You said it now, Wolf Blitzer. Nothing but "lip service."
http://articles.latimes.com/1992-05-06/news/mn-1284_1_shuttle-flight
Los Angeles Times
NASA's New Endeavour Faces Challenging, Potentially Dangerous Flight : Science: Shuttle voyage will include spacewalks and a satellite-rescue mission. The seven-person crew will also practice construction in orbit.
May 06, 1992 ROBERT W. STEWART TIMES STAFF WRITER
WASHINGTON — The nation's newest space shuttle, Endeavour, is scheduled to lift off at 4:06 p.m. PDT Thursday on its maiden voyage and one of the most challenging missions in the 11-year history of the shuttle program.
If things go as planned, Endeavour's seven-day flight will include a record three spacewalks, the delicate and potentially dangerous rescue and relaunch of a $150-million communications satellite, and a practice run at assembling parts of the planned space station Freedom 200 nautical miles above the Earth.
In addition, the six men and one woman aboard will test the latest devices that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration has devised for its four-shuttle fleet.
Originally scheduled for Monday evening, the beginning of Endeavour's maiden voyage was moved back three days until Thursday to permit a daylight launch. Officials said Tuesday that poor weather conditions could lead to a further delay. Thunderstorms expected Thursday put the chance of launch at 30%, and Friday's weather could present a similar problem, they said.
With Endeavour's scheduled launch coming as Congress renews the debate over the future of America's manned space program, "the general theme of this mission seems to be the human role in space," said John E. Pike, director of the space policy project for the American Federation of Scientists. "To demonstrate or evaluate just what you can do with people that you can't do some other way, I think that's what this . . . is all about."
Endeavour's mission, the 47th shuttle flight since Columbia was launched in 1981, is of particular interest to Californians. The new shuttle's pilot, Air Force Lt. Col. Kevin P. Chilton
JOURNAL ARCHIVE: Posted by H.V.O.M at 3:07 AM Saturday, September 27, 2008
http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=11161
IMMEDIATE RELEASE No. 917-07
July 24, 2007
General Officer Announcements
Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates announced today that the President has made the following nominations:
Air Force Gen. Kevin P. Chilton for appointment to the grade of general and assignment as commander, U.S. Strategic Command
[JOURNAL ARCHIVE 27 September 2008 excerpt ends]
JOURNAL ARCHIVE: Posted by H.V.O.M at 3:07 AM Saturday, September 27, 2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_P._Chilton
Kevin P. Chilton
General Kevin Patrick "Chilly" Chilton, USAF, (b November 3, 1954), is the current Commander, U.S. Strategic Command of which he assumed the duties on October 3, 2007.
http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/chilton.html
Kevin P. Chilton (General, USAF)
NASA Astronaut (former)
PERSONAL DATA: Born November 3, 1954
[JOURNAL ARCHIVE 27 September 2008 excerpt ends]
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1992-05-07/news/9202060993_1_crew-rescue-satellite-rescue-self-rescue-techniques
SunSentinel
`Endeavour` To Practice Rescue Of Spacewalkers
May 7, 1992 By ARDEN MOORE, Staff Writer
Imagine floating helplessly in space, out of reach of your spacecraft, alone in the vast darkness.
America`s space program has lacked a proven self-rescue plan for spacewalking astronauts, NASA officials say.
But the crew of Endeavour plans to change that as it prepares for an ambitious, weeklong voyage set to begin at 7:06 p.m. today.
Forecasts of bad weather at the launch site and at emergency landing strips give NASA only a 30 percent chance of an on-time launch, however. Shuttle weather officer Ed Priselac said on Wednesday that rain, thunderstorms, low clouds, haze and even hail were possible at the Kennedy Space Center and at touchdown sites in California, New Mexico and Africa.
``Right now, it certainly looks pretty unfavorable,`` Priselac said.
The mission is designed to prepare astronauts for long days in space as NASA moves closer to the construction of Space Station Freedom and colonies on the moon and Mars.
Practicing different self-rescue techniques is a priority for the Endeavour crew, Commander Dan Brandenstein said.
