原标题: 山东省第三院能用社保88对话
President Bush Meets with President Saakashvili of Georgia   PRESIDENT BUSH: Mr. President, welcome back to Washington. I was just reminiscing with the President about my trip to Georgia, about the unbelievably good food, and about the dancing. He was wondering whether I'd come back and start my dancing career there. And I told him I probably better quit while I'm ahead.   We had a good discussion. I admire the President. I admire what Georgia has gone through and what Georgia is doing. We had an interesting talk about a couple of subjects, one of which is the economic opportunities in Georgia. This is a country which has adopted a very simplified tax code; it's easy for people to understand. I told the American people I tried to simplify our tax code. It's difficult to do. I congratulate you on simplifying yours and I congratulate you about your rates of growth.   We talked about Georgia's contribution to democracy movements -- not only her own, but to democracy and freedom movements in places like Iraq. The citizens of Georgia must know that the troops that have been provided there are brave, courageous professionals, and have made a significant difference. And we want to thank you for that, Mr. President.   We talked about the need for there to be peaceful resolutions of conflicts, while recognizing the territorial integrity and sovereign borders of Georgia.   And finally, we, of course, talked about NATO. The Bucharest summit is coming up. Georgia's aspirations will be decided at the Bucharest summit. MAP application, of course, as the President full well knows, is not membership. MAP is a process that will enable NATO members to be comfortable with their country eventually joining. I believe that NATO benefits with a Georgian membership. I believe Georgia benefits from being a part of NATO. And I told the President it's a message I'll be taking to Bucharest soon.   And so, Mr. President, thanks for coming. I'm pleased you're here. I'm glad you brought your wife. Turns out our wives are out having lunch together on the town -- having lunch together on the town here in D.C. And just told Laura to keep the tab down. (Laughter.) I'm working on government pay these days. But thank you for coming.   PRESIDENT SAAKASHVILI: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm incredibly thrilled to be back in the Oval Office. And, you know, we've been essential part of your freedom agenda. I was not President when I heard your speech in Warsaw, when you spoke about freedom between Baltics and the Black Sea. And that was an extremely visionary speech, because you spoke about the Black Sea at the moment when nobody wanted to look in our direction. And I think we are -- what we are up to now is to implement this freedom agenda -- for the sake of our people, for the sake of our values, for the sake of what the ed States means for all of us, because the U.S. is exporting idealism to the rest of the world.   And we believe that, you know, we have very, very strong partnerships. We have a very, very strong partnership in democracy building. We have a very strong partnership in our military cooperation, because I'm very proud the Georgian troops in Iraq are not just controlling and are present there, protecting people, but are having success in doing so. And certainly this is something that we will state over generations.   I have to thank you, Mr. President, for your unwavering support for our freedom, for our democracy, for our territorial sovereignty, and for protecting Georgia's borders, and for Georgia's NATO aspirations. I think this is a very unequivocal support we're getting from you.   And, you know, this is the last year of your administration, but I can tell you, what you've done for -- not only for my country, but what you've done for all over the region, will be remembered greatly, and will be remembered as absolutely revolutionary change of way of thinking, of environment, of giving chances to a people who never thought about having those opportunities and chances before. That's what America is all about. That's what Bush freedom agenda is all about. And we are very proud to be part of that agenda, Mr. President.   You should know that this will stay as a photographic memory in our people's minds, and we will always remember it. We'll -- and we are very grateful, of course -- you will dance Georgia dance much better than I do -- (laughter) -- you are invited back, to come. You've shown considerable talent. (Laughter.) I know you're not Georgian, you're a Texan, but we are pretty close. (Laughter.) But deep in your mind you should have something Georgian. (Laughter.)   PRESIDENT BUSH: That's right. (Laughter.)   PRESIDENT SAAKASHVILI: That's for sure. And, I mean, we certainly -- and if you don't want to dance with us, then you can come and bike with us, or do anything. But you're always welcome back as somebody who really put Georgia firmly on the world's freedom map, and not only Georgia, but many of the countries in the region, and gave us a chance. I think we will continue this cooperation.   I thank you for your support today. We've heard today everything we wanted to hear from the leader of the free world, and I think that's going to give new opportunities opening to my people. I'm bringing back hope and inspiration.   PRESIDENT BUSH: Thank you.   Thank you all. 200806/41149President Bush Delivers Commencement Address at ed States Air Force Academy   THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Mr. Secretary, thank you for the kind introduction. General Moseley, General Regni; Mr. Congressman, thank you. Academy staff and faculty, distinguished guests, and proud family members. I am so pleased to stand before the future leaders of the ed States Air Force.   I have something I'd like to say to the Cadet Wing: Class of 2008! (Applause.) Yes, that's good. I was a little worried you we're going to yell: "Give him the Bird!" (Laughter.)   You're the 50th graduating class in the history of the Air Force Academy. Each of you has worked hard to reach this moment. You survived "Beast," "Terazzo Sailing" -- (applause) -- "fatty bags" at Mitch's. (Laughter.) You earned your "prop and wings" at Pinnacle -- (applause) -- and today you will receive your degree and commission as Air Force officers. Your teachers are proud of you, your parents are proud of you -- and so is your Commander-in-Chief. Job well done. (Applause.)   The Superintendent informs me that some of you are still on restriction. (Laughter.) It might be because you were caught running from the "Lightning Van." (Laughter.) Or it might be because of Jimmy Chad's apple. (Laughter and applause.) Whatever the reason you got your Form-10, help has arrived. In keeping with longstanding tradition, I hereby absolve all cadets who are on restriction for minor conduct offenses. (Applause.) As for your grades, well, some things are even beyond the powers of the President. (Laughter.)   In becoming officers of the ed States Air Force, you have chosen a vocation that is both hazardous and rewarding. As a former F-102 pilot, I know the exhilaration of flight. As the son of an aviator who was shot down in combat, I know its perils. Whether you serve in the skies above or on the ground below, each of you has stepped forward to defend your country. You've chosen to face danger in foreign lands so your fellow citizens do not have to face danger in our own land. And I want to thank you for making this courageous choice. And all of America is grateful to the Class of 2008. (Applause.) (%bk%)  When you put on your Second Lieutenant bars in a few moments, you will become part of a great history -- a history that is still only beginning to unfold. By any standard, air power is still a relatively new phenomena. Men have been fighting on land and at sea for thousands of years -- yet there are still Americans among us who were born before man ever flew. In the lifetime of one generation, our nation has seen aviation progress from that first tentative liftoff at Kitty Hawk to an age of supersonic flight and space exploration.   And as flight has progressed it changed the face of war. In the 20th century, air power helped make possible freedom's victory in great ideological struggles with fascism and communism. In those struggles, our nation faced evil men with territorial ambitions and totalitarian aims, who murdered the innocent to achieve their political objectives. Through a combination of military strength and national resolve, and faith in the power of freedom, we defeated these adversaries -- and secured the peace for millions across the world.   And now, in the 21st century, our nation is once again contending with an ideology that seeks to sow anger and hatred and despair -- the ideology of Islamic extremism. In today's struggle, we are once again facing evil men who despise freedom, and despise America, and aim to subject millions to their violent rule. And once again, our nation is called to defeat these adversaries -- and secure the peace for millions across the world. And once again, our enemies will be no match for the men and women of the ed States Air Force. (Applause.)   