. His Iraq policy faces a crucial test in Iraq's Oct. 15 referendum on a new constitution, a vote that Bush has said terrorists will try to derail.\n"We are facing a radical ideology with immeasurable objectives to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world," Bush said.\nBush said the terrorists are aided by corrupt charities that direct money to terrorist activities and nations, such as Syria and Iran, calling them "allies of convenience" that back terrorists.\nCountering claims that the U.S. military presence in Iraq is fueling radicalism, Bush noted American troops were not there Sept. 11, 2001. He said Russia did not support the military action in Iraq, yet a terrorist attack in Beslan, Russia, left more than 300 schoolchildren dead in 2004.\n"The terrorists regard Iraq as the central front in the war against humanity. And we must recognize Iraq as the central front in our war on terror," he said.\n"Our commitment is clear -- we will not relent until the organized international terror networks are exposed and broken and their leaders held to account for their acts of murder," Bush said.\nThe president said no one should underestimate the difficulties ahead, nor should anyone be pessimistic about U.S. efforts to battle terrorism.\n"With every random bombing, and with every funeral of a child, it becomes more clear that the extremists are not patriots, or resistance fighters," Bush said. "They are murderers at war with the Iraqi people themselves."\nBush vowed not to retreat from Iraq or from the broader war on terrorism. \n"We will keep our nerve and we will win that victory," he said.
(10/05/05 4:36am)
WASHINGTON -- President Bush pushed back against suggestions by some skeptical Republicans that Harriet Miers was not conservative enough, insisting on Tuesday that his nominee to the Supreme Court shares his strict-constructionist views.\n"I know her heart," Bush told a Rose Garden news conference. "Her philosophy won't change."\nAs his White House counsel made the rounds of Senate offices, Bush reached out to his conservative supporters with words of reassurance.\n"I hope they're listening," said the president as he worked to appease conservatives without giving new ammunition to Democrats.\nSome commentators and activists have expressed open disappointment with Bush's selection of Miers, citing her lack of a judicial track record and complaining that Bush had passed over more prominent, proven conservatives.\nBush suggested he would not release documents relating to her work at the White House, saying it was "important that we maintain executive privilege," even as Democrats demanded more information on her role in administration decisions. He urged Democrats to give her a chance to explain her views of the law and the Constitution at her confirmation hearing.\nIn welcome news to the White House, Miers won the unqualified support of one of the Senate's top conservatives, Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.\n"A lot of my fellow conservatives are concerned, but they don't know her as I do," said Hatch, a former chairman of the Judiciary Committee. "She's going to basically do what the president thinks she should and that is be a strict constructionist."\nThe term refers to justices who believe their role is to decide cases based on a close reading of the Constitution rather than ranging more widely in interpretation.\nSen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., a strong abortion foe, said he was yet to be convinced. "I am not yet confident that Ms. Miers has a proven track record," Brownback said.\nIn his 55-minute news conference, Bush repeatedly implied that conservatives should trust his judgment in picking Miers to succeed the retiring Sandra Day O'Connor, who often was the swing vote on divisive social issues including abortion.\nAsked point blank if Miers was the most qualified person he could find in the country for the high court, Bush said, "Yes, otherwise I would not have put her on."\nHis father, George H.W. Bush, made a similar claim about Clarence Thomas -- and was derided for it -- while defending his controversial Supreme Court pick in 1991. Thomas was confirmed 52-48.\nPressed on whether he and Miers had ever discussed the court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion, Bush said: "Not to my recollection. ... " He reiterated his own opposition to abortion, but said he had not asked any judicial candidates about the subject.\nDismissing charges of cronyism, Bush said: "I picked the best person I could find. People know we're close." Bush has known Miers for more than 10 years, first as his personal lawyer and most recently as White House counsel.\nBush asked the Senate to act by Thanksgiving.\nHe said any request for White House documents relating to Miers' work would be a "distraction." The Democratic National Committee, meanwhile, said information was needed on Miers' role in forming policies and decisions, including U.S. treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and in Iraq.\nDemocrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee were expected to make a specific request for documents soon.\n"She's a Bush loyalist, with little public record," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass. "The president should refrain from invoking executive privilege and give the American people a full and fair look at (her) record."\nBush voiced concern that many Democrats would reflexively oppose Miers, as many had voted against the confirmation of John Roberts as chief justice despite the broad acclaim he enjoyed in the legal community.