``Crew rescue is very important in the space station assembly period,`` Brandenstein said. ``Astronauts could become untethered and float away from the space station.``
Endeavour`s maiden voyage is packed with several firsts for the 11-year-old shuttle program:
-- There will be three consecutive days of spacewalking, each expected to last six to seven hours. Four astronauts plan to repair a satellite, build space station-type structures and practice self-rescue methods.
-- The crew will perform the most complex satellite rescue mission ever attempted. The crew must match the orbit of a wayward satellite, snag it and fit it with a rocket motor.
-- A drag chute will pop out of the orbiter seconds before touching down for added safety.
-- Some viewers will have a chance to feel as if they have a front-row seat to a satellite rescue. All conversations between the crew and mission control will be live and unedited.
``Certainly, it is a difficult mission,`` said G.P. Pennington, flight director. ``Yes, this is ambitious, but we are up to it.``
For months, the crew has practiced countless what-if scenarios at Johnson Space Center in Houston. The biggest what-if: suddenly finding oneself solo in space and out of reach of a space shuttle.
Four crew members will practice self-rescue techniques using rope, a pole and gas-bottled propulsion packs.
``Space Station Freedom will be in operation in a few years, and there may come a time on a (spacewalk) that you don`t have a shuttle around to rescue you if you become untethered,`` said astronaut Tom Akers, in charge of self- rescue techniques.
Akers, one of Endeavour`s astronauts, said NASA engineers have yet to design a foolproof self-rescue method. This mission will give astronauts a chance to try out a few.
``All of these are just concepts and all have limitations,`` Akers said. ``With the grapple devices, you must be able to see your target. With the propulsive type, you are limited by the amount of propellant.``
The mission features another first for space buffs: a ``hot microphone`` to be used during the crew`s retrieval, repair and re-boosting of an Intelsat international telecommunications satellite.
Some viewers can watch and listen as spacewalking astronauts attach a rocket motor to the satellite, which has been spinning uselessly in a wrong orbit since a flawed launch two years ago.
``Everything the crew says in the cabin, we will hear on the ground,`` NASA spokesman Jeff Carr said. ``You will feel like you are right with them.``
The live, unedited coverage will be carried on the NASA Select cable channel during the fourth day of the mission. Also, owners of satellite dishes can tune in by pointing to SATCOM F-2R, transponder 13.
NASA officials call the satellite rescue attempt the trickiest to date. Pilot Keven Chilton must steer Endeavour into a matching orbit with the satellite. Astronauts Pierre Thuot and Rick Hieb will stand ready in the orbiter`s payload bay as the satellite approaches.
``Right now, Intelsat is in a 300-nautical-mile orbit, and the space shuttle will be launched into a 200-nautical-mile orbit,`` Chilton said. ``The spot in the sky where we come together is called the control box. We hope to do that 46 hours after launch.``
http://articles.latimes.com/1992-05-14/news/mn-3026_1_cargo-bay
Los Angeles Times
3 Astronauts Grab Marooned Satellite in a Dramatic Rescue : Space: The manual capture is biggest step in an hours-long procedure to retrieve the craft. The crew is to bring it into the shuttle's cargo bay to attach a booster rocket.
May 14, 1992 ROBERT W. STEWART TIMES STAFF WRITER
Flight controllers at the Washington headquarters of the International Telecommunications Satellite Organization, the 122-nation consortium that owns and operates the $150-million satellite, later were able to stabilize it.
"The training was fine. My sense is that the tool did not work as designed, which would not be the first time," said former astronaut Joseph P. Allen, who was involved in a 1984 spacewalk and satellite rescue in which a tool intended to stabilize the errant PALAPA B-2 satellite did not work.
The Intelsat rescue marked the first time that astronauts used nothing but their hands to capture an orbiting satellite, according to officials at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Johnson Space Center here.
The mission also was the first time that astronauts had carried aloft a rocket motor to boost a stranded satellite into high orbit.
The hand-capture involved significant risks for the $2-billion Endeavour, the $150-million satellite and the astronauts, who had only their gloved hands to prevent the massive satellite from crashing into the orbiter.