You know, what's remarkable about this class is that each of you knows the stakes in the war on terror. You applied to this Academy after seeing the attacks of September the 11th, 2001. You came to this Academy knowing that the responsibility of our military is to protect the American people. And you now leave this Academy to take your place in this great struggle. Today, I've come to talk to you about the battle you're about to join, the lessons we can learn from the conflicts of the past, and what they can teach us about the challenges we face in the war on terror that will dominate your military careers. (%bk%)  The first lesson is this: In both the 20th century and today, defeating hateful ideologies requires all elements of national power, including the use of military power. The military power that you will wield in your military careers is much more precise and effective than in past generations. When the ed States entered World War II, the age of long-range bombing was just beginning. There were no computer guidance, no GPS targeting, or laser-guided munitions. The allied bombing raids against Germany and Japan resulted in horrific civilian casualties and widesp destruction. It took nearly four years before the regimes in Berlin and Tokyo finally capitulated -- with difficult battles from the deserts of North Africa to the forests of France, to the islands of the Pacific.   Today, revolutionary advances in technology are transforming warfare. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, for example, we employed military capabilities so precise that coalition air crews could take out a tank hiding under a bridge without damaging the bridge. With this military technology, we can now target a regime without targeting an entire nation. We've removed two cruel regimes in weeks instead of years. In Afghanistan, coalition forces and their Afghan allies drove the Taliban from power in less than two months. In Iraq, with the help of the ed States Air Force, our troops raced across 350 miles of enemy territory to liberate Baghdad in less than one month -- one of the fastest armored advances in military history.   These facts create both opportunities and challenges. One opportunity is that, if we have to fight our enemies, we can now do so with greater precision and greater humanity. In the age of advanced weapons, we can better strike -- we can better target strikes against regimes and individual terrorists. Sadly, there will be civilian casualties in war. But with these advances, we can work toward this noble goal: defeating the enemies of freedom while sparing the lives of many more innocent people -- which creates another opportunity, and that is, by making war more precise, we can make war less likely.   For hostile dictators, it is a powerful deterrent to know that America is willing and able to target their regimes directly. When rulers know we can strike their regime while sparing their populations, they realize they cannot hide behind the innocent -- and that means they are less likely to start conflicts in the first place.(%bk%)   Our unmatched military power also creates challenges. Because no adversary can confront and defeat our military directly, the enemies of the 21st century will increasingly turn to the use of asymmetric warfare. We've seen this in Afghanistan and Iraq. In those countries, our adversaries did not lay down their arms after the regime had been removed. Instead, they blended into the civilian population and -- with the help of stateless terrorist networks -- continued the fight through suicide bombings and attacks on innocent people. In the 21st century, this nation must be prepared to fight this new kind of warfare.   To meet this new challenge, we need to continue to develop technologies that put unprecedented speed and precision and power in your hands. And that's what we're doing. Since 2002, the number of unmanned aerial vehicles in our arsenal has increased nearly 40-fold to more than 5,000 -- and we're increasing them even more. We've transformed the Special Operations Command and more than doubled its budget. We're improving our intelligence and surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities. We're transforming our ground forces for the wars of the 21st century -- making them faster and more agile and more lethal.   And you'll see the impact of these changes in your own Air Force careers. Instead of serving at 10,000 feet, some of you will serve on the ground as battlefield airmen -- deploying behind enemy lines and using laser technology to fix targets for aviators circling above. Instead of sitting in jet fighter cockpits, some of you will sit before computer consoles at bases here in the ed States, where you'll guide Predator UAVs half a world away and use them to strike terrorist hideouts. These and other changes will increase your ability to prevail in asymmetric warfare. They will make you more effective in the defense of freedom. (%bk%)  Another challenge of asymmetric warfare is that it requires patience. Our new enemies know they can't defeat us militarily. So their strategy is to cause us to lose our nerve and retreat before the job is done. They take advantage of the information age and the 24-hour news cycles, creating images of chaos and suffering for the cameras, in the hope that these images will horrify the American people and undermine resolve and morale here at home. This means that to win the first war of the 21st century, we need to prevail not just in the battle of arms, but also in the battle of wills. And we need to recognize that the only way America can lose the war on terror is if we defeat ourselves. (Applause.)   The second lesson is this: In both the 20th century and today, defeating hateful ideologies requires using our national resources to strengthen free institutions in countries that are fighting extremists. We must help these nations govern their territorial -- territory effectively so they can deny safe haven to our common enemies. And in Afghanistan and Iraq, where we removed regimes that threatened our people, we have a special obligation to help these nations build free and just societies that are strong partners in the fight against these extremists and terrorists.   We've assumed this obligation before. After World War II, we helped Germany and Japan build free societies and strong economies. These efforts took time and patience, and as a result, Germany and Japan grew in freedom and prosperity. Germany and Japan, once mortal enemies, are now allies of the ed States. And people across the world have reaped the benefits from that alliance. Today, we must do the same in Afghanistan and Iraq. By helping these young democracies grow in freedom and prosperity, we'll lay the foundation of peace for generations to come. 200806/41821[Nextpage视频演讲]President Obama calls on Congress to pass legislation to provide new tax credits and lending incentives that will help small businesses grow and create new jobs.Download Video: mp4 (74MB) | mp3 (7MB) [Nextpage演讲文本]Good morning, everybody. I just finished a meeting with these small business owners and a few of their workers. And we talked about some of the economic challenges facing these folks. And we talked about the ways that our government can make it easier for smaller firms to hire and to grow. These men and women know how important it is because, historically, small businesses have created roughly two out of every three new jobs in our country. And to replace the millions of jobs lost in the recession, we’re going to need to make sure that small companies are able to open up and expand and add names to their payroll. Small businesses will help lead this economic recovery. And that’s why we will continue to stand by them.But ensuring that small businesses can thrive is about more than just economic success. It’s also about who we are as a people. It’s about a nation where anybody who’s got a good idea and a willingness to work hard can succeed. That’s the central promise of America. It’s that promise that has drawn millions of people to our shores. It’s what drives workers to become their own bosses. It’s what propels some basement inventor to bring a new concept to market. That’s what led two guys, Bobby Pancake and Steve Wheat -- their real names -- who are here today, to take a chance and try their hand at actually running restaurants. Obviously, they’d have to be restaurateurs, named “Pancake” and “Wheat.” They worked for a restaurant chain for years, but they decided to leave the corporate offices and open up their own franchises. In fact, Bobby and Steve told me they recently opened up their sixth location. And Terry Haney, the general manager of one of their locations, is also here. This same promise of being able to build your own dreams and be your own boss led Prachee -- Prachee Devadas to come to this country, become a citizen, and open up what’s become a successful technology services company. Prachee told me that when she started, she had just one employee. Today, she employs more than a hundred people -- including her husband Anand, who is here today. So the fact is that small businesses all across the country are hiring people, making a difference in their communities, giving back to their communities, but they’ve also been especially hard hit by the recession. From the middle of 2007 to the end of 2008, small businesses lost 2.4 million jobs. And because banks shrunk from lending in the midst of this financial crisis, it’s been particularly difficult for small business owners to take out loans to open up shop or expand. It’s been hard to finance inventories and payroll and new equipment. Now, I’ve said before and I’ll repeat, government can’t guarantee success for these companies. But it can knock down barriers that prevent owners from getting loans. Government can’t create private-sector jobs. But it can create the conditions for small businesses like these to grow and to hire more people. That’s what’s guided much of our economic agenda.So let me be specific. Last year, we enacted seven tax cuts for America’s small business -- seven tax cuts. So far, the Recovery Act has supported over 68,000 loans to small businesses, which translates into nearly billion in new lending. More than 1,300 banks and credit unions that had not made SBA loans