(09/14/05 4:57am)
WASHINGTON -- President Bush, for the first time, took responsibility Tuesday for federal government mistakes in dealing with Hurricane Katrina and suggested the calamity raised broader questions about the government's ability to handle both natural disasters and terror attacks.\n"Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all levels of government," Bush said at a joint White House news conference with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani.\n"And to the extent that the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility. I want to know what went right and what went wrong," Bush said.\nFacing sharp criticism and the lowest approval ratings of his presidency, Bush scheduled a speech to the nation from Louisiana for Thursday evening. It will be his fourth trip to the devastated Gulf Coast since the storm struck two weeks ago.\nIt was the closest Bush has come to publicly faulting any federal officials involved in the hurricane response, which has been widely criticized as disjointed and slow. Some federal officials have sought to blame state and local officials for being unprepared to cope with the disaster.\nSen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., welcomed Bush's conciliatory remarks. "Accountability at every level is critical, and leadership begins at the top," she said.\nOther Democrats were less charitable.\n"The season has come for Americans to look homeward ... instead of continuing to spend billions of dollars in Iraq," said Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va.\nAnd Louisiana's Democratic governor, Kathleen Blanco, accused the Federal Emergency Management Agency of moving too slowly in recovering the bodies. The dead "deserve more respect than they have received," she said at state police headquarters in Baton Rouge.\nMeanwhile, R. David Paulison, in his first full day on the job as acting FEMA director, told reporters in Washington the government would step up its efforts to find additional permanent housing for the tens of thousands of Hurricane Katrina survivors now residing in shelters.\n"We're going to get those people out of the shelters, and we're going to move and get them the help they need," Paulison said.\nBush selected Paulison to replace Michael Brown, who resigned Monday after being recalled as the top onsite disaster-relief coordinator. Brown, a Republican lawyer with little previous disaster-management experience, drew fierce criticism for his handling of the crisis.\nPaulison, a career firefighter with 30 years of rescue experience, said he was busy "getting brought up to speed." Bush promised him in a Monday night phone call that he would have "the full support of the federal government," Paulison said.\nThe storm displaced one million people, destroyed large areas of cities and communities and heavily damaged roads, bridges, canals and oil and natural gas facilities.\nBush's acceptance of responsibility came in response to a reporter's question on whether the United States was capable of handling another terrorist attack, given its halting and widely criticized response to Katrina.\n"That's a very important question," Bush said. "And it's in our national interest that we find out exactly what went on -- so that we can better respond."\n"I'm not going to defend the process going in, but I am going to defend the people who are on the front line of saving lives," he added. "I also want people in America to understand how hard people are working to save lives down there in not only New Orleans, but surrounding parishes and along the Gulf Coast"
(04/12/05 4:41am)
CRAWFORD, Texas -- President Bush told Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon Monday he must not allow further West Bank settlement growth and said Israeli and Palestinian doubts about each other were hampering peace prospects.\nIn response, Sharon said Israel would abide by the internationally negotiated "road map" peace plan, which calls for a settlement freeze, but would keep some large Jewish population blocs in the West Bank under its control.\nAt a joint news conference on Bush's ranch, both leaders sounded pessimistic about near-term prospects for peace.\nSharon said Israel would not move forward on the road map until Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas did more to disarm militant groups and brought about "a full cessation of terror, hostilities and incitement."\n"We will continue with the negotiations only after Palestinians agree to stop the terror," Sharon said.\nBush cited "a lack of confidence in the region. I can understand that. There's been a lot of death. A lot of innocent people have lost their lives. And there's just not a lot of confidence on either side."\nBut if Israel's withdrawal from Gaza comes off successfully, then, "I think we'll have a different frame of mind" more conducive to pursuing peace, Bush said. "To me, that's where the attention of the world ought to be: on Gaza."\nIsrael is to quit all 21 Gaza settlements and four more in the West Bank this summer. The operation will remove about 9,000 Israelis from their homes.\nIsraeli officials have become increasingly worried about violence in the West Bank.\nBush praised Sharon's "courageous initiative to disengage from Gaza and part of the West Bank" and urged Palestinian leaders to accept the prime minister's offer to coordinate the withdrawal.\nAt the same time, Bush said he had not budged in his opposition to settlement expansion.\n"I've been very clear. Israel has an obligation under the road map. That's no expansion of settlements," Bush said.\nIn Ramallah on the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority urged Sharon to heed Bush's words.\n"I believe this is the key to everything," Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press. "Failure to adhere to the president's call to stop all settlement activity literally means we will not be able to talk about the two-state solution, vision or no vision."\nThe United States has objected to an Israeli plan to add 3,650 homes to the West Bank's largest settlement, Maaleh Adumim. The plan would cut off Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank.\nIsrael insists it has the right to continue expanding this and several other major Jewish enclaves established on formerly Arab-controlled lands after the 1967 Mideast War.\nDespite his opposition to new settlement activity, Bush in a show of support for Sharon's leadership repeated a statement he first made last April that it is unrealistic to expect Israel to pull back to the borders that existed before the 1967 war.\nBush cited "new realities on the ground."\nBush had praise for the Palestinian leadership, but also made clear more must be done. "We want to continue to work with them on consolidating security forces," he said.\nAbbas will meet with Bush in Washington next month.\nStanding under bright sunshine near a large cactus, the ground near them covered with bluebonnet flowers, Bush and Sharon talked outside a new one-story building that Bush uses as an office on his 1,700-acre ranch. Afterward, Bush took Sharon on a tour of his ranch and they had lunch.\nSharon, who owns a farm in Israel, invited Bush to visit his spread. "It's something that I look forward to doing," Bush said.\nSharon, speaking later with reporters before boarding his plane to fly to Washington, said the settlements Israel chooses to hold on to "will be part of Israel."\n"I have never identified which settlement blocs we intend to keep because we don't know how things will develop," he added.\nHe denied a rift with Bush because of their differences over settlements. "In fact, I hope those outside could hear the peals of laughter coming out of the building," he said.\nWhite House spokesman Scott McClellan said that at their lunch, Bush and Sharon turned to other subjects, including European diplomatic efforts to persuade Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions.\nThe "road map" peace plan envisions an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel but has been frozen since its launch in June 2003 amid violations by both sides.\nSharon wants Palestinian leaders to guarantee that Israelis will not come under fire during settlement evacuation.\nOn Saturday, Israeli troops shot and killed three teenagers in disputed circumstances in the Gaza Strip, shattering weeks of calm and raising tensions. In response, Palestinian militants fired at least 21 mortar rounds at Jewish settlements there, the army said.
(03/01/05 4:33am)
WASHINGTON -- In a potential strategy shift, the Bush administration is considering joining Europe in offering Iran economic incentives in exchange for abandoning its nuclear fuel program, the White House said Monday.\nIn the past, the administration had opposed any rewards for Tehran's cooperation. But President Bush is rethinking the issue after his trip last week to Europe, suggested White House spokesman Scott McClellan.\nEuropean leaders urged Bush to join them in offering economic incentives -- including possible eventual membership for Iran in the World Trade Organization -- on the grounds that a united front would be more effective than a continuing U.S.-Europe split over how to persuade Iran to drop its nuclear ambitions.\n"There was a lot of discussion about the way forward. The president is thinking through some of the ideas that were discussed. We want to look at how we can be the most helpful in moving the process forward," McClellan said.\nA British official said Monday that Britain, France and Germany have discussed supplying Iran with commercial aircraft and aircraft spare parts as incentives, in addition to membership in the WTO.\nThe issue of Iran came up repeatedly during Bush's five day trip to Europe, including at separate meetings between the president and French President Jacques Chirac, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and Russian President Vladimir Putin.\nThe tactics of incentives had been flatly rejected by the administration ahead of the European trip.\nBush in the past has said that Tehran should not be rewarded for violating terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Bush has also protested Iran's support of militant groups in Israel like Hezbollah.\nAs the trip progressed, Bush seemed to exhibit more flexibility on the topic of incentives.\nMcClellan told a White House briefing that Bush met with members of his national security team Friday, the day after he returned from Europe, to discuss the European proposals to offer incentives.\n"The president spent a good portion of his time in Europe talking to our European friends about Iran and listening to their ideas. We all share the same goal of making sure Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon. The president was very much in a listening mode last week," McClellan said.\nThe spokesman said the president supported diplomatic efforts by Britain, France and Germany to get Iran to abandon any nuclear weapons ambitions. European leaders have urged the United States to join the talks, but there was little indication that the administration was willing to go that far.\nState Department deputy spokesman Adam Ereli said, "The question of us sitting with Iran is not necessarily something that's going to contribute to moving this process forward."\nMcClellan repeated U.S. concerns about a nuclear fuel agreement between Iran and Russia designed to help Iran fire up its first nuclear reactor by mid-2006.\nIran insists its nuclear program is strictly designed to produce electrical power.\n"We have expressed our long-standing concerns about Iran seeking to develop a nuclear weapon under the cover of a civilian nuclear power program," McClellan said.\nHe said Russia has insisted that the agreement contains enough safeguards to prevent nuclear materials from being upgraded to weapons quality.\n"The Russians previously assured us that no fuel would be delivered until Iran resolves the questions regarding compliance with its international obligations and that any spent fuel must be returned to Russia," McClellan said.\nBush and European leaders agreed that Iran much not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons. They were still struggling for common ground over how to achieve that goal.
(02/25/05 4:46am)
BRATISLAVA, Slovakia -- President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed Thursday on new efforts to keep nuclear arms out of dangerous hands, but their sharp differences over Russian backsliding on democracy spilled into an open and sometimes prickly exchange.\nSeeking common ground with a former Cold War rival that is now a key anti-terror partner, Buosh said the two leaders stressed agreements over differences.\nBut U.S. concerns about a series of actions by Putin that are seen as solidifying central power and quashing dissent dominated the leaders' side-by-side appearance.\nBush said he talked with Putin at length of his "concerns about Russia's commitment in fulfilling these universal principles" common to all democracies -- such as the rule of law, protection of minorities and viable political debate.\n"All I can tell you is he said, 'Yes meant yes,' when we talked about values that we share," Bush said.\nPutin said, "Russia has made its choice in favor of democracy."\n"This is our final choice and we have no way back. There can be no return to what we used to have," Putin said. He added: "We are not going to make up, to invent any kind of special Russian democracy."\nDespite those assurances, Putin compared his move to end direct popular election of regional governors to the American Electoral College process of electing presidents. \n"It's not considered undemocratic, is it?" Putin said.\nAnd he suggested that Russians who oppose his actions, such as a campaign against the Yukos oil company and shut down of independent media outlets, can sway public opinion because they "are richer than those who are in favor." "We often do not pay the attention to that," he said.\nBush was challenged as well, fielding questions from Russian journalists doubting American democracy.\n"I'm perfectly comfortable in telling you, our country is one that safeguards human rights and human dignity, and we resolve our disputes in a peaceful way," Bush said sharply.\nRussian officials dislike what they see as U.S. meddling in their internal affairs and in former Soviet republics where Moscow's influence is waning as some new leaders look westward.\nBut just as Bush wants to protect a vital partnership on security issues, Putin walks a careful line because of his desire not to harm Russia's chances of membership in the World Trade Organization.\nTurning to global concerns, Bush and Putin said they were in unison on the importance of stopping suspected nuclear weapons programs in North Korea and Iran. They remained in disagreement over Russian arms sales to Syria, which the United States wants halted, said a senior administration official.\n"We agreed that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon. I appreciate Vladimir's understanding on that," Bush said. "We agreed that North Korea should not have a nuclear weapon."\nPutin said, "We share a common opinion in this regard and we are taking a similar approach: We should put an end to the proliferation of missiles and missile technology. The proliferation of such weapons is not in the interest specific of countries or in the international community in general."\nThe leaders met for nearly three hours -- over an hour alone with only translators -- at a medieval castle overlooking the snow-covered capital and the Danube River. \n"The discussions never got heated," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.\nA key product of the talks were agreements designed to counter the spread of both conventional and nuclear weapons.\nBush and Putin agreed to upgrade security at Russia's nuclear plants and weapons stockpiles; provide new procedures for responding to possible terrorist attacks; and set up a program to keep nuclear fuel from being diverted to use in nuclear weapons.\n"We agreed to accelerate our work to protect nuclear weapons and materials both in our two nations and around the world," Bush said.
(02/24/05 4:59am)
MAINZ, Germany -- President Bush and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder insisted Wednesday that Iran must not have nuclear weapons, but remained divided on how to coax Tehran into giving up its suspected ambitions for such an arsenal.\n"It's vital that the Iranians hear the world speak with one voice that they shouldn't have a nuclear weapon," Bush said at a news conference with the German leader.\nBoth sought to play down the differences between the United States and Europe.\n"We absolutely agree that Iran must say 'no' to any kind of nuclear weapon," Schroeder said.\nBush made his nine-hour stop here during a trip to Belgium, Germany and Slovakia, where the president meets Thursday with Russian President Vladimir Putin.\nSchroeder wants Bush to more actively engage with talks led by Germany, France and Britain that offer incentives to Tehran, such as membership in the World Trade Organization, in return for dropping its uranium enrichment program.\n"There needs to be movement on both sides," Schroeder said.\nBush, in contrast, backs the European diplomacy but frowns on the idea of rewarding Iran for breaking the nonproliferation treaty that prohibits it from making nuclear fuel or for sponsoring terrorist groups in Israel such as Hezbollah.\n"We will work with them to convince the mullahs that they need to give up their nuclear ambitions," Bush said of the Europeans.\nBut he added: "The reason we're having these discussions is because they were caught enriching uranium after they had signed a treaty saying they wouldn't enrich uranium. ... They're the party that needs to be held to account, not any of us."\nFrom Tehran, Iranian President Mohammad Khatami said Iran will not permanently halt a nuclear program it insists is designed only for peaceful purposes.\n"Neither my government nor any other (Iranian) government can give up the definite right of the Iranian nation to have peaceful nuclear technology," Khatami said. "We have to give objective guarantees to the (European) gentlemen that we won't divert from the peaceful path. They must also ... give objective guarantees that our rights and security will be protected."\nAlso Wednesday, Bush addressed about 3,000 U.S. troops at Wiesbaden Air Base in Germany, many of whom had just returned from Iraq. And he toured a museum dedicated to Mainz native Johannes Gutenberg, inventor of the printing press, with Schroeder and their wives.\nAt a round-table meeting with young Germans, Bush emphasized the close relationship he and Schroeder have with the Russian leader, who is under criticism from the West for rolling back some democratic reforms.\n"I expressed some concerns at the European Union yesterday about some of the decisions such as freedom of the press that our mutual friend has made," Bush said. "I look forward to talking with him about his decision-making process"
(02/23/05 4:02am)
BRUSSELS, Belgium -- President Bush said Tuesday that it is "simply ridiculous" to assume the United States has plans to attack Iran over its alleged nuclear weapons program.\n"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. Having said that, all options are on the table," Bush said after discussing the issue with European allies.\nBush used his bluntest language yet to give assurance to Iran's leaders. Last week, in a series of pre-trip interviews with European journalists, he also tried to dispel talk of a military attack, an issue that has been raised repeatedly since the United States went to war with Iraq primarily over its alleged weapons of mass destruction. No such weapons have been found in Iraq.\nOn Iran, Bush has walked a careful line in expressing support for a European-led approach offering Iran technological, financial and political support in return for scrapping its uranium enrichment program.\n"It's in our interests for them not to have a nuclear weapon," Bush said in a news conference with European Union leaders.\nThe United States has refused to get involved in the bargaining with Tehran or to make commitments about incentives, insisting that Tehran abandon its program.\nAlso on Tuesday, Bush hailed NATO's modest pledge to help train security forces in Iraq, saying "every contribution helps."\n"The NATO training mission is an important mission because, after all, the success of Iraq depends upon the capacity and the willingness of the Iraqis to defend their own selves against terrorists," he said during an earlier news conference at NATO headquarters.\nBush also made clear his intention to challenge Russian President Vladimir Putin on recent actions, including restrictions on the press and Moscow's treatment of neighboring Baltic countries, that U.S. officials view as harmful to democracy there. The two leaders meet Thursday in Slovakia.\n"A constructive relationship allows me to remind him that I believe Russia is a European country, and European countries embrace those very same values that America embraces," Bush said. "I'm confident that can be done in a cordial way."\nPutin defended his approach.\n"Russia chose democracy 14 years ago not to please anyone, but for its own sake, for the sake of the nation and its citizens," Putin said. "Naturally, basic principles and institutions of democracy must be adapted to today's realities of Russian life, to our traditions and history."\nBush also reiterated U.S. opposition to Europe's plans to lift its 15-year arms embargo against China.\n"There is deep concern in our country that a transfer of weapons will be a transfer of technology, that it will change the balance of relations between China and Taiwan," Bush said.\nHe said he understands that the Europeans are working on a way to address U.S. worries about allowing China to modernize its military with arms and communications, intelligence and surveillance equipment that would give Beijing an edge over Taiwan.\n"They know the Congress is concerned," Bush said. "And so they'll try to develop a plan that will ease concerns. Now, whether they can or not, we'll see."\nBut French President Jacques Chirac, while stressing that security guarantees could be worked out, indicated that Europe remains steadfast in its desire to end the ban. \n"We intend to lift the last obstacles in our relations (with China), and this within a spirit of responsibility," he said.