Even a light collision that damaged the open cargo bay doors could have been disastrous because the doors must be closed for the shuttle's return to Earth. Damage to the shuttle's tail section, which guides the orbiter on its descent, also could have proved fatal.
In addition, the astronauts could have been killed had a sharp edge on the satellite sliced through the five layers of material on their gloves and released the oxygen from their spacesuits.
But the virtually flawless flying by Endeavour commander Daniel C. Brandenstein, who controlled the shuttle by hand during the last 90 minutes before the rendezvous, averted problems.
"I have my toes, my fingers and my eyes crossed waiting for the mission," NASA Administrator Daniel S. Goldin told the crew during a telephone call Tuesday night. "The one thing I ask you all to keep in mind is crew safety has got to be our first objective."
NASA flight controllers delayed the beginning of the rendezvous for 90 minutes one orbit of the Earth--when they discovered a problem with the computer software aboard the shuttle used to track the satellite and aim the Endeavour toward it.
In the end, controllers at the space center transmitted their own targeting information to Endeavour pilot Kevin P. Chilton, 36, rather than rely on the suspect targeting data from the shuttle's computers.
From 7/16/1954 ( Dwight Eisenhower - Statement by the President Upon Signing Bill Increasing Reenlistment Bonuses for Members of the Uniformed Services ) To 7/24/2007 is 19366 days
19366 = 9683 + 9683
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 5/7/1992 ( the first launch of the US space shuttle Endeavour orbiter vehicle mission STS-49 includes me Kerry Wayne Burgess the United States Marine Corps officer and United States STS-49 pilot astronaut ) is 9683 days
From 8/17/1950 ( Harry Truman - Executive Order 10152 - Regulations Relating to the Right of Members of the Uniformed Services to Incentive Pay for the Performance of Hazardous Duty Required by Competent Orders ) To 5/7/1992 ( the first launch of the US space shuttle Endeavour orbiter vehicle mission STS-49 includes me Kerry Wayne Burgess the United States Marine Corps officer and United States STS-49 pilot astronaut ) is 15239 days
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 7/24/2007 is 15239 days
From 2/6/2004 ( my final day working at Microsoft Corporation as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and the deputy director of the United States Marshals Service and the United States Marine Corps brigadier general circa 2004 ) To 7/24/2007 is 1264 days
1264 = 632 + 632
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 7/27/1967 ( Lyndon Johnson - Remarks at the Department of Defense Cost Reduction Ceremony ) is 632 days
From 7/3/1958 ( the first flight of the John Silva "Telecopter" ) To 7/24/2007 is 17918 days
17918 = 8959 + 8959
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 5/14/1990 ( departing as United States Navy Fire Controlman Second Class Petty Officer Kerry Wayne Burgess my honorable discharge from United States Navy active service for commissioning as chief warrant officer United States Marine Corps and my United States of America military service continues as Kerry Wayne Burgess the United States Marine Corps general ) is 8959 days
From 1/17/1991 ( the date of record of my United States Navy Medal of Honor as Kerry Wayne Burgess chief warrant officer United States Marine Corps circa 1991 also known as Matthew Kline for official duty and also known as Wayne Newman for official duty ) To 7/24/2007 is 6032 days
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 5/9/1982 ( Ronald Reagan - Address at Commencement Exercises at Eureka College in Illinois ) is 6032 days
From 1/17/1991 ( RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS US Title 18 - the Persian Gulf War begins as scheduled severe criminal activity against the United States of America ) To 7/24/2007 is 6032 days
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 5/9/1982 ( Ronald Reagan - Address at Commencement Exercises at Eureka College in Illinois ) is 6032 days
From 10/29/1956 ( Dwight Eisenhower - Letter to a College Student Concerning the Administration's Views on Education ) To 7/24/2007 is 18530 days
18530 = 9265 + 9265
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 3/16/1991 ( my first successful major test of my ultraspace matter transportation device as Kerry Wayne Burgess the successful Ph.D. graduate Columbia South Carolina ) is 9265 days
From 9/4/1976 ( the unpublished and true birthdate of Beyonce Knowles ) To 7/24/2007 is 11280 days
11280 = 5640 + 5640
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 4/12/1981 ( my biological brother United States Navy Fleet Admiral Thomas Reagan was the commander aboard the United States STS-1 Columbia spacecraft ) is 5640 days