since before the financial crisis are now lending again. More than billion in federal Recovery Act contracts are now going to small businesses. In fact, Prachee has been able to add 20 part-time and full-time workers because of the Recovery Act.In addition, as a result of a bill I signed into law a few months ago, businesses are now eligible for tax cuts when they hire -- when they hire unemployed workers, they're eligible for tax cuts. Companies are also able to write off more of their investments in new equipment. And as part of the health reform package, 4 million small business owners recently received a postcard in their mailboxes from the IRS, and it was actually good news: It told them that they could be eligible for a health care tax credit this year that could be worth perhaps tens of thousands of dollars to these small businesses. So these and other steps are making a difference. Little more than a year ago, the economy was in freefall. Today, it’s growing again. Little more than a year ago, the economy was losing an average of 750,000 jobs per month. It’s now been adding jobs for five months in a row. But even though we are in the process of digging ourselves out of this recession, we’re still in a pretty deep hole. Millions of our family members, our friends, our neighbors are still looking for work -- they're still faced with the prospects of long-term unemployment. Credit is still less available than it should be, particularly to small businesses.As small business owners like Prachee and Bobby and Steve will tell you, we may be recovering but we’re not yet recovered. We have to keep moving forward.And that’s why I’m urging Congress to swiftly approve a set of tax breaks and lending incentives to spur hiring and growth at small businesses. The legislation that's being debated right now would eliminate capital gains taxes for small investment -- for investments in small firms, which will help move capital to these companies across America. It will provide tax relief to small start-ups to encourage folks to open up businesses, as well. To foster more credit, the package would create the small business lending fund I proposed in my State of the Union address to help underwrite loans through community banks. And we’d create a new state small business credit initiative, because states facing budget shortfalls are scaling back lending to small firms and manufacturers. That's working against our recovery. I’m also urging Congress to expand and extend successful SBA programs -- by increasing loan limits, for example -- something that could benefit people like Bobby and Steve.In fact, since the start of my administration, we’ve been hearing from small businesses that want to retain and hire more employees, but they need additional credit. And we’ve been hearing from small community banks that want to lend more to small businesses, but they need additional capital. So this bill helps fulfill both needs. And to help us create jobs without adding to our deficit, we’re making the tough choices to pay for these proposals.So I’m hopeful that the House will pass these measures next week, and that the Senate will follow as soon as possible -- with both support from Democrats and Republicans. And I’m eager to sign this tax relief and additional lending into law. That’s how we can continue to move our economy forward -- to continue on the path from recession to recovery, but also, ultimately, to prosperity.Thank you very much, everybody.END201006/106064


THE PRESIDENT: Just had an extraordinary discussion with a group of our fellow citizens -- some are pastors, some are ex-cons, some are baseball players, some are docs, some are community activists -- all who've come together to talk about a comprehensive strategy to deal with drug use in America. And our strategy is threefold: one, reduce demand, interdict supply, and then help people who have become addicts. And we're making progress. No question there's still work to do in America, but we are making progress. And one way to note the progress is this statistic: Since 2001, teenage use has declined by 25 percent. That means 900,000 fewer teens on drugs. The strategy can be measured. The implementation requires understanding that grassroots activists -- for example, like the faith community -- can play an integral work in working alongside government to achieve our objectives. The Admiral here has -- Admiral Allen, Commandant of the Coast Guard, reported about our interdiction efforts -- that we've been making great progress at interdicting, for example, cocaine being trafficked primarily out of South America and Central America into our country. And finally I am pleased that the Access to Recovery program and programs like that are vibrant and active, which basically says to an addict: If you so choose, you can redeem your health, redeem your money at a place of love in the faith community. Lives are changing. People's lives are being saved. I say government is justice, government is law -- but government must not fear places of love. And so this has been a positive report and a great meeting, and I want to thank you all for coming. More importantly I want to thank you for being citizens, and not spectators -- people who have decided to do something about your personal lives, as well as the lives of those in your communities. It's the collective effort of thousands of social entrepreneurs that help make America a hopeful place. There will be more work done after I'm out of here, but we have laid the foundation for a successful effort against drug use, drug supply, and helping those who have been addicted. Thank you. 200812/58598President Bush Celebrates National Day of Prayer   THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Welcome to the White House. And I am honored to join you for the National Day of Prayer. I'm sorry Laura is not here -- she's out selling her book. (Laughter.)   Shirley, thank you very much for being the Chairman of the National Day of Prayer. Glad you brought old Jim with you. (Laughter.) Dr. Zacharias, thank you for being the Honorary Chairman. I appreciate the members of my Cabinet who are here today, thank you all for coming. It's good to see members of the ed States Senate and the House of Representatives. Appreciate you all taking time out of your busy schedule to come by. It's always good to be with you.   I want to thank our military chaplains who are with us. Thank you for doing the Lord's work with our troops. I'm proud to have prayer leaders here. Rabbi Fishman, thank you, it's good to see you again, sir. Father Coughlin, from the ed States House of Representatives, it's good to see you, sir. I want to thank Pastor Mays, who will be following me here shortly, for coming. I'm looking forward to hearing the choir of Saint Patrick's Cathedral, New York City, New York. It's going to be a great moment to have this East Room filled with the joy of song. So I welcome them here today.   On this day, Americans come together to thank our Creator for our nation's many blessings. We are a blessed nation. And on this day, we celebrate our freedoms, particularly the freedom to pray in public and the great diversity of faith found in America. I love being the President of a country where people feel free to worship as they see fit. And I remind our fellow citizens, if you choose to worship or not worship, and no matter how you worship, we're all equally American. (Applause.)   I think one of the interesting things about a National Day of Prayer is it does help describe our nation's character to others. We are a prayerful nation. A lot of citizens draw comfort from prayer. Prayer is an important part of the lives of millions of Americans. And it's interesting, when you think about our faith you can find it in the Pledge of Allegiance, you can find an expression of American faith in the Declaration of Independence, and you can find it in the coins in our pockets. I used to carry coins -- (laughter) -- in about 10 months I'll be carrying them again. (Laughter and applause.)   The fidelity to faith has been present in our nation's leaders from its very start. Upon assuming the presidency, George Washington took the oath of office and then added the famous plea, "So help me God." On John Adams's first day in the White House, he wrote a prayer that is now etched in marble on the fireplace in the State Dining Room, and he prayed, "May none but honest and wise men ever rule under this roof." Now we'll leave it to the historians to judge whether or not that happened throughout our history. (Laughter.)   During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln turned to prayer. His second Inaugural Address ed from Scripture. He stood before the ed States people and ed from Scripture. And he sought to heal a people who " the same Bible and prayed to the same God" -- his words.   As William McKinley lay dying from an assassin's bullet, one of his final words on earth focused on the Almighty. On his deathbed he was heard to say, "Nearer, my God to thee."   As American forces risked their lives on D-Day, Franklin Roosevelt delivered a presidential prayer over the radio. He asked God to protect our troops as they liberated "a suffering humanity" and he prayed for "a peace that will let all men live in freedom." When Roosevelt died, his successor, Harry Truman, said he "felt like the moon, the stars and all the planets" had fallen on him. And he told reporters: "Boys, if you ever pray, pray for me now."   John F. Kennedy attended mass in Florida during the last week of his presidency, and during the last week of his life. It was at that mass that he heard the parable where our Lord compared the Kingdom of Heaven to a mustard seed that grew into a large tree and offered shelter to God's creatures.   