(02/22/05 4:29am)
BRUSSELS, Belgium -- President Bush and French President Jacques Chirac said Monday they had patched up their differences over Iraq as Bush appealed for European unity in helping to spread democracy across the Middle East.\nAt the same time, Bush prodded Russia to reverse a crackdown on political dissent, suggesting Moscow's efforts to join the World Trade Organization could hinge on it. He said he would press the point when he meets with Russian President Vladimir Putin later in the week.\n"I intend to remind him that if his interests lie West, that we share values and that those values are important," Bush said. "They're not only important for people who live within Russia, they're important to have good relations with the West."\nHe also demanded that Iran end its nuclear ambitions and told Syria to get out of Lebanon.\nOn the first full day of Bush's fence-mending tour of Europe, Bush and Chirac said they were committed to restoring good relations despite their disagreement over the war in Iraq.\n"I'm looking for a good cowboy," Bush joked when a French reporter asked him whether relations had improved to the point where the U.S. president would be inviting Chirac to the U.S. president's ranch in Texas.\nChirac said that U.S.-French relations have been "excellent for over 200 years now." Chirac added, "That doesn't necessarily mean we agree on everything at every time." The two leaders made the comments before they sat down to dinner.\nThe two leaders issued a joint statement calling for passage of a U.N. resolution insisting that Syria withdraw its troops from Lebanon and calling for a full investigation into the assassination of Lebanon's former prime minister. They cited Lebanon, along with peacekeeping efforts in Afghanistan, as examples of how they were working together.\nIn a speech to the European people, Bush did not rule out using military force in Iran, saying all options remain on the table. But, addressing widespread concerns in Europe that Iran is the next U.S. target after Iraq, Bush said, "Iran is ... different from Iraq. We're in the early stages of diplomacy."\nBush's speech on a five-day trip to improve relations with traditional U.S. allies was aimed at both U.S. and European audiences. "In a new century, the alliance of America and Europe is the main pillar of our security," he said.\nBut not all of Bush's speech was conciliatory. He had pointed criticism for Russia three days ahead of his meeting with Putin in Slovakia. Referring to Putin's recent steps to consolidate power, roll back democratic reforms and curb press and political freedoms, Bush said:\n"We must always remind Russia that our alliance stands for a free press, a vital opposition, the sharing of power and the rule of law. The United States should place democratic reform at the heart of their dialogue with Russia." \nLater, when a reporter asked Bush if U.S. support for Russia's bid to join the World Trade Organization -- the Geneva-based organization that sets and enforces rules for world trade -- might depend on Russia's renewing its commitment to democracy, Bush suggested it might be a factor.\n"Part of the WTO requirements are that there be an open market, that there be a liberal economy," Bush said.