From 9/4/1976 ( George Walker Bush the purveyor of illegal drugs strictly for his personal profit including the trafficking of massive amounts of cocaine into the United States arrested again by police in the United States ) To 7/24/2007 is 11280 days
11280 = 5640 + 5640
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 4/12/1981 ( my biological brother United States Navy Fleet Admiral Thomas Reagan was the commander aboard the United States STS-1 Columbia spacecraft ) is 5640 days
From 1/19/1993 ( in Asheville North Carolina as United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess I was seriously wounded by gunfire when I returned fatal gunfire to a fugitive from United States federal justice who was another criminal sent by Bill Gates-Nazi-Microsoft-George Bush the cowardly violent criminal in another attempt to kill me the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 7/24/2007 is 5299 days
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 5/6/1980 ( Jimmy Carter - Proclamation 4756 - Tribute to Eight American Servicemen ) is 5299 days
From 4/10/1955 ( Pierre Teilhard de Chardin dead ) To 7/24/2007 is 19098 days
19098 = 9549 + 9549
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 12/25/1991 ( as United States Marine Corps chief warrant officer Kerry Wayne Burgess I was prisoner of war in Croatia ) is 9549 days
From 3/31/1953 ( Dwight Eisenhower - Executive Order 10441 - Continuing in Effect Certain Appointments as Officers and Warrant Officers of the Army and the Air Force ) To 12/20/1994 ( in Bosnia as Kerry Wayne Burgess the United States Marine Corps captain this day is my United States Navy Cross medal date of record ) is 15239 days
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 7/24/2007 is 15239 days
From 10/28/1994 ( premiere US film "Stargate" ) To 7/24/2007 is 4652 days
4652 = 2326 + 2326
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 3/16/1972 ( Richard Nixon - Special Message to the Congress on Science and Technology ) is 2326 days
From 2/12/1924 ( Howard Carter lifts the lid from the sarcophagus in the tomb of Tutankhamun ) To 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active United States Marine Corps officer ) is 15239 days
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 7/24/2007 is 15239 days
From 5/4/2005 ( the incident at the police department City of Kent Washington State after my voluntary approach to report material criminal activity directed against my person and I am secretly drugged against my consent ) To 7/24/2007 is 811 days
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 1/22/1968 ( premiere US TV series "Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In" ) is 811 days
From 4/5/1930 ( Mahatma Gandhi defies the law to harvest salt ) To 12/25/1971 ( George Walker Bush the purveyor of illegal drugs strictly for his personal profit including the trafficking of massive amounts of cocaine into the United States confined to federal prison in Mexico for illegally smuggling narcotics in Mexico ) is 15239 days
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 7/24/2007 is 15239 days
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=75601
The American Presidency Project
George W. Bush
XLIII President of the United States: 2001 - 2009
Remarks to Military Personnel and Their Families at Charleston Air Force Base, South Carolina
July 24, 2007
Thank you all. Please be seated. Thank you, Colonel. Thanks for the hospitality and kind introduction. I'm proud to be with the men and women of the Air Force, the Navy, the Marines, the Army, and the Coast Guard. Thanks for serving. Thanks for wearing the uniform of the United States of America.
I'm proud to be back here in the great State of South Carolina. I'm proud to be with some of the Palmetto State's finest citizens. I'm glad to be eating lunch with you. The food is pretty good, Colonel. [Laughter] I always like a good barbeque. [Laughter]
I also am proud to be with the military families. You know, our troops are obviously engaged in a tough struggle, tough fight, a fight that I think is noble and necessary for our peace. And so are our families. Our military families endure the separations. They worry about their loved ones. They pray for safe return. By carrying out these burdens, our military families are serving the United States of America, and this country is grateful to America's military families.
I appreciate Colonel Millander leading the 437th Airlift Wing here at the Charleston Airbase. Thank you for the tour. Nice, big airplanes carrying a lot of cargo. [Laughter] And it's good to see the amazing operations that take place here to keep our troops supplied.