Three days after the worst terrorist attack on American soil, Laura and I joined our fellow citizens in prayer before the Lord. It was in the middle hour of our grief. We prayed for those who were missing. We prayed for the dead. We prayed for those who loved them. I recalled the words of a woman from New York, who said, "I prayed to God to give us a sign that He is still here."   Well, sometimes God's signs are not always the ones we look for. And we learn in tragedy that His purposes are not always our own. But we also know that in adversity we can find comfort through prayer.   Over the last seven years, our country has faced many trials. And time and time again we have turned to prayer and found strength and resilience. We prayed with those who've lost everything in natural disasters, and helped them heal and recover and build. We prayed for our brave and brilliant troops who died on the field of battle. We lift up their families in prayer. And as we pray for God's continued blessings on our country, I think it makes sense to hope that one day there may be a International Day of Prayer, that one day the national -- (applause.) It will be a chance for people of faith around the world to stop at the same time to pause to praise an Almighty. It will be a time when we could prayer together for a world that sees the promise of the Psalms made real: "Your love is ever before me, and I walk continually in your truth."   I want to thank you all for coming. Particularly want to thank you for your prayers. You know, somebody asked me one time, when I was there over seeing the Sea of Galilee, they said, what did you think about what you were there, Mr. President? I said I have finally understood the story of the calm on the rough seas. I may have been a little hardheaded at times, but I'm absolutely convinced it was the prayers of the people who helped me understood in turbulence you can find calm and strength. And I thank you for those prayers. (Applause.) 200806/41459

unK5*wosCtiO,c[iaKHe@8+d4U%1jfBL.CwIt is a great pleasure to be here today. This university has been coeducational since 1870, but I do not believe it was on the basis of your accomplishments that a Detroit high school girl said (and I e), ;In choosing a college, you first have to decide whether you want a coeducational school or an educational school.; Well, we can find both here at Michigan, although perhaps at different hours. I came out here today very anxious to meet the Michigan student whose father told a friend of mine that his sons education had been a real value. It stopped his mother from bragging about him.0LG,y_Y)AJ5@tvI have come today from the turmoil of your capital to the tranquility of your campus to speak about the future of your country. The purpose of protecting the life of our Nation and preserving the liberty of our citizens is to pursue the happiness of our people. Our success in that pursuit is the test of our success as a Nation.NE%J);-U^P[Lb;Pgw(vtNpA9CSojpoUdkHrV3,cSpxQ487C164158REMARKS BY PRESIDENT OBAMAAND KING ABDULLAH OF JORDANIN JOINT PRESS AVAILABILITY Oval Office11:23 A.M. EDTPRESIDENT OBAMA: Hello, everybody. Take your time, guys. We're going to answer a few questions.First of all, I just want to welcome His Majesty King Abdullah to the White House. This is a first visit by a leader of another state; in part, it's reciprocity for the extraordinary hospitality that the King and Queen showed me when I visited Jordan prior to the election -- in which the King had personally drove me to the airport. And I won't tell you how fast he was going. (Laughter.)But more importantly, it's representative of his excellent leadership internationally, as well as a unmatched friendship with the ed States upon a whole range of issues. I think that King Abdullah represents a modern approach to foreign policy-making in the Middle East, a approach that is able to see many different sides of an issue, that is obviously constantly mindful of Jordanian interests, but also seeks to resolve issues and conflicts in a peaceful and respectful fashion.We are very pleased to have been able to work so closely with his government for many years. It is a great friendship between two great countries and two great peoples. And I am confident that that friendship will only be strengthened.Very briefly, we spoke obviously about a Middle East peace process, my commitment as well as his to moving that process forward with some sense of urgency. We spoke about the broader hope on a range of issues related to Iran and Afghanistan; the issues of terrorism in the region. We spoke about the impact that the economic crisis may be having on both our countries and the need to promote effective international cooperation around those issues. And I'm confident that in the months and years to come our partnership and our friendship will continue to grow.So I'm grateful to him for having visited and look forward to seeing him back in his own country sometime soon.KING ABDULLAH: Thank you. Mr. President, again, thank you very much for this very kind welcome. We had a wonderful meeting just recently and I believe it was a meeting of the minds. We are both committed to bringing peace and stability to our part of the world. The President again reaffirming the need for a two-state solution and to move both parties to good negotiations as quickly as possible. He has the full support of my country and the Arab League on this issue. We believe that it is important for all of us to keep our eyes on the prize, and the prize is peace and stability finally for all the people of our region.I'd also like to extend a warm thanks on behalf of many Arabs and Muslims who really had an outstanding response to the President's outreach to the Muslim Arab world. It has gone on extremely well and really begins I believe a new page of mutual respect and mutual understanding between cultures. And I will -- I continue to commit Jordan and myself to working with you, Mr. President. You have given us hope for a bright future for all of us. And America can't be left by itself to do all the heavy lifting, so a group of countries, including Jordan, will do all we can to support you, Mr. President, in your endeavors. And hopefully under your tremendous leadership we will find some peace and stability in our region.PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you.Q Mr. President, you've raised a lot of positive signals and interest in your commitment to peace and to a two-state solution. What other actions will you be taking to bring about peace, and when do you expect that action to happen? And how does the Arab Peace Initiative feature in such a plan?PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, first of all, we have gone out of our way to complement the efforts of those Arab states that were involved in formulating the Arab Peace Initiative as a very constructive start. And obviously King Abdullah has taken great steps to ensure that that sustains itself, in terms of Arab support, even while we have seen a breakdown in negotiations. And that's a significant achievement for which King Abdullah and others deserve credit. So we want to continue to encourage a commitment on the part of the Arab states to the peace process.I have assigned a Special Envoy, George Mitchell, who is, you know, I think as good of a negotiator as there is, and somebody who through assiduous work was able to accomplish or help achieve peace in Northern Ireland. We want that same perseverance and sustained effort on this issue, and we're going to be actively engaged.We have obviously seen the Israeli government just form recently. Prime Minster Netanyahu will be visiting the ed States. I expect to have meetings with him. I've had discussions with Palestinian counterparts as well as other Arab states around this issue.My hope would be that over the next several months, that you start seeing gestures of good faith on all sides. I don't want to get into the details of what those gestures might be, but I think that the parties in the region probably have a pretty good recognition of what intermediate steps could be taken as confidence-building measures. And we will be doing everything we can to encourage those confidence-building measures to take place.Q Can I follow up on this one, please?PRESIDENT OBAMA: Okay, I actually have a list, guys, I'm sorry. (Laughter.) We've got to be fair. Jennifer, you always get a question, so you're not getting one.Steve Collinson, AFP. Go ahead, Steve.04/67703Most of the Work Takes Place Before a Hurricane HitsREMARKS BY THE PRESIDENTAFTER MEETING AT FEMAON HURRICANE PREPAREDNESSFEMA HeadquartersWashington, D.C.3:17 P.M. EDTTHE PRESIDENT: Well, for all of you who just joined us, I've just received a briefing here at FEMA at the National Response Coordination Center for our preparations for this year's hurricane season, which begins on Monday. And I want to thank Secretary Napolitano, as well as John Brennan, my Homeland Security Advisor. And we've welcomed Craig Fugate, who has hit the ground running and is aly doing an outstanding job not just leading this briefing but leading this excellent agency.And I want to thank all the people here at FEMA who do such an excellent job for their diligence and their commitment for this task.We are all here together because we are determined to be as prepared as possible when the next catastrophic hurricane hits the ed States. And we want to make sure that cities and our people remain resilient enough to weather any storm.Our top priority is ensuring the public safety. That means appropriate sheltering in place, or, if necessary, getting as many people as possible out of harm’s way prior to landfall. But most of the