Katie Couric, Hillary Clinton Interview Transcript (10-6-09)

Complete transcript. Excerpt below:

Katie Couric: Secretary Clinton, let me ask you about the decision that President Obama facing. He has a critical decision to make about the road ahead in Afghanistan. How important is this in terms of not only the immediate ramifications, but for U.S. policy long term, U.S. foreign policy.

Hillary Clinton: Katie, that's, I think, one of the best ways to pose this. Because, you're right, the President is going through a very deliberative process, as he said he would. Back in Spring, when we took the policy that we inherited and-- tried to stabilize. He changed commanders. He-- agreed to add more troops. But he said, "We want to get through the Afghan election, and then we will take stock of where we are." Which is what we're doing. And I think it's an important process-- for him to be able to make the ultimate decision. But you can't look at it-- as a standalone-- assessment. It has to be put into the regional context and the historical context. There isn't any doubt, in my mind, that-- this region of the world, what is often referred to as the Afghanistan/Pakistan region, but of course, it's embedded in a region that includes Iran, a number of countries-- to the north. Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, of course, India. Is one of the most critical areas for our long term security.

Clinton: Many people view what is happening in Afghanistan and Pakistan as having ramicat-- ramifications-- far beyond-- what this initial decision might-- suggest. And I think the President is right to say, let's look at how we got to where we are historically. What we can do to-- help stabilize Afghanistan. Accomplish our core goal of-- disrupting, dismantling-- and defeating Al Qaeda. Take-- a very close look at what we need to do to deal with the Taliban, which is-- indigenous phenomenon, as well as associated with Al Qaeda. And work with a Pakistanis who are now in a fight against those who threaten them.

Clinton: While at the same time realizing that there's a lot of other moving parts to this. And the United States, to some extent, has to acknowledge, being among the creators of the problem we are now dealing with. It seemed like a great idea, back in the '80s to-- embolden-- and train and equip-- Taliban, mujahidin, jihadists against the Soviet Union, which had invaded Afghanistan. And with our help, and with the Pakistani support-- this group-- including, at that time, Bin Laden, defeated the Soviet Union. Drove them out of Afghanistan, eventually. Saw the fall of the government that they had installed. And the rest we know. They eventually took over. But when we accomplished our primary mission of seeing the Soviet Union thrown out of Afghanistan, we withdrew. And we left the problems of a well-equipped, fundamentalist, ideological and religious group that had been battle hardened to the Afghans and the Pakistanis.

So, I think it's understandable that people are saying, sort of, "Well, what's your real commitment? What are you trying to accomplish? Do you understand the historical context and the regional geostrategic context?" So, I think it's important to pose it as you do. Let's look at it in the broader question. It's not about do we put more troops in or not? Do we do this on economic development or not? You have to look at it in that broader context.

Couric: Well, what are the long term ramifications for U.S. foreign policy?

Clinton: I think several. First of all-- Al Qaeda is degraded, to some extent, but it is still alive and well. We just saw that with the arrest last week of-- the terrorist plot where-- Zazi had been trained in a camp run by Al Qaeda, in Pakistan. Pakistan has now realized that their-- stability and some would argue survivability, but certainly stability-- in maintaining control over their territory, means they've got to take the fight to the Taliban. Some of whom are allied with Al Qaeda. We know that the Taliban is-- regrouping and showing momentum in Afghanistan. And what their ultimate goals are may not be clear, but certainly if they were able to control great swaths of Afghanistan or even eventually take Afghanistan back over, there is every reason to believe they would once again provide the support and the haven that jihadist terrorists are seeking-- and that Al Qaeda once had.

Clinton: We know Pakistan has nuclear weapons, which is-- a further complicating factor-- in this-- challenge. We know that-- Iran is on the border of those two countries, with interests of their own. So, we are trying to analyze what is in the best interest of the United States? That is our primary obligation. How do we prevent or disrupt attacks on us? How do we prevent attacks on our interests and our allies? How do we prevent Afghanistan from becoming a safe haven for future attacks and other staging-of-- jihadist activities? And how do we work with the Pakistanis to support and stabilize their government. It's a big order

Armed Violence Kills 2,000 a day Worldwide

Reuters:

More than 2,000 people around the world are dying from armed violence each day, on average, advocacy groups said on Tuesday, urging nations to launch negotiations on a treaty to regulate the arms trade.

A report by the 12 groups was issued as a U.N. General Assembly committee began considering a draft resolution that would set a timetable for negotiations with the aim of concluding a treaty in 2012.

The report, written for the groups by British-based Oxfam, said that since most governments agreed in 2006 on the need to regulate the global arms trade, an estimated 2.1 million people had died as a direct or indirect result of armed violence.

That worked out at more than 2,000 per day, or more than one every minute -- most of them civilians.

Of the deaths, more than 700,000 resulted from armed conflicts, including those in Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, Sri Lanka and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the report said. The figures also include people killed in non-political violence involving firearms.

But the violence continues unabated and ignored, especially in Africa:

The Obama administration has injected itself into the crisis in Guinea, taking the unusual step of sending a senior diplomat to protest the mass killings and rapes here last week.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton called for “appropriate actions” against a military government that she said “cannot remain in power.”

“It was criminality of the greatest degree, and those who committed such acts should not be given any reason to expect that they will escape justice,” Mrs. Clinton told reporters in Washington. She said that the nation’s leader, Capt. Moussa Dadis Camara, and his government “must turn back to the people the right to choose their own leaders.”

2nd Suspicious Envelope sent to Seattle Newspaper

Seattle Times:

For the second day in a row, a hazardous materials team has gone to The Seattle Times after a suspicious envelope was found.

Seattle Fire Department spokeswoman Dana Vander Houwen says a newspaper employee was briefly isolated Tuesday afternoon, but the envelope wasn't opened and was turned over to the FBI.

On Monday, a similar envelope containing an unidentified powder and a threatening letter was found at the newspaper, also causing the hazardous materials team to respond. Vander Houwen says the material in that envelope was determined not to be hazardous.

More:

The Seattle Fire Department's HAZMAT team responded to The Seattle Times offices about 12:30 p.m. today after the newspaper reported another suspicious envelope containing an unidentified substance found in the mail.

The Times on its web site quotes Dana Vander Houwen, fire-department spokeswoman, as saying one employee has been isolated for possible exposure to contaminants. The man was alone in the mailroom when he found the envelope, but didn't open it. The letter was simply addressed to The Seattle Times.

Firefighters in hazmat suits were headed into the newspaper’s mailroom to assess whether the envelope posed any risk.

On Monday, a similar envelope with white powder and a threatening letter was found at the Times offices. Firefighters shut down the main entrance to the newspaper for two hours and evacuated the mailroom.

Flu Widespread in Most of U.S.

LA Times:

Influenza is widespread in most of the United States, with the incidence continuing to increase in some states and to decline very slightly in others, the director of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Tuesday. The infections are "overwhelmingly" pandemic H1N1 influenza, commonly known as swine flu.

The flu season generally lasts well into May, so many months of uncertainties lie ahead, said Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, speaking at a morning news conference.

Shipments of intranasal swine flu vaccines to providers have begun, and vaccinations began Monday in several states, with a priority for healthcare providers and young children. About 2.4 million doses of the intranasal vaccine FluMist are now available, and states have already ordered 2.2 million doses, Frieden said. Next week, an injectable vaccine will also become available.

Reuters:

Vaccination against the H1N1 swine flu is off to a slow start in the United States, but states have ordered more than 2 million doses of mostly nasal spray for the first patients, a top health official said on Tuesday.

Every state has ordered a share of the pandemic vaccine, Dr. Thomas Frieden, director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, told a news briefing.

Obama’s Speech on Al Qaeda: Transcript (10-6-09)

Read the complete transcript. Excerpt below:

Today, it's my honor to visit you in your house. I was just told this is called the "bat cave," is that correct? (Laughter.) Mike, thank you for your many years of public service and your outstanding leadership at the National Counterterrorism Center.

It is great to be with all of you. It is great to be here at the hub -- at the headquarters of our efforts to defend America from those who threaten our country and so many others. Our intelligence community is comprised of 16 organizations. We have countless federal and state and local and international partners. And this is where it has to all come together.

So I'm pleased to see Denny Blair and those of you from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. We have folks here from the FBI and the CIA. We have folks from across the federal government -- intelligence, law enforcement, homeland security and so many others. My understanding is we've even got some of New York's finest -- some NYPD folks who are here.

Standing together and serving together, it's clear for all to see -- that you are one team -- that you are more integrated and more collaborative and more effective than ever before. And you're focused on one defining mission, and that is to protect the United States of America and thwarting terrorist attacks around the world.

Now, I just received an extraordinary briefing from some of your colleagues. I have to tell you, I was surprised to see how young everybody is around here. It is a sign of my age that everybody is starting to look young. But the capacity and the dedication that's on display was remarkable. And, look, all of you have some of the most important work that is done in this country -- you're doing it. These big screens I understand are not just to watch SportsCenter. (Laughter.)

But I wanted to come here today and take a few minutes just to deliver a simple message -- and I delivered it inside, and that is the message of thanks -- to say thank you from me, who use your product each and every day to make some very tough decisions, and to thank you on behalf of the American people, who may not even know that you're here but are relying on you each and every day to make sure that their kids get home safely and that when they commute to work it's going to be okay. To think about the profound impact that all of you are having on the day-to-day life of this nation I think is extraordinary. Your professionalism is essential to protecting this country.

Now, we recently observed the eighth anniversary of that terrible day when terrorists brought so much death and destruction to our shores. And once more we remembered all the lives that were lost. And once more we redoubled our resolve against the extremists who continue to plot against the United States and our allies.

So we need you more than ever. Our troops and our intelligence officers in the field, our diplomats overseas, our law enforcement here at home, they all depend on you -- your analysis, your insights, your ability to work together, across divisions and disciplines, turning information into intelligence and sharing it quickly, in real time, with those who need it.

As I said before, I am one of those consumers of your work product here at NCTC. Every morning I look to you for the latest intelligence. In fact, I think so highly of NCTC that I picked the guy who put NCTC together -- John Brennan -- as my chief adviser for counterterrorism and homeland security. And by the way, John Brennan is here and doing an outstanding job each and every day. He's also, by the way, I think, responsible for getting this spiffy building up and running.

Goldman Sachs gets $3 Million Earmark

From Politico:

A mining company owned by Goldman Sachs and two private equity funds is in line to get a $3 million earmark for work at a rare earth elements mine in Mountain Pass, Calif. — raising questions as to why Congress would take on some of the risk for a bailed-out investment giant that’s already making a profit.

Molycorp Minerals’s open-pit mine is one of the world’s richest sources of elements that are used in the production of powerful magnets for precision-guided missiles and smart bombs, handheld communication devices, wind turbines and hybrid cars.

Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.) inserted the earmark for the mine into the House Defense appropriations bill, and backers say it’s a legitimate national security concern. The military needs rare earth elements, and China — which is rich in them — has threatened to cut off exports.

But some government watchdogs question whether taxpayers should be asked to prop up a project that is already funded by wealthy investors who expect to make a profit.

“It’s probably good business, and we probably don’t need to subsidize it,” said Ryan Alexander, president of the nonpartisan Taxpayers for Common Sense.

Moreover, Alexander said, if getting the elements from the mine is really a national security issue, then the funding request would have come through the Department of Defense — and not through a lawmaker’s earmark.

“If this is critical to national security, and the private equity firms that own Molycorp can’t find another $3 million to meet the needs of the Mountain Pass mine, there still is no excuse for this being an earmark,” Alexander said. “DOD can request programmatic funding so those funds are weighed against other security priorities rather than being singled out by one member of the House Appropriations Committee.”

Lewis, the top Republican appropriator in the House, insists that both the project and the government backing are necessary.

“The United States has some of the most extensive deposits of these minerals in the world, but the cost of production has made it difficult to attract private investment,” said Lewis’s spokesman, Jim Specht. “The $3 million from the Department of Defense will jump-start this investment, as well as provide a clear signal that domestic production of rare earth metals is a national security priority.”

Despite Obama promise, it's business as usual in Washington:

Sen. Thad Cochran's most recent reelection campaign collected more than $10,000 from University of Southern Mississippi professors and staff members, including three who work at the school's center for research on polymers. To a defense spending bill slated to be on the Senate floor Tuesday, the Mississippi Republican has added $10.8 million in military grants earmarked for the school's polymer research.

Cochran, the ranking Republican on the Appropriations subcommittee on defense, also added $12 million in earmarked spending for Raytheon Corp., whose officials have contributed $10,000 to his campaign since 2007. He earmarked nearly $6 million in military funding for Circadence Corp., whose officers -- including a former Cochran campaign aide -- contributed $10,000 in the same period.

In total, the spending bill for 2010 includes $132 million for Cochran's campaign donors, helping to make him the sponsor of more earmarked military spending than any other senator this year, according to an analysis by the nonprofit group Taxpayers for Common Sense.

Cochran says his proposals are based only on "national security interests," not campaign cash. But in providing money for projects that the Defense Department says it did not request and does not want, he has joined a host of other senators on both sides of the aisle. The proposed $636 billion Senate bill includes $2.65 billion in earmarks.

President Obama Snubs the Dalai Lama

This is an outrage. It is also shocking. Is America in the back pocket of the Chinese? Is Barack a typical scoundrel politician? He is starting to look like a fraud. He ran as a candidate who would be different from other politicians. And he turns out to be just like the rest. This kowtowing will only encourage China to try and intimidate America. That endangers our survival:

US President Barack Obama was facing criticism he succumbed to Chinese pressure as the Dalai Lama opened his first visit to Washington in nearly two decades without a presidential meeting.

Tibet's exiled spiritual leader was set Tuesday to receive an award at the US Capitol complex a day after arriving for a week-long visit to the US capital that will also feature sold-out public talks on spirituality.

But for the first time since 1991, when the globetrotting Buddhist monk held his first presidential meeting with George H.W. Bush, the White House declined talks with the Nobel Peace laureate.

Obama has sought broader ties with China, a major trade partner and biggest holder of the soaring US debt. China sent troops into Tibet in 1950 and in recent months has ramped up pressure on other nations to shun the Dalai Lama.

[...]Some supporters of the Dalai Lama were outraged by Obama's decision, fearing that China could interpret it as carte blanche to clamp down on dissent in the Himalayan territory.

"This is a strategic snub that sends the wrong message to Beijing and to China's religious communities and rights activists," said Leonard Leo, chair of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, a non-partisan government panel.

"Tibetans are being harassed, tortured and jailed right now for simple devotion to the Dalai Lama," he said.

In an editorial Tuesday, The Wall Street Journal was aghast that Obama was willing to offend China by imposing tire tariffs but not meeting "a religious leader who has long been a friend to the US and an advocate of human rights."

"Perhaps the administration is hoping for a return favor from Beijing for snubbing the man Chinese leaders label a 'splittist' and a 'wolf in sheep's clothing,'" the conservative newspaper said.

"But rewarding China's bullying only encourages such tactics," it said.

China accuses the Dalai Lama of seeking to separate Tibet. The Dalai Lama espouses non-violence and says he is only seeking greater rights for Tibetans under Chinese rule.

State Department spokesman Ian Kelly denied that the administration was downplaying human rights and said that Maria Otero, the US special coordinator on Tibet, would meet the Dalai Lama on his current trip.

"We've decided to meet with the Dalai Lama because of our respect for his position, for the fact that he is a revered spiritual leader," Kelly told reporters.

"Our position regarding China is clear, that we want to engage China. We think China is an important global player," Kelly said.

The Dalai Lama's entourage politely accepted Obama's decision.

NY Times:

In June, the White House informed the Dalai Lama that President Obama was committed to meeting him, but not until after he visits Beijing in November, a senior administration official said.

Greeting the Dalai Lama, whom Beijing condemns as a separatist, weeks before Mr. Obama’s first presidential trip to China could be “substantially damaging to the relationship,” said this official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the delicate nature of the issue.

Some White House officials even worried that the Chinese might withdraw the invitation to Mr. Obama, the official said, though Beijing had not issued any direct or veiled threats that it would do so.

“We want to have a good U.S.-China relationship, not for its own sake, but because if we don’t, we won’t be able to help Tibet,” the senior official said. “If the Tibet relationship is seen as an irritant to the U.S.-China relationship, then that will cripple our ability to be of help.”

Every president since George H. W. Bush in 1991 has met the Dalai Lama when he came to Washington, usually in private encounters at the White House. In 2007, George W. Bush became the first president to welcome him publicly, bestowing the Congressional Gold Medal on him at the Capitol. Mr. Obama met the Dalai Lama as a senator.

UN: Norway is the Best Place to Live

U.S. is not number one:

Norway takes the number one spot in the annual United Nations human development index released Monday but China has made the biggest strides in improving the well-being of its citizens.

The index compiled by the UN Development Programme (UNDP) ranks 182 countries based on such criteria as life expectancy, literacy, school enrolment and gross domestic product (GDP) per capita.

Norway, Australia and Iceland took the first three spots while Niger ranks at the very bottom, just below Afghanistan.

China moved up seven places on the list to rank as the 92nd most developed country due to improvements in education as well as income.

[...] The top ten countries listed on the index are: Norway, Australia, Iceland, Canada, Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden, France, Switzerland and Japan.

The United States ranks 13th, down one spot from last year.

At least we turn the best scientists:

This year's Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine is awarded to three scientists who have solved a major problem in biology: how the chromosomes can be copied in a complete way during cell divisions and how they are protected against degradation. The Nobel Laureates have shown that the solution is to be found in the ends of the chromosomes the telomeres -- and in an enzyme that forms them -- telomerase.

The long, threadlike DNA molecules that carry our genes are packed into chromosomes, the telomeres being the caps on their ends. Elizabeth Blackburn and Jack Szostak discovered that a unique DNA sequence in the telomeres protects the chromosomes from degradation. Carol Greider and Blackburn identified telomerase, the enzyme that makes telomere DNA. These discoveries explained how the ends of the chromosomes are protected by the telomeres and that they are built by telomerase.

But the world is becoming a better place to live in:

How dire is the world's situation? So bad, says a leading Australian scientist, that the world will have to produce more food in the next 50 years than we have in the thousands of years since civilization began.

There have been dark predictions -- mostly wrong -- of worldwide food shortages before.

But this one comes from Megan Clark, the head of Australia's national science agency, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, or CSIRO. Clark is hardly a wild-eyed extremist; she is a former mining executive.

In a speech in Canberra last week, Clark said growing population will cause exponentially-rising demand, and a warming climate will make the challenge more difficult.

"It is hard for me to comprehend that in the next 50 years we will need to produce as much food as has been consumed over our entire human history," she said.

"That means in the working life of my children, more grain than ever produced since the Egyptians, more fish than eaten to date, more milk than from all the cows that have ever been milked on every frosty morning humankind has ever known."

The so-called green revolution of the last half-century had dramatic results on increasing food production: India alone doubled its wheat harvest from 1965 to 1972, and, as Clark noted, the world overall doubled its food output from 1960 to 2000.

Some parched countries, such as Saudi Arabia, have surprised the world and grown food even in the desert. In the 1970s -- fearful that other countries would retaliate for the 1973 oil embargo with grain embargoes -- the Saudis used their oil-drilling technology to tap deep aquifers. They have used the water to irrigate large swaths of desert.

Greenspan - Unemployment Rate at 10 Percent for a "while": Transcript (10-4-09)

Alan Greenspan appeared on ABC's 'This Week' saying some scary things:

STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, for most Americans, this jobs issues is the one that hits home the hardest. And that report on Friday was a surprise, much worse than people expected. What should Americans expect right now? How much worse is this job situation going to get for how long?

GREENSPAN: Well, it's very difficult to make judgments at a time like this, largely because we don't have so many incidents in history to be able to compare it to. But basically I think the issue is this.

The job report was pretty awful, no matter how you looked at it. Indeed, not only, of course, did the unemployment rate go up, but I was particularly concerned about the number of Americans who have been unemployed for six months or longer. And that went up...

STEPHANOPOULOS: Five million Americans.

GREENSPAN: But that went up sharply in September. And remember, the reason that is a problem, obviously, other than the obvious personal difficulties that families have in such a context, is that the economy loses skills. And people who are out of work for very protracted periods of time, lose their skills eventually.

And remember that what makes an economy great is a combination of the capital assets of the economy and the people who run it. And if you erode the human skills that are involved there, there is a real and in one sense an irretrievable loss.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So what do we do about it?

GREENSPAN: Well, the issue is essentially economic activity. And the reason I say that is that there is a silver lining in that particular report. And it's difficult to find one. It's that American business after Lehman Brothers collapsed and the whole financial system imploded, business expected that the economy would go down far more sharply than it in fact did.

The result was they laid off a very substantial number of people to the point that the actual hours worked fell even more than the economy. So that what we're getting is artificial numbers which give us productivity gains of horrendous amounts, meaning the amount of labor input per unit of output has been going down and down. And that can't continue.

So that silver lining is at some point we're going to start to see an improvement in employment. But remember that unless there is a monthly increase of more than 100,000 a month, you've still got the unemployment rate continuing to rise.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And that's why the administration's projections show more than 8 percent unemployment through 2011. You saw the president yesterday say now he's going to look at new ideas to spur job creation.

What should he be doing now? What would you advise him to do?

GREENSPAN: Well, I think the focus has got to be on trying to get the economy going, but you also have to be careful that in trying to do too much you can actually be counterproductive. And we are in a recovery, and I think it would be a mistake to say the September numbers alter that significantly.

It is true, the last couple of weeks that some of the numbers that are coming in have been a little bit soft. But this is what a recovery looks like. In retrospect we always look back and we see the ups and the downs and the ups and the downs, and we just visually (ph) go right through it.

It's premature to act on this type of information.

[...]"GREENSPAN: Well, no, I think we're getting close to that. But remember, the end of the job loss is not the same thing as if the unemployment rate is going to start down. My own suspicion is that we're going to penetrate the 10 percent barrier and stay there for a while before we start down."

'FOX News Sunday' Transcript (10-4-09): Iran Discussed

Full transcript. Excerpt below:

Senators, welcome to you all. Let’s get right to Iran where we have seen some significant developments overnight. Senators, the front page of the New York Times this morning has this story, “Report Says Iran has Data to Make a Nuclear Bomb.”

This is about a confidential analysis by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the IAEA. The Times writes, quote, “Most dramatically, the report says the agency assesses that Iran has sufficient information to be able to design and produce a workable implosion nuclear device based on highly enriched uranium.”

These excerpts also suggest that Iran has done much research and testing to perfect nuclear arms, like making high-voltage detonators, firing test explosives and designing warheads.

We should point out the Times is following up on some of the reporting by the Associated Press and other sites on this secret IAEA report.

So, Senators, your thought on this report and how or should it factor into the negotiations with Iran.

Senator Graham first.

GRAHAM: Oh, absolutely. I think one of the things that we’d want to do is challenge the Iranians to give us some access to what’s alleged in this report.

Clearly, they’re not developing a nuclear program for peaceable purposes. This report is just yet more evidence in a long line of evidence that the Iranians are trying to develop a nuclear weapon, and half measures won’t work.

We need to get on with challenging the Iranians with some deadlines and ultimatums, quite frankly.

BAIER: Senator Casey? Senator Casey?

No, we’ll turn to Senator Bayh first. Your thought on this report and...

BAYH: Well, Bret, it shows that we need to bring a real sense of urgency to this issue. The clock is running, and the Iranians will have a nuclear capability before long if something doesn’t happen to change their minds.

So we need to have tough sanctions, financial and economic. We need to do them now. Have real deadlines and consequences if they don’t live up to their word, because they have lied repeatedly in the past.

But you know, we are on a path toward a nuclear Iran which is an unacceptable course. If we’re going to avoid the very painful dilemma of either having to live with that or taking military action to prevent that, which may ultimately be a choice we have to face, we need to act now on the financial and economic side.

BAIER: Senator Chambliss, has the administration taken the right point of view here?

CHAMBLISS: Well, I think so. Obviously, there have been some significant high-level discussions both with our allies as well as beginning talks with Iran right now. So I think the administration realizes the seriousness of this.

And when you combine, Bret, the revelations relative to the knowledge that Iran has concerning the manufacture of a weapon with the fact that we now have publicly disclosed the other facility in Iran at Qom where, for the last several months, we’ve been monitoring their operations -- and that is not a facility where the Iranians are going to be manufacturing enriched uranium for nuclear power purposes.

It’s not big enough. They don’t have enough centrifuges for that. So it’s pretty clear that Iran is headed down the track of getting a nuclear weapon. They have the knowledge. They now have a secret facility that’s been disclosed.

What else do they have? I think that’s the question the administration needs to ask.

BAIER: Senator Casey, the head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, arrived in Tehran on Saturday to arrange this inspection of the facility that Senator Chambliss mentioned in Qom, near the holy city of Qom.

He announced at a news conference this morning that Iran has agreed to let inspectors in there on October 25th. That is three weeks, not two weeks, from now, as the president forecast. He also said that Iran has agreed to, quote, “in principle” allow some of its low enriched uranium to be transported out of the country to Russia or France to be enriched to higher levels for nuclear fuel.

So the president has called these talks a constructive beginning. How do you see these talks?

CASEY: Well, what we heard this week was certainly encouraging, but I think we have to be very focused on giving the president and giving other parts of our government, including pension funds, the ability to impose sanctions.

We should not have to allow the talks to be an end in themselves. That’s why I and others have supported legislation that I know my colleagues support to provide a broad range of sanctions.

And in particular, Senator Brownback and I have legislation to allow pension funds to divest -- or I should say to allow pension fund entities around the country to divest pension fund assets out of companies that are doing business with Iran’s energy sector, up to a $20 million level.

So I think it’s critically important that we have all of the tools on the table to impose sanctions, even unilaterally if necessary.

'Face The Nation' Transcript, Video (10-4-09): Gen. Jim Jones

Watch CBS News Videos Online
Read the complete transcript. Excerpt below:

We begin in the studio this morning with General Jones. General, thank you for coming. More bad news from Afghanistan this morning. Eight American troops killed in this latest attack. This as the White House is debating whether to send more troops to Afghanistan. I want to begin by asking you about this meeting that the president had with General McChrystal, our top general in Afghanistan. He met with him in Copenhagen after the general basally shot down the idea of changing strategy in Afghanistan. Two questions. First, did the president feel that the general was trying to bring pressure on him in public and did he tell him not to do that?

GEN. JIM JONES, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: Well, Bob, first, thank you very much for having me on. It’s good to be back. Secondly to answer your question, I wasn’t at that meeting. And this is a one- on-one meeting between the two of them. And I haven’t really talked to the president about that. So I couldn’t answer this question except to say that the two had a good meeting and it was a good opportunity for them to get to know each other a little bit better. I’m sure they exchanged very direct views.

SCHIEFFER: Well, did the general tell the president that he thinks it’s a bad idea not to put these extra troops into Afghanistan that he is requesting? He says he needs 40,000 troops.

JONES: Well, General McChrystal and the entire military chain of command as well as the secretary of defense and the entire national security team is in the process of discussing this very issue. We’ve had one lengthy meeting already last week with General McChrystal on the screen from Kabul. We will have more.

This week, two more meetings this week. So all of these things are being discussed as they should be against the back drop of this unfortunate tragedy that we all regret.

But it serves to underscore the importance of the moment to make sure that the strategic issues and the strategic decisions that the president will make are fully aired and vetted and that the options that the president has are also put on the table. It would be, I think, unfortunate if we let the discussion just be about troop strength. There is a minimum level that you have to have that there’s unfortunately no ceiling to it. SCHIEFFER: Let me just put up on the screen here what exactly the general said last week in London. When he was asked is scaling back the force as Vice President Biden wants to do was a good idea. Here’s what he said. “The short answer is no. A strategy that does not leave Afghanistan in a stable position is probably a short-sighted strategy.”

That’s pretty tough bottom line there, it seems to me. For example, do you agree that that would be a short-sighted strategy, general?

JONES: Well, I think that the -- I’ve said before for many years -- and I’ve had about six years of involvement in Afghanistan in various functions -- I think it would be a mistake to underestimate the importance of other elements of the strategy that were decided on in March.

We do have a strategy. What General McChrystal has done is presented his opinion, is presenting his opinion of what he thinks his role within that strategy is. Our strategy is a regional strategy. We focus on Afghanistan and also Pakistan. And I think that to not understand the value of the role that the government to play in Afghanistan and we have an election that is playing itself out is a very, very significant aspect of the strategy.

And to not fully understand how reconstruction and development play in, whether you’re adopting a counterterrorism strategy or counterinsurgency strategy, there are things that you have to do, there are common things you have to do to be successful in both.

So I think this is what we’re going to tear apart and look at and consider General McChrystal’s input. The president should be presented with options, not just one fait accompli. And we will come up with the right solution, I think.

U.S. Premature Birth Rate Worse Than Africa

If this isn't argument for health care reform then I don't know what is. This is a shocking outrage. I hope Democrats will cite this statistic in arguing for the public option. And these numbers further prove that we've become a third world nation:

"Around the world about one in 10 babies are born prematurely each year, and more than one-quarter of the deaths that occur in the month after birth are the consequence of preterm birth.

Those are among the findings of a new study of the burden of preterm birth by the World Health Organization and the charitable organization March of Dimes.

[...]In all, about 12.9 million babies are born too early each year, representing 9.6 percent of births. Of 4 million deaths that occur soon after birth, 28 percent are attributable to prematurity.

[...]Africa has the highest rate (11.9 percent), followed by North America (10.6 percent) and Asia (9.1 percent). Latin America and the Caribbean are mid-range (8.1 percent) and Australia and New Zealand (6.4 percent) and Europe (6.2 percent) are the lowest.

[...]in the United States, where the rate of preterm birth has increased 36 percent in the last quarter-century. It now stands at 12.7 percent; the North American rate is brought down by Canada's 8.2 percent rate)."

And you want to know another reason for America being a third world nation?:

There are 30 million Americans who are functionally illiterate, which means they cannot read well enough to function effectively, according to a federal survey.

"There are 40 percent of our nation's fourth graders who are not reading at basic level," says Emily Kirkpatrick of the National Center for Family Literacy. "Many of those fourth graders are children of the 30 million who cannot read at the basic level."

Often, children just give up as they fall behind, according to Kirkpatrick.

- Discuss why we need health care reform.

Senator Ensign Ethics Investigation Expected: Justice Department

Let's see if the U.S. government has the decency to punish a clear case of political corruption, and abuse of power.

The Justice Department and the Senate Ethics Committee are expected to conduct preliminary inquiries into whether Senator John Ensign violated federal law or ethics rules as part of an effort to conceal an affair with the wife of an aide, current and former officials said Friday.

“Whenever allegations of improper conduct are brought to the attention of Senate Ethics Committee, we open a preliminary inquiry,” said Natalie Ravitz, a spokeswoman for Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California and chairwoman of the committee.

The inquiries will most likely examine whether Mr. Ensign, a Nevada Republican, or Douglas Hampton, his one-time administrative assistant, broke the law after Mr. Hampton, immediately upon leaving his Congressional job last year, began to lobby Mr. Ensign’s office. Mr. Hampton, as a senior aide, was subject to a one-year lobbying ban, lawyers who specialize in ethics law said.

“It is difficult for me to imagine they would not look into it,” said Kenneth A. Gross, a former associate general counsel at the Federal Election Commission. As a lawyer at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Mr. Gross has represented Washington officials in ethics investigations.

Mr. Ensign could be legally at risk if he knew that Mr. Hampton was violating the one-year ban, or if he actually directed him to do so, as Mr. Hampton has said, ethics lawyers said.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Ensign, Rebecca Fisher, said he would not resist any investigation. “He plans to cooperate with any official inquiries,” Ms. Fisher said, adding that the senator for now is “focused on working for his constituents in Nevada.”

Mr. Hampton and his lawyer said they welcomed the inquiry — even though Mr. Hampton appears to face the greatest legal jeopardy. “There are real questions as to whether rules and laws were violated as a result of Senator Ensign trying to cover up the affair,” said Daniel J. Albregts, Mr. Hampton’s lawyer.

The Senate Select Committee on Ethics had already started a preliminary review in response to a complaint it received shortly after the affair became public in June.

The complaint that initiated this inquiry focused on whether Mr. Ensign improperly used campaign money in April 2008 to make a $96,000 severance payment to Mr. Hampton and his wife, Cynthia Hampton, who once was treasurer of Mr. Ensign’s campaign. At that time, Mr. Hampton and his wife, who was still having an affair with the senator, were forced out of their jobs.

So far, no evidence has surfaced that the money for this payment came from the government or from campaign money. But the new accusations, detailed in an article that appeared Friday in The New York Times, appear to be a more serious threat to Mr. Hampton and Mr. Ensign, ethics lawyers said.

Mr. Ensign, after requests from Mr. Hampton, appealed to officials at the Department of Interior and the Department of Transportation to take up issues raised by Mr. Hampton’s lobbying clients, NV Energy, a Nevada power company, and Allegiant Air, an airline based in Las Vegas.

Mr. Ensign has said he took these actions without regard to the lobbying by Mr. Hampton.

Officials at the Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation declined comment on the matter. But law enforcement officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the F.B.I. was likely to open a preliminary investigation into the new accusations to determine whether a full investigation was warranted.

Ten US Soldiers Killed in Afghanistan

The President needs to start making decisions now. Either he pulls out or reinforces our troops. Otherwise, he won't be any different than Bush in terms of loses of American troops. The only real answer is for us to pull back and provide reinforcement for the central government in Afghanistan. We must continue to launch raids against Taliban and al Qaeda positions, including into Pakistan. We need to continue the heavy use of Predators. But the loss of American troops should be minimized. And support of the Afghan government should not be a priority. Killing Jihadists should be the main objective.

Ten American troops were killed at the weekend in two surprise attacks that caused alarm in Nato’s US-led coalition.

In one, hundreds of insurgents attacked a pair of isolated outposts in eastern Afghanistan, killing eight US soldiers and several Afghan policemen in the deadliest battle in 15 months. Scores more Afghan policemen were reportedly captured by the Taleban.

In the other an Afghan policeman opened fire on the American soldiers with whom he was working in central Wardak province, killing two and injuring three.

It was unclear whether the policeman was working for the Taleban or simply ran amok but the attack fuelled the distrust that many Nato soldiers already feel for the Afghan security forces that they are supposed to be working with and training as part of the coalition’s eventual exit strategy.

Army Chief says Defeat in Afghanistan Unthinkable

This guy sounds like Bush or a neocon. The fact is that the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars are recruiting tools for the Jihadists. In addition, our involvement in Afghanistan is de-stabilizing Pakistan.

The new head of the army warned of the "terrifying prospect" of defeat for international forces in Afghanistan and supported calls for more troops, in a newspaper interview Sunday.

General David Richards told the Sunday Telegraph the risks to the West would be "enormous" if NATO failed to stabilise the violence-torn country.

He said defeat for the international coalition would have an "intoxicating effect" on Islamic militants everywhere.

"If Al-Qaeda and the Taliban believe they have defeated us -- what next? Would they stop at Afghanistan?" he said.

"Pakistan is clearly a tempting target not least because of the fact that it is a nuclear-weaponed state, and that is a terrifying prospect.

"Even if only a few of those weapons fell into their hands, believe me they would use them.

"The recent airlines plot has reminded us that there are people out there who would happily blow all of us up."

- Discuss whether we should continue to fight in Afghanistan

Global Warming is Advancing Quicker

From Greenpeace:

• "A new report, released last week by the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) forecasts that the planet will warm by 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. This new revelation is much faster than forecast just two years ago."
• "Human activity is damaging the earth’s climate. Already in the United States, farmers are struggling with worsening droughts and crop failures. Firefighters are battling historic blazes in the West. Our country’s best scientists warn us that we're approaching a tipping point, and that unless we act immediately, the crisis will only get worse and future generations will inherit a planet dramatically different from the one we grew up in."

Conservative Conference Attendees Cheer U.S. Not getting 2016 Chicago Olympics

This scum hate Obama so much that they cheer America's defeat. Thanks to Think Progress for this post:

McCain Top Adviser: Palin "Castastrophic" Pick in 2012

And he would know:

Calling Sarah Palin a potentially "catastrophic" choice for the 2012 GOP presidential nominee, John McCain's former chief campaign strategist Steve Schmidt said today the Republican party needs to look more toward the center.

"I think she has talents, but my honest view is that she would not be a winning candidate for the Republican party in 2012," he said. "Were she to be the nominee, we could have a catastrophic election result."

Palin, the former Alaska governor and Sen. John McCain's vice presidential running mate in the 2008 election, has fueled speculation that she could vie for the Republican nomination in the next presidential election with the upcoming release of her new book, "Going Rogue." When asked today at The First Draft of History conference in Washington, D.C. how he would be portrayed in Palin's book, Schmidt replied, "I think it may say I was anti-rogue in the running of the campaign."

- Take the Poll: Who will be the Presidential Nominee of the Republican Party in 2012

Rush Limbaugh: Olympics Committee ‘Bitch-Slapped’ the Obamas

- Discuss this post and more hate related, anti-Obama speech.

Afghan Policeman fires on US Troops, Killing 2

When the people that are supposed to be on your side start shooting at you, it's time to get out:

An Afghan official says a policeman conducting a joint operation with U.S. soldiers opened fire on the Americans, killing two of them.

The U.S. military said two American troops were killed in a firefight in Wardak on Friday, but provided no other details.

A third U.S. service member died Friday of wounds from a bomb attack in Wardak the day before.

Shahidullah Shahid, spokesman for the Wardak provincial governor, said Saturday the policeman fired on the Americans, killing two and injuring two before escaping. He did not give a reason for the shooting.

- Discuss whether we should still be in Afghanistan