I'm honored here to be with Deb as well. That's Red's wife. I call him Red; you call him Colonel. [Laughter] He did a smart thing; he married a woman from Texas. So did I. [Laughter] And Laura sends her very best to you all.
I'm proud to be here with Mark Bauknight—Colonel Bauknight, acting commander of the 315th Airlift Wing, and his wife Leslie.
I am traveling today with one of the true stalwarts of freedom, a man who understands the stakes of the war we're in and a man who strongly supports the military in accomplishing the mission that we've sent you to do, and that's Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. This base is represented by Congressman Henry Brown of South Carolina. He understands what I understand: When we have somebody in harm's way, that person deserves the full support of the Congress and the President. And you'll have the full support of the President of the United States during this war against these radicals and extremists.
I appreciate the Lieutenant Governor of this State, Andre Bauer. Thanks for coming, Governor. I'm proud to be here with the speaker of the house of representatives for South Carolina, State Representative Bobby Harrell. Mr. Speaker, thanks for coming.
We've got some mayors with us, and I appreciate the mayors being here today: Mayor Riley, Mayor Hallman, Mayor Summey. I'm honored that you all would take time out of your busy schedule to come by and pay tribute to these men and women who serve our Nation so ably.
I'm proud to be with Chairman Tim Scott of the Charleston County Council. I'm proud to be with other State and local officials. And I'm really glad to be with you all. Thank you for your courage.
Since the attacks of September the 11th, 2001, the airmen of Team Charleston have deployed across the globe in support in the war on terror. During the liberation of Afghanistan, aircrews from Team Charleston flew hundreds of sorties to transport troops and deliver supplies and help the liberation of 25 million people.
Team Charleston is playing a crucial role in Iraq. Every day, C-17s lift off from Charleston carrying tons of vital supplies for our troops on the frontlines. Your efforts are saving lives, and you're bringing security to this country. Every member of Team Charleston can take pride in a great record of accomplishment. And America is grateful for your courage in the cause of freedom. And your courage is needed.
Nearly 6 years after the 9/11 attacks, America remains a nation at war. The terrorist network that attacked us that day is determined to strike our country again, and we must do everything in our power to stop them. A key lesson of September the 11th is that the best way to protect America is to go on the offense, to fight the terrorists overseas so we don't have to face them here at home. And that is exactly what our men and women in uniform are doing across the world.
The key theater in this global war is Iraq. Our troops are serving bravely in that country. They're opposing ruthless enemies, and no enemy is more ruthless in Iraq than Al Qaida. They send suicide bombers into crowded markets; they behead innocent captives; and they murder American troops. They want to bring down Iraq's democracy so they can use that nation as a terrorist safe haven for attacks against our country. So our troops are standing strong with nearly 12 million Iraqis who voted for a future of peace, and they do so for the security of Iraq and the safety of American citizens.
There's a debate in Washington about Iraq, and nothing wrong with a healthy debate. There's also a debate about Al Qaida's role in Iraq. Some say that Iraq is not part of the broader war on terror. They complain when I say that the Al Qaida terrorists we face in Iraq are part of the same enemy that attacked us on September the 11th, 2001. They claim that the organization called Al Qaida in Iraq is an Iraqi phenomenon, that it's independent of Usama bin Laden, and that it's not interested in attacking America.
That would be news to Usama bin Laden. He's proclaimed that the "third world war is raging in Iraq." Usama bin Laden says, "The war is for you or for us to win. If we win it, it means your defeat and disgrace forever." I say that there will be a big defeat in Iraq, and it will be the defeat of Al Qaida.
Today I will consider the arguments of those who say that Al Qaida and Al Qaida in Iraq are separate entities. I will explain why they are both part of the same terrorist network and why they are dangerous to our country.
I'd like to start with some basic facts. Al Qaida in Iraq was founded by a Jordanian terrorist, not an Iraqi. His name was Abu Musab Al Zarqawi. Before 9/11, he ran a terrorist camp in Afghanistan. He was not yet a member of Al Qaida, but our intelligence community reports that he had longstanding relations with senior Al Qaida leaders, that he had met with Usama bin Laden and his chief deputy, Zawahiri.