(10/18/04 4:08am)
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- With the televised debates behind them, President George W. Bush and Sen. John Kerry have little opportunity further to shape the presidential race except by waging an intense effort in the home stretch aimed at getting out the vote.\nVoters have a pretty good idea now what Bush and Kerry are all about. There isn't much room for either one to "define" his opponent or himself.\nAt this point, getting out the vote is equally -- if not more -- important than winning over the dwindling number of undecided voters, strategists in both parties agree.\nWith just two weeks to go to the election, polls showed Bush and Kerry in a dead heat -- back where they were at the beginning of the summer before the party conventions.\n"If anything, there's a little tail wind for Kerry coming out of the debates," said pollster Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center. "Just as there was a little tail wind for Bush in August. But when would you rather have a little tail wind, in August or in mid-October?"\nKohut said how successful each side is in getting out its vote "is one of the most important elements in the end game. I think there is a fair number of votes still up for grabs. And some people aren't going to get any real convictions until we get right up to Election Day."\nBoth the Democrats and the Republicans, along with well-financed activist groups on both the left and the right, have spent months pouring resources into registering voters after the near deadlock of the 2000 presidential race and polls showing an extremely tight race again this year.\nThere has been an avalanche of new voter registrations at election boards across the nation. Now, with most registration deadlines passed, political activists for both candidates are pounding the pavement to ensure voters get to polling places on Nov. 2.\nParticular efforts are being directed at minorities, with a big effort on the fast-growing bloc of Hispanic voters.\nMost indications are that voter turnout will be high, given the high viewership of the debates and polls showing a larger-than-usual number of voters saying they're following the campaign closely.\nTurnout could mean the difference between victory and defeat in closely contested states.\nDemocrats are turning widespread concern about the war in Iraq and worry over the economy into voter recruitment lures. Meanwhile, Republicans are investing far more in get-out-the-vote drives than ever before, with an assist from religious and socially conservative advocacy groups.\nDespite huge amounts spent by both sides on negative advertising, the three presidential and one vice presidential debates allowed Americans to see the candidates as they are, up-close and unvarnished, supplanting campaign-generated caricatures.\n"These debates have essentially undone what amounts to $100 million in negative attacks," said Kerry senior strategist Mike Donilon.\nSince the nation already had a pretty good measure of Bush, Kerry benefited the most from the debates that showed him more than holding his own with the president, polls suggest.\nMarc Racicot, Bush's campaign chairman, said Americans now have before them "the central issue of the campaign: who are these two people, what will they bring to the office?"\nCampaigning in a dwindling number of battleground states, both Bush and Kerry will try to energize their political base with red-meat attacks, even as they keep reaching out for undecided voters.
(10/06/04 5:47am)
CLEVELAND -- Sen. John Edwards accused the Bush administration Tuesday night of bungling the War in Iraq and presiding over a historic loss of jobs. "Your facts are just wrong," Vice President Dick Cheney shot back in a crackling campaign debate.\nIn a clash at close quarters, Edwards accused Cheney of "not being straight" with the American people about the war. He said U.S. casualties are rising monthly and the United States is bearing 90 percent of the cost and suffering 90 percent of the dead and wounded.\nCheney promptly challenged those figures, saying the Iraqi security forces had taken nearly half of the casualties.\n"For you to demean their sacrifice is beyond the pale," he said to Edwards, seated a few feet away.\n"Oh, I'm not," Edwards protested before the vice president cut him off.\nThe debate format encouraged give-and-take, and neither the vice president nor Sen. John Kerry's running mate shrunk from the task.\n"Frankly, senator, you have a record that's not very distinguished," Cheney said to the North Carolina lawmaker after accusing him of a pattern of absences in the Senate during his one term.\nEdwards summed up his points like the former trial lawyer he is.
(04/12/04 6:52am)
TOKYO -- Vice President Dick Cheney was pledging U.S. support to Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi in pressing ahead with plans to double Japan's noncombat forces in Iraq despite the furor over the abduction of three citizens, U.S. officials said Sunday.\nThe kidnapping of the Japanese civilians by Iraqi militants cast a pall over Cheney's visit to Japan, his first stop on a week-long trip to Asia that is also taking the vice president to China and South Korea.\nCheney attended Easter services with his wife, Lynne, at a nondenominational English-speaking Protestant church in Tokyo.\nAfter a stop at the U.S. Embassy early Monday, Cheney headed for a meeting with Koizumi and other officials, with the kidnappings expected to come up. "I want to thank all of you on behalf of the United States for what you do day in and day out," Cheney told embassy workers.\nThe captors originally said they would kill the three captives if Japan did not pull its forces out by Sunday. Later, the kidnappers indicated they had decided to release their captives.\nBy early Sunday afternoon in Tokyo, a senior government official said there was still no word of a release. Japan has refused to pull out its troops, but the nation is deeply divided on its presence in Iraq.\nCheney was "keeping in close touch with the White House and Bush administration officials, monitoring the developments in Iraq and elsewhere," spokesman Kevin Kellems said.\nThe vice president is asking Japan and South Korea, which both have troops in Iraq, to stay the course.\nMeanwhile, a report by the Arab TV station Al-Arabiya insurgents kidnapped seven Chinese north of Fallujah, Iraq Sunday evening, citing Chinese diplomatic sources, could further complicate Cheney's trip.\nCheney was to be in Beijing Tuesday. U.S. officials said they had no information on the report, and that Iraq already was expected to be high on Cheney's agenda in China.\nJapan has about 530 ground troops in the southern Iraqi city of Samawah, part of a total planned deployment of 1,100 soldiers for humanitarian and other reconstruction tasks.