work, as you would hear from these individual agencies, most of the work takes place before a hurricane hits. True preparedness means having federal and state and local governments all coordinating effectively, and as you just heard, one of the most important things we can do is make sure the families have prepared appropriately.We just saw some statistics coming out of Florida indicating that a huge percentage of people in hurricane areas simply don't make plans. They don't have a plan, they don't have a set of contingencies that will allow them to respond in an effective way. Those people who have the capacity to plan, they will thereby relieve some of the resources that the government has to provide and we can stay focused on those folks who are most vulnerable and have the most difficulty dealing with a storm.So I hope that message of personal responsibility sinks in. And, Craig, is there a Web site that we want to provide that would help people formulate a plan right now?ADMINISTRATOR FUGATE: Yes, sir, it's real simple -- y.gov.THE PRESIDENT: Ready.gov.ADMINISTRATOR FUGATE: It will help you get y for your disaster threats.THE PRESIDENT: Okay. That's the reason that all the representatives here met and have been meeting over the last several months, is because they want to be y. And states are going to have the primary responsibility in preparing for and responding to disasters -- but they're going to have the full resources of the federal government backing them up.And the last point I guess I would like to make is that when you go on y.gov, you'll see that -- I think the public will see that a lot of these plans are not complicated. They're pretty simple. It's a matter of having a basic emergency supply kit with items such as water, some non-perishable food, an all-weather radio, a flashlight, a first aid kit; making an emergency family plan; staying informed of developments in your area; and learning about your community’s emergency plans.So I have no greater responsibility than the safety of the American people. I want to thank all of the people here today who, in their various roles, do such a terrific job even in non-emergency situations, helping to keep the American people safe. But as we enter into hurricane season, I hope that everybody who's watching is going to be paying attention and take seriously their responsibilities as citizens so that the entire country is y.Thank you very much, everybody.END 3:22 P.M. EDT06/72328

We will build our defenses beyond challenge, lest weakness invite challenge.我们要防患于未然,懈怠会带来麻烦。We will confront weapons of mass destruction, so that a new century is spared new horrors.我们还要阻止武器泛滥,使新的世纪摆脱恐怖的威胁。The enemies of liberty and our country should make no mistake: America remains engaged in the world by history and by choice, shaping a balance of power that favors freedom.反对自由和反对我们国家的人应该明白:美国仍将积极参与国际事务,力求世界力量的均衡,让自由的力量遍及全球。这是历史的选择。We will defend our allies and our interests.我们会保护我们的盟国,捍卫我们的利益。We will show purpose without arrogance.我们将谦逊地向世界人民表示我们的目标。We will meet aggression and bad faith with resolve and strength.我们将坚决反击各种侵略和不守信用的行径。And to all nations, we will speak for the values that gave our nation birth.我们要向全世界宣传育了我们伟大民族的价值观。America, at its best, is compassionate.正处在鼎盛时期的美国也不缺乏同情心。In the quiet of American conscience, we know that deep, persistent poverty is unworthy of our nations promise.当我们静心思考,我们就会明了根深蒂固的贫穷根本不值得我国作出承诺。And whatever our views of its cause, we can agree that children at risk are not at fault.无论我们如何看待贫穷的原因,我们都必须承认,孩子敢于冒险不等于在犯错误。Abandonment and abuse are not acts of God, they are failures of love.放纵与滥用都为上帝所不容,这些都是缺乏爱的结果。And the proliferation of prisons, however necessary, is no substitute for hope and order in our souls.监狱数量的增长虽然看起来是有必要的,但并不能代替我们心中的希望-人人遵纪守法。Where there is suffering, there is duty. Americans in need are not strangers, they are citizens; not problems, but priorities.哪里有痛苦,我们的义务就在哪里。对我们来说,需要帮助的美国人不是陌生人,而是我们的公民;不是负担,而是急需救助的对象。And all of us are diminished when any are hopeless.当有人陷入绝望时,我们大家都会因此变得渺小。03/438239I think it's obvious from the cameras here that I didn't come to discuss the ban on cyclamates or DDT. I have a subject which I think if of great importance to the American people. Tonight I want to discuss the importance of the television news medium to the American people. No nation depends more on the intelligent judgment of its citizens. No medium has a more profound influence over public opinion. Nowhere in our system are there fewer checks on vast power. So, nowhere should there be more conscientious responsibility exercised than by the news media. The question is, "Are we demanding enough of our television news presentations?" "And are the men of this medium demanding enough of themselves?"Monday night a week ago, President Nixon delivered the most important address of his Administration, one of the most important of our decade. His subject was Vietnam. My hope, as his at that time, was to rally the American people to see the conflict through to a lasting and just peace in the Pacific. For 32 minutes, he reasoned with a nation that has suffered almost a third of a million casualties in the longest war in its history.When the President completed his address -- an address, incidentally, that he spent weeks in the preparation of -- his words and policies were subjected to instant analysis and querulous criticism. The audience of 70 million Americans gathered to hear the President of the ed States was inherited by a small band of network commentators and self-appointed analysts, the majority of whom expressed in one way or another their hostility to what he had to say.It was obvious that their minds were made up in advance. Those who recall the fumbling and groping that followed President Johnson’s dramatic disclosure of his intention not to seek another term have seen these men in a genuine state of nonpreparedness. This was not it.One commentator twice contradicted the President’s statement about the exchange of correspondence with Ho Chi Minh. Another challenged the President’s abilities as a politician. A third asserted that the President was following a Pentagon line. Others, by the expressions on their faces, the tone of their questions, and the sarcasm of their responses, made clear their sharp disapproval.To guarantee in advance that the President’s plea for national unity would be challenged, one network trotted out Averell Harriman for the occasion. Throughout the President's address, he waited in the wings. When the President concluded, Mr. Harriman recited perfectly. He attacked the Thieu Government as unrepresentative; he criticized the President’s speech for various deficiencies; he twice issued a call to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to debate Vietnam once again; he stated his belief that the Vietcong or North Vietnamese did not really want military take-over of South Vietnam; and he told a little anecdote about a “very, very responsible” fellow he had met in the North Vietnamese delegation.All in all, Mr. Harrison offered a broad range of gratuitous advice challenging and contradicting the policies outlined by the President of the ed States. Where the President had issued a call for unity, Mr. Harriman was encouraging the country not to listen to him.A word about Mr. Harriman. For 10 months he was America’s chief negotiator at the Paris peace talks -- a period in which the ed States swapped some of the greatest military concessions in the history of warfare for an enemy agreement on the shape of the bargaining table. Like Coleridge’s Ancient Mariner, Mr. Harriman seems to be under some heavy compulsion to justify his failures to anyone who will listen. And the networks have shown themselves willing to give him all the air time he desires.Now every American has a right to disagree with the President of the ed States and to express publicly that disagreement. But the President of the ed States has a right to communicate directly with the people who elected him, and the people of this country have the right to make up their own minds and form their own opinions about a Presidential address without having a President’s words and thoughts characterized through the prejudices of hostile critics before they can even be digested.When Winston Churchill rallied public opinion to stay the course against Hitler’s Germany, he didn’t have to contend with a gaggle of commentators raising doubts about whether he was ing public opinion right, or whether Britain had the stamina to see the war through. When President Kennedy rallied the nation in the Cuban missile crisis, his address to the people was not chewed over by a roundtable of critics who disparaged the course of action he’d asked America to follow.The purpose of my remarks tonight is to focus your attention on this little group of men who not only enjoy a right of instant rebuttal to every Presidential address, but, more importantly, wield a free hand in selecting, presenting, and interpreting the great issues in our nation. First, let’s define that power.At least 40 million Americans every night, it’s estimated, watch the network news. Seven million of them view A.B.C., the remainder being divided between N.B.C. and C.B.S. According to Harris polls and other studies, for millions of Americans the networks are the sole source of national and world news. In Will Roger’s observation, what you knew was what you in the newspaper. Today for growing millions of Americans, it’s what they see and hear on their television sets.Now how is this network news determined? A small group of men, numbering perhaps no more than a dozen anchormen, commentators, and executive producers, settle upon the 20 minutes or so of film and commentary that’s to reach the public. This selection is made from the 90 to 180 minutes that may be available. Their powers of choice are broad.They decide what 40 to 50 million Americans will learn of the day’s events in the nation and in the world. We cannot measure this power and influence by the traditional democratic standards, for these men can create national issues overnight. They can make or break by their coverage and commentary a moratorium on the war. They can elevate men from obscurity to national prominence within a week. They can reward some politicians with national exposure and ignore others.For millions of Americans the network reporter who covers a continuing issue -- like the ABM or civil rights -- becomes, in effect, the presiding judge in a national trial by jury.It must be recognized that the networks have made important contributions to the national knowledge -- through news, documentaries, and specials. They have often used their power constructively and creatively to awaken the public conscience to critical problems. The networks made hunger and black lung disease national issues overnight. The TV networks have done what no other medium could have done in terms of dramatizing the horrors of war. The networks have tackled our most difficult social problems with a directness and an immediacy that’s the gift of their medium. They focus the nation’s attention on its environmental abuses -- on pollution in the Great Lakes and the threatened ecology of the Everglades. But it was also the networks that elevated Stokely Carmichael and George Lincoln Rockwell from obscurity to national prominence.Nor is their power confined to the substantive. A raised eyebrow, an inflection of the voice, a caustic remark dropped in the middle of a broadcast can raise doubts in a million minds about the veracity of a public official or the wisdom of a Government policy. One Federal Communications Commissioner considers the powers of the networks equal to that of local, state, and Federal Governments all combined. Certainly it represents a concentration of power over American public opinion unknown in history.Now what do Americans know of the men who wield this power? Of the men who produce and direct the network news, the nation knows practically nothing. Of the commentators, most Americans know little other than that they reflect an urbane and assured presence seemingly well-informed on every important matter. We do know that to a man these commentators and producers live and work in the geographical and intellectual confines of Washington, D.C., or New York City, the latter of which James Reston terms the most unrepresentative community in the entire ed States.Both communities bask in their own provincialism, their own parochialism.We can deduce that these men the same newspapers. They draw their political and social views from the same sources. Worse, they talk constantly to one another, thereby providing artificial reinforcement to their shared viewpoints. Do they allow their biases to influence the selection and presentation of the news? David Brinkley states objectivity is impossible to normal human behavior. Rather, he says, we should strive for fairness.Another anchorman on a network news show contends, and I e: “You can’t expunge all your private convictions just because you sit in a seat like this and a camera starts to stare at you. I think your program has to reflect what your basic feelings are. I’ll plead guilty to that.”Less than a week before the 1968 election, this same commentator charged that President Nixon’s campaign commitments were no more durable than campaign balloons. He claimed that, were it not for the fear of hostile reaction, Richard Nixon would be giving into, and I e him exactly, “his natural instinct to smash the enemy with a club or go after him with a meat axe.” Had this slander been made by one political candidate about another, it would have been dismissed by most commentators as a partisan attack. But this attack emanated from the privileged sanctuary of a network studio and therefore had the apparent dignity of an objective statement. The American people would rightly not tolerate this concentration of power in Government. Is it not fair and relevant to question its concentration in the hands of a tiny, enclosed fraternity of privileged men elected by no one and enjoying a monopoly sanctioned and licensed by Government?The views of the majority of this fraternity do not -- and I repeat, not -- represent the views of America. That is why such a great gulf existed between how the nation received the President’s address and how the networks reviewed it. Not only did the country receive the President’s speech more warmly than the networks, but so also did the Congress of the ed States.Yesterday, the President was notified that 300 individual Congressmen and 50 Senators of both parties had endorsed his efforts for peace. As with other American institutions, perhaps it is time that the networks were made more responsive to the views of the nation and more responsible to the people they serve.Now I want to make myself perfectly clear. I’m not asking for Government censorship or any other kind of censorship. I am asking whether a form of censorship aly exists when the news that 40 million Americans receive each night is determined by a handful of men responsible only to their corporate employers and is filtered through a handful of commentators who admit to their own set of biases.The question I’m raising here tonight should have been raised by others long ago. They should have been raised by those Americans who have traditionally considered the preservation of freedom of speech and freedom of the press their special provinces of responsibility. They should have been raised by those Americans who share the view of the late Justice Learned Hand that right conclusions are more likely to be gathered out of a multitude of tongues than through any kind of authoritative selection. Advocates for the networks have claimed a First Amendment right to the same unlimited freedoms held by the great newspapers of America.But the situations are not identical. Where The New York Times reaches 800,000 people, N.B.C. reaches 20 times that number on its evening news. [The average weekday circulation of the Times in October was 1,012,367; the average Sunday circulation was 1,523,558.] Nor can the tremendous impact of seeing television film and hearing commentary be compared with ing the printed page.A decade ago, before the network news acquired such dominance over public opinion, Walter Lippman spoke to the issue. He said there’s an essential and radical difference between television and printing. The three or four competing television stations control virtually all that can be received over the air by ordinary television sets. But besides the mass circulation dailies, there are weeklies, monthlies, out-of-town newspapers and books. If a man doesn’t like his newspaper, he can another from out of town or wait for a weekly news magazine. It’s not ideal, but it’s infinitely better than the situation in television.There, if a man doesn’t like what the networks are showing, all he can do is turn them off and listen to a phonograph. "Networks," he stated "which are few in number have a virtual monopoly of a whole media of communications." The newspaper of mass circulation have no monopoly on the medium of print.Now a virtual monopoly of a whole medium of communication is not something that democratic people should blindly ignore. And we are not going to cut off our television sets and listen to the phonograph just because the airways belong to the networks. They don’t. They belong to the people. As Justice Byron wrote in his landmark opinion six months ago, "It’s the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount."Now it’s argued that this power presents no danger in the hands of those who have used it responsibly. But as to whether or not the networks have abused the power they enjoy, let us call as our first witness, former Vice President Humphrey and the city of Chicago. According to Theodore White, television’s intercutting of the film from the streets of Chicago with the "current proceedings on the floor of the convention created the most striking and false political picture of 1968 -- the nomination of a man for the American Presidency by the brutality and violence of merciless police."If we are to believe a recent report of the House of Representative Commerce Committee, then television’s presentation of the violence in the streets worked an injustice on the reputation of the Chicago police. According to the committee findings, one network in particular presented, and I e, “a one-sided picture which in large measure exonerates the demonstrators and protestors.” Film of provocations of police that was available never saw the light of day, while the film of a police response which the protestors provoked was shown to millions.Another network showed virtually the same scene of violence from three separate angles without making clear it was the same scene. And, while the full report is reticent in drawing conclusions, it is not a document to inspire confidence in the fairness of the network news. Our knowledge of the impact of network news on the national mind is far from complete, but some early returns are available. Again, we have enough information to raise serious questions about its effect on a democratic society. Several years ago Fred Friendly, one of the pioneers of network news, wrote that its missing ingredients were conviction, controversy, and a point of view. The networks have compensated with a vengeance.And in the networks' endless pursuit of controversy, we should ask: What is the end value -- to enlighten or to profit? What is the end result -- to inform or to confuse? How does the ongoing exploration for more action, more excitement, more drama serve our national search for internal peace and stability? Gresham’s Law seems to be operating in the network news. Bad news drives out good news. The irrational is more controversial than the rational. Concurrence can no longer compete with dissent. One minute of Eldrige Cleaver is worth 10 minutes of Roy Wilkins. The labor crisis settled at the negotiating table is nothing compared to the confrontation that results in a strike -- or better yet, violence along the picket lines. Normality has become the nemesis of the network news. Now the upshot of all this controversy is that a narrow and distorted picture of America often emerges from the televised news. A single, dramatic piece of the mosaic becomes in the minds of millions the entire picture. The American who relies upon television for his news might conclude that the majority of American students are embittered radicals; that the majority of black Americans feel no regard for their country; that violence and lawlessness are the rule rather than the exception on the American campus.We know that none of these conclusions is true.Perhaps the place to start looking for a credibility gap is not in the offices of the Government in Washington but in the studios of the networks in New York! Television may have destroyed the old stereotypes, but has it not created new ones in their places? What has this "passionate" pursuit of controversy done to the politics of progress through logical compromise essential to the functioning of a democratic society?The members of Congress or the Senate who follow their principles and philosophy quietly in a spirit of compromise are unknown to many Americans, while the loudest and most extreme dissenters on every issue are known to every man in the street. How many marches and demonstrations would we have if the marchers did not know that the ever-faithful TV cameras would be there to record their antics for the next news show?We’ve heard demands that Senators and Congressmen and judges make known all their financial connections so that the public will know who and what influences their decisions and their votes. Strong arguments can be made for that view. But when a single commentator or producer, night after night, determines for millions of people how much of each side of a great issue they are going to see and hear, should he not first disclose his personal views on the issue as well?In this search for excitement and controversy, has more than equal time gone to the minority of Americans who specialize in attacking the ed States -- its institutions and its citizens?Tonight I’ve raised questions. I’ve made no attempt to suggest the answers. The answers must come from the media men. They are challenged to turn their critical powers on themselves, to direct their energy, their talent, and their conviction toward improving the quality and objectivity of news presentation. They are challenged to structure their own civic ethics to relate to the great responsibilities they hold.And the people of America are challenged, too -- challenged to press for responsible news presentation. The people can let the networks know that they want their news straight and objective. The people can register their complaints on bias through mail to the networks and phone calls to local stations. This is one case where the people must defend themselves, where the citizen, not the Government, must be the reformer; where the consumer can be the most effective crusader.By way of conclusion, let me say that every elected leader in the ed States depends on these men of the media. Whether what I’ve said to you tonight will be heard and seen at all by the nation is not my decision, it’s not your decision, it’s their decision. In tomorrow’s edition of the Des Moines Register, you’ll be able to a news story detailing what I’ve said tonight. Editorial comment will be reserved for the editorial page, where it belongs. Should not the same wall of separation exist between news and comment on the nation’s networks? Now, my friends, we’d never trust such power, as I’ve described, over public opinion in the hands of an elected Government. It’s time we questioned it in the hands of a small unelected elite. The great networks have dominated America’s airwaves for decades. The people are entitled a full accounting their stewardship. John F. KennedyCuban Missile Crisis Address to the Nationdelivered 22 October 1962 [AUTHENTICITY CERTIFIED: Text version below transcribed directly from audio.]Good evening, my fellow citizens: This Government, as promised, has maintained the closest surveillance of the Soviet military buildup on the island of Cuba. Within the past week, unmistakable evidence has established the fact that a series of offensive missile sites is now in preparation on that imprisoned island. The purpose of these bases can be none other than to provide a nuclear strike capability against the Western Hemisphere. Upon receiving the first preliminary hard information of this nature last Tuesday morning at 9 A.M., I directed that our surveillance be stepped up. And having now confirmed and completed our evaluation of the evidence and our decision on a course of action, this Government feels obliged to report this new crisis to you in fullest detail. The characteristics of these new missile sites indicate two distinct types of installations. Several of them include medium range ballistic missiles, capable of carrying a nuclear warhead for a distance of more than 1,000 nautical miles. Each of these missiles, in short, is capable of striking Washington, D. C., the Panama Canal, Cape Canaveral, Mexico City, or any other city in the southeastern part of the ed States, in Central America, or in the Caribbean area. Additional sites not yet completed appear to be designed for intermediate range ballistic missiles -- capable of traveling more than twice as far -- and thus capable of striking most of the major cities in the Western Hemisphere, ranging as far north as Hudson Bay, Canada, and as far south as Lima, Peru. In addition, jet bombers, capable of carrying nuclear weapons, are now being uncrated and assembled in Cuba, while the necessary air bases are being prepared. This urgent transformation of Cuba into an important strategic base -- by the presence of these large, long-range, and clearly offensive weapons of sudden mass destruction -- constitutes an explicit threat to the peace and security of all the Americas, in flagrant and deliberate defiance of the Rio Pact of 1947, the traditions of this Nation and hemisphere, the joint resolution of the 87th Congress, the Charter of the ed Nations, and my own public warnings to the Soviets on September 4 and 13. This action also contradicts the repeated assurances of Soviet spokesmen, both publicly and privately delivered, that the arms buildup in Cuba would retain its original defensive character, and that the Soviet Union had no need or desire to station strategic missiles. on the territory of any other nation. The size of this undertaking makes clear that it has been planned for some months. Yet, only last month, after I had made clear the distinction between any introduction of ground-to-ground missiles and the existence of defensive antiaircraft missiles, the Soviet Government publicly stated on September 11 that, and I e, "the armaments and military equipment sent to Cuba are designed exclusively for defensive purposes," that there is, and I e the Soviet Government, "there is no need for the Soviet Government to shift its weapons for a retaliatory blow to any other country, for instance Cuba," and that, and I e their government, "the Soviet Union has so powerful rockets to carry these nuclear warheads that there is no need to search for sites for them beyond the boundaries of the Soviet Union." That statement was false. Only last Thursday, as evidence of this rapid offensive buildup was aly in my hand, Soviet Foreign Minister Gromyko told me in my office that he was instructed to make it clear once again, as he said his government had aly done, that Soviet assistance to Cuba, and I e, "pursued solely the purpose of contributing to the defense capabilities of Cuba," that, and I e him, "training by Soviet specialists of Cuban nationals in handling defensive armaments was by no means offensive, and if it were otherwise," Mr. Gromyko went on, "the Soviet Government would never become involved in rendering such assistance." That statement also was false. Neither the ed States of America nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security to constitute maximum peril. Nuclear weapons are so destructive and ballistic missiles are so swift, that any substantially increased possibility of their use or any sudden change in their deployment may well be regarded as a definite threat to peace. For many years, both the Soviet Union and the ed States, recognizing this fact, have deployed strategic nuclear weapons with great care, never upsetting the precarious status quo which insured that these weapons would not be used in the absence of some vital challenge. Our own strategic missiles have never been transferred to the territory of any other nation under a cloak of secrecy and deception; and our history -- unlike that of the Soviets since the end of World War II -- demonstrates that we have no desire to dominate or conquer any other nation or impose our system upon its people. Nevertheless, American citizens have become adjusted to living daily on the bull's-eye of Soviet missiles located inside the U.S.S.R. or in submarines. In that sense, missiles in Cuba add to an aly clear and present danger -- although it should be noted the nations of Latin America have never previously been subjected to a potential nuclear threat. But this secret, swift, extraordinary buildup of Communist missiles -- in an area well known to have a special and historical relationship to the ed States and the nations of the Western Hemisphere, in violation of Soviet assurances, and in defiance of American and hemispheric policy -- this sudden, clandestine decision to station strategic weapons for the first time outside of Soviet soil -- is a deliberately provocative and unjustified change in the status quo which cannot be accepted by this country, if our courage and our commitments are ever to be trusted again by either friend or foe. The 1930's taught us a clear lesson: aggressive conduct, if allowed to go unchecked and unchallenged, ultimately leads to war. This nation is opposed to war. We are also true to our word. Our unswerving objective, therefore, must be to prevent the use of these missiles against this or any other country, and to secure their withdrawal or elimination from the Western Hemisphere. Our policy has been one of patience and restraint, as befits a peaceful and powerful nation which leads a worldwide alliance. We have been determined not to be diverted from our central concerns by mere irritants and fanatics. But now further action is required, and it is under way; and these actions may only be the beginning. We will not prematurely or unnecessarily risk the costs of worldwide nuclear war in which even the fruits of victory would be ashes in our mouth; but neither will we shrink from that risk at any time it must be faced. Acting, therefore, in the defense of our own security and of the entire Western Hemisphere, and under the authority entrusted to me by the Constitution as endorsed by the Resolution of the Congress, I have directed that the following initial steps be taken immediately: First: To halt this offensive buildup a strict quarantine on all offensive military equipment under shipment to Cuba is being initiated. All ships of any kind bound for Cuba from whatever nation or port will, if found to contain cargoes of offensive weapons, be turned back. This quarantine will be extended, if needed, to other types of cargo and carriers. We are not at this time, however, denying the necessities of life as the Soviets attempted to do in their Berlin blockade of 1948. Second: I have directed the continued and increased close surveillance of Cuba and its military buildup. The foreign ministers of the OAS [Organization of American States], in their communiqué' of October 6, rejected secrecy on such matters in this hemisphere. Should these offensive military preparations continue, thus increasing the threat to the hemisphere, further action will be justified. I have directed the Armed Forces to prepare for any eventualities; and I trust that in the interest of both the Cuban people and the Soviet technicians at the sites, the hazards to all concerned of continuing this threat will be recognized. Third: It shall be the policy of this Nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere as an attack by the Soviet Union on the ed States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union. Fourth: As a necessary military precaution, I have reinforced our base at Guantanamo, evacuated today the dependents of our personnel there, and ordered additional military units to be on a standby alert basis. Fifth: We are calling tonight for an immediate meeting of the Organ[ization] of Consultation under the Organization of American States, to consider this threat to hemispheric security and to invoke articles 6 and 8 of the Rio Treaty in support of all necessary action. The ed Nations Charter allows for regional security arrangements, and the nations of this hemisphere decided long ago against the military presence of outside powers. Our other allies around the world have also been alerted. Sixth: Under the Charter of the ed Nations, we are asking tonight that an emergency meeting of the Security Council be convoked without delay to take action against this latest Soviet threat to world peace. Our resolution will call for the prompt dismantling and withdrawal of all offensive weapons in Cuba, under the supervision of U.N. observers, before the quarantine can be lifted. Seventh and finally: I call upon Chairman Khrushchev to halt and eliminate this clandestine, reckless, and provocative threat to world peace and to stable relations between our two nations. I call upon him further to abandon this course of world domination, and to join in an historic effort to end the perilous arms race and to transform the history of man. He has an opportunity now to move the world back from the abyss of destruction by returning to his government's own words that it had no need to station missiles outside its own territory, and withdrawing these weapons from Cuba by refraining from any action which will widen or deepen the present crisis, and then by participating in a search for peaceful and permanent solutions. This Nation is prepared to present its case against the Soviet threat to peace, and our own proposals for a peaceful world, at any time and in any forum -- in the OAS, in the ed Nations, or in any other meeting that could be useful -- without limiting our freedom of action. We have in the past made strenuous efforts to limit the sp of nuclear weapons. We have proposed the elimination of all arms and military bases in a fair and effective disarmament treaty. We are prepared to discuss new proposals for the removal of tensions on both sides, including the possibilities of a genuinely independent Cuba, free to determine its own destiny. We have no wish to war with the Soviet Union -- for we are a peaceful people who desire to live in peace with all other peoples. But it is difficult to settle or even discuss these problems in an atmosphere of intimidation. That is why this latest Soviet threat -- or any other threat which is made either independently or in response to our actions this week-- must and will be met with determination. Any hostile move anywhere in the world against the safety and freedom of peoples to whom we are committed, including in particular the brave people of West Berlin, will be met by whatever action is needed. Finally, I want to say a few words to the captive people of Cuba, to whom this speech is being directly carried by special radio facilities. I speak to you as a friend, as one who knows of your deep attachment to your fatherland, as one who shares your aspirations for liberty and justice for all. And I have watched and the American people have watched with deep sorrow how your nationalist revolution was betrayed -- and how your fatherland fell under foreign domination. Now your leaders are no longer Cuban leaders inspired by Cuban ideals. They are puppets and agents of an international conspiracy which has turned Cuba against your friends and neighbors in the Americas, and turned it into the first Latin American country to become a target for nuclear war -- the first Latin American country to have these weapons on its soil. These new weapons are not in your interest. They contribute nothing to your peace and well-being. They can only undermine it. But this country has no wish to cause you to suffer or to impose any system upon you. We know that your lives and land are being used as pawns by those who deny your freedom. Many times in the past, the Cuban people have risen to throw out tyrants who destroyed their liberty. And I have no doubt that most Cubans today look forward to the time when they will be truly free -- free from foreign domination, free to choose their own leaders, free to select their own system, free to own their own land, free to speak and write and worship without fear or degradation. And then shall Cuba be welcomed back to the society of free nations and to the associations of this hemisphere. My fellow citizens, let no one doubt that this is a difficult and dangerous effort on which we have set out. No one can foresee precisely what course it will take or what costs or casualties will be incurred. Many months of sacrifice and self-discipline lie ahead -- months in which both our patience and our will be tested, months in which many threats and denunciations will keep us aware of our dangers. But the greatest danger of all would be to do nothing. The path we have chosen for the present is full of hazards, as all paths are; but it is the one most consistent with our character and courage as a nation and our commitments around the world. The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender or submission. Our goal is not the victory of might, but the vindication of right; not peace at the expense of freedom, but both peace and freedom, here in this hemisphere, and, we hope, around the world. God willing, that goal will be achieved. Thank you and good night.200806/40919

  • 京东助手平阴县治疗妇科多少钱
  • 济南阳光妇科医院网上预约咨询
  • 99中文济南中心医院是私人的吗爱优惠
  • 济南中医医院哪年成立88新闻
  • 济南市市中医医院专家微信问医门户聊城中医院有微创手术吗
  • 好门户山东妇幼保健院女子妇科医院
  • 山东省妇保医院医术信得过?
  • 京东新闻济南市妇幼保健医院好吗?龙马热点
  • 妇科医院排名济南好医卫生
  • 济南第一人民医院治疗不孕不育好吗
  • 山东省济南市妇幼保健医院看病贵不贵爱资讯济南医院乳腺检查
  • 济南市中心医院妇科医生58面诊
  • 58大夫济南市阳光妇产医院无痛人流价格
  • 济南公立三甲医院正规吗
  • 山东中心医院看不孕医生问医时讯
  • 泰安生孩子多少钱妙手优惠济南能做无痛人流的医院哪家比较好
  • 家庭医生时讯济南妇科检查医院哪家好39网
  • 济南市阳光女子是不是正规医院快问指南
  • 济南人流医院到哪家
  • 济阳县不孕不育多少钱58分享
  • 美丽诊疗济南机车医院妇科检查怎么样预约对话
  • 济南90医院人流手术
  • 百度热点临沂市妇幼保健院人流收费标准最新共享
  • 商河县人民医院引产多少钱康新闻
  • 58热点商河县妇幼保健院社保卡99专家
  • 济宁市治疗不孕不育多少钱
  • 济宁妇幼保健院口碑怎么样
  • 山东师范大学校医院治疗子宫肌瘤好吗
  • 济南五院医生的QQ号码
  • 济南的妇科医院预约电话中国指南
  • 相关阅读
  • 济南人流治疗效果好的医院华龙媒体
  • 平阴县中医院怎么样
  • 排名生活山东第二医院做孕检多少钱
  • 济南做B超价格健康共享
  • 济南市齐鲁是正规医院吗
  • 山东济南阳光妇科属于私人医院吗?千龙典范齐河县中医院收费怎么样
  • 济南第四医院检查白带多少钱
  • 飞度云中文山东省立医院价位表健康指南
  • 济南妇幼保健院做人流
  • 德州妇幼保健院门诊
  • (责任编辑:郝佳 UK047)