In 2001, coalition forces destroyed Zarqawi's Afghan training camp, and he fled the country, and he went to Iraq, where he set up operations with terrorist associates long before the arrival of coalition forces. In the violence and instability following Saddam's fall, Zarqawi was able to expand dramatically the size, scope, and lethality of his operation. In 2004, Zarqawi and his terrorist group formally joined Al Qaida, pledged allegiance to Usama bin Laden, and he promised to "follow his orders in jihad."
Soon after, bin Laden publicly declared that Zarqawi was the "Prince of Al Qaida in Iraq," and he instructed terrorists in Iraq to "listen to him and obey him." It's hard to argue that Al Qaida in Iraq is separate from bin Laden's Al Qaida when the leader of Al Qaida in Iraq took an oath of allegiance to Usama bin Laden.
According to our intelligence community, the Zarqawi-bin Laden merger gave Al Qaida in Iraq, quote, "prestige among potential recruits and financiers." The merger also gave Al Qaida's senior leadership, quote, "a foothold in Iraq to extend its geographic presence to plot external operations and to tout the centrality of the jihad in Iraq to solicit direct monetary support elsewhere." The merger between Al Qaida and its Iraqi affiliate is an alliance of killers, and that is why the finest military in the world is on their trail.
Zarqawi was killed by U.S. forces in June 2006. He was replaced by another foreigner, an Egyptian named Abu Ayyub al-Masri. His ties to the Al Qaida senior leadership are deep and longstanding. He has collaborated with Zawahiri for more than two decades. And before 9/11, he spent time with Al Qaida in Afghanistan, where he taught classes indoctrinating others in Al Qaida's radical ideology.
After Abu Ayyub took over Al Qaida's Iraqi operations last year, Usama bin Laden sent a terrorist leader named Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi to help him. According to our intelligence community, this man was a senior adviser to bin Laden who served as his top commander in Afghanistan. Abd al-Hadi never made it to Iraq. He was captured and was recently transferred to the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay. The fact that Usama bin Laden risked sending one of his most valued commanders to Iraq shows the importance he places on success of Al Qaida's Iraqi operations.
According to our intelligence community, many of Al Qaida in Iraq's other senior leaders are also foreign terrorists. They include a Syrian who is Al Qaida in Iraq's emir in Baghdad, a Saudi who is Al Qaida in Iraq's top spiritual and legal advisor, an Egyptian who fought in Afghanistan in the 1990s and who has met with Usama bin Laden, a Tunisian who we believe plays a key role in managing foreign fighters. Last month in Iraq, we killed a senior Al Qaida facilitator named Mehmet Yilmaz, a Turkish national who fought with Al Qaida in Afghanistan and met the September the 11th mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and other Al Qaida leaders.
A few weeks ago, we captured a senior Al Qaida in Iraq leader named Mashadani. Now, this terrorist is an Iraqi. In fact, he was the highest ranking Iraqi in the organization. Here's what he said, here's what he told us: The foreign leaders of Al Qaida in Iraq went to extraordinary lengths to promote the fiction that Al Qaida in Iraq is an Iraqi-led operation. He says, Al Qaida even created a figurehead whom they named Umar al-Baghdadi. The purpose was to make Iraqi fighters believe they were following the orders of an Iraqi instead of a foreigner. Yet once in custody, Mashadani revealed that al-Baghdadi is only an actor. He confirmed our intelligence that foreigners are the top echelons of Al Qaida in Iraq—they are the leaders—and that foreign leaders make most of the operational decisions, not Iraqis.
Foreign terrorists also account for most of the suicide bombings in Iraq. Our military estimates that between 80 and 90 percent of suicide attacks in Iraq are carried out by foreign-born Al Qaida terrorists. It's true that today, most of Al Qaida in Iraq's rank-and-file fighters and some of its leadership are Iraqi. But to focus exclusively on this single fact is to ignore the larger truth: Al Qaida in Iraq is a group founded by foreign terrorists, led largely by foreign terrorists, and loyal to a foreign terrorist leader, Usama bin Laden. They know they're Al Qaida. The Iraqi people know they are Al Qaida. People across the Muslim world know they are Al Qaida. And there's a good reason they are called Al Qaida in Iraq. They are Al Qaida in Iraq.
Some also assert that Al Qaida in Iraq is a separate organization because Al Qaida's central command lacks full operational control over it. This argument reveals a lack of understanding. Here is how Al Qaida's global terrorist network actually operates. Al Qaida and its affiliate organizations are a loose network of terrorist groups that are united by a common ideology and shared objectives and have differing levels of collaboration with Al Qaida senior leadership. In some cases, these groups have formally merged into Al Qaida and take what's called a bayat, a pledge of loyalty to Usama bin Laden. In other cases, organizations are not formally merged with Al Qaida, but collaborate closely with Al Qaida leaders to plot attacks and advance their shared ideology. In still other cases, there are small cells of terrorists that are not part of Al Qaida or any other broader terrorist group, but maintain contact with Al Qaida leaders and are inspired by its ideology to conduct attacks.
Our intelligence community assesses that Al Qaida in Iraq falls into the first of these categories. They are a full member of the Al Qaida terrorist network. The Al Qaida leadership provides strategic guidance to their Iraqi operatives. Even so, there have been disagreements, important disagreements between the leaders, Usama bin Laden, and the Iraqi counterparts, including Zawahiri's criticism of Zarqawi's relentless attacks on the Shi'a. But our intelligence community reports that Al Qaida's senior leaders generally defer to their Iraqi-based commanders when it comes to internal operations because distance and security concerns preclude day-to-day command authority.
Our intelligence community concludes that, quote, "Al Qaida and its regional node in Iraq are united in their overarching strategy." And they say that Al Qaida senior leaders and their operatives in Iraq, quote, "see Al Qaida in Iraq as part of Al Qaida's decentralized chain of command, not as a separate group."
Here's the bottom line: Al Qaida in Iraq is run by foreign leaders loyal to Usama bin Laden, and like bin Laden, they are coldblooded killers who murder the innocent to achieve Al Qaida's political objectives. Yet despite all the evidence, some will tell you that Al Qaida in Iraq is not really Al Qaida and not really a threat to America. Well, that's like watching a man walk into a bank with a mask and a gun and saying he's probably just there to cash a check.
You might wonder why some in Washington insist on making this distinction about the enemy in Iraq. It's because they know that if they can convince America we're not fighting bin Laden's Al Qaida there, they can paint the battle in Iraq as a distraction from the real war on terror. If we're not fighting bin Laden's Al Qaida, they can argue that our Nation can pull out of Iraq and not undermine our efforts in the war on terror. The problem they have is with the facts. We are fighting bin Laden's Al Qaida in Iraq, Iraq is central to the war on terror, and against this enemy, America can accept nothing less than complete victory.
There are others who accept that Al Qaida is operating in Iraq but say its role is overstated. Al Qaida is one of the several Sunni jihadist groups in Iraq. But our intelligence community believes that Al Qaida is the most dangerous of these Sunni jihadist groups for several reasons. First, more than any other group, Al Qaida is behind most of the spectacular, high-casualty attacks that you see on your TV screens.
Second, these Al Qaida attacks are designed to accelerate sectarian violence by attacking Shi'a in hopes of sparking reprisal attacks that inspire Sunnis to join Al Qaida's cause.
Third, Al Qaida is the only jihadist group in Iraq with stated ambitions to make the country a base for attacks outside Iraq. For example, Al Qaida in Iraq dispatched terrorists who bombed a wedding reception in Jordan. In another case, they sent operatives to Jordan, where they attempted to launch a rocket attack on U.S. Navy ships in the Red Sea.
And most important, for the people who wonder if the fight in Iraq is worth it, Al Qaida in Iraq shares Usama bin Laden's goal of making Iraq a base for its radical Islamic empire and using it as a safe haven for attacks on America. That is why our intelligence community reports, and quote, "compared with other leading Sunni jihadist groups, Al Qaida in Iraq stands out for its extremism, unmatched operational strength, foreign leadership, and determination to take the jihad beyond Iraq's borders."
Our top commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, has said that Al Qaida is "public enemy number one" in Iraq. Fellow citizens, these people have sworn allegiance to the man who ordered the death of nearly 3,000 people on our soil. Al Qaida is public enemy number one for the Iraqi people; Al Qaida is public enemy number one for the American people. And that is why, for the security of our country, we will stay on the hunt, we'll deny them safe haven, and we will defeat them where they have made their stand.
Some note that Al Qaida in Iraq did not exist until the U.S. invasion and argue that it is a problem of our own making. The argument follows the flawed logic that terrorism is caused by American actions. Iraq is not the reason that the terrorists are at war with us. We were not in Iraq when the terrorists bombed the World Trade Center in 1993. We were not in Iraq when they attacked our Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. We were not in Iraq when they attacked the USS Cole in 2000. And we were not in Iraq on September the 11th, 2001.
Our action to remove Saddam Hussein did not start the terrorist violence, and America withdrawal from Iraq would not end it. The Al Qaida terrorists now blowing themselves up in Iraq are dedicated extremists who have made killing the innocent the calling of their lives. They are part of a network that has murdered men, women, and children in London and Madrid, slaughtered fellow Muslims in Istanbul and Casablanca, Riyadh, Jakarta, and elsewhere around the world. If we were not fighting these Al Qaida extremists and terrorists in Iraq, they would not be leading productive lives of service and charity. Most would be trying to kill Americans and other civilians elsewhere, in Afghanistan or other foreign capitals or on the streets of our own cities.
Al Qaida is in Iraq, and they're there for a reason. And surrendering the future of Iraq to Al Qaida would be a disaster for our country. We know their intentions. Hear the words of Al Qaida's top commander in Iraq when he issued an audio statement in which he said he will not rest until he has attacked our Nation's Capital. If we were to cede Iraq to men like this, we would leave them free to operate from a safe haven which they could use to launch new attacks on our country. And Al Qaida would gain prestige amongst the extremists across the Muslim world as the terrorist network that faced down America and forced us into retreat.
If we were to allow this to happen, sectarian violence in Iraq could increase dramatically, raising the prospect of mass casualties. Fighting could engulf the entire region in chaos, and we would soon face a Middle East dominated by Islamic extremists who would pursue nuclear weapons and use their control of oil for economic blackmail or to fund new attacks on our Nation.
We've already seen how Al Qaida used a failed state thousands of miles from our shores to bring death and destruction to the streets of our cities, and we must not allow them to do so again. So however difficult the fight is in Iraq, we must win it. And we can win it.
Less than a year ago, Anbar Province was Al Qaida's base in Iraq and was written off by many as lost. Since then, U.S. and Iraqi forces have teamed with Sunni sheikhs who have turned against Al Qaida. Hundreds have been killed or captured. Terrorists have been driven from most of the population centers. Our troops are now working to replicate the success in Anbar in other parts of the country. Our brave men and women are taking risks, and they're showing courage, and we're making progress. For the security of our citizens and the peace of the world, we must give General Petraeus and his troops the time and the resources they need so they can defeat Al Qaida in Iraq.
Thanks for letting me come by today. I've explained the connection between Al Qaida and its Iraqi affiliate. I presented intelligence that clearly establishes this connection. The facts are that Al Qaida terrorists killed Americans on 9/11, they're fighting us in Iraq and across the world, and they are plotting to kill Americans here at home again. Those who justify withdrawing our troops from Iraq by denying the threat of Al Qaida in Iraq and its ties to Usama bin Laden ignore the clear consequences of such a retreat. If we were to follow their advice, it would be dangerous for the world and disastrous for America. We will defeat Al Qaida in Iraq.
In this effort, we're counting on the brave men and women represented in this room. Every man and woman who serves at this base and around the world is playing a vital role in this war on terror. With your selfless spirit and devotion to duty, we will confront this mortal threat to our country, and we're going to prevail.
I have confidence in our country, and I have faith in our cause because I know the character of the men and women gathered before me. I thank you for your patriotism. I thank you for your courage. You're living up to the motto, "One Family, One Mission, One Fight!" Thank you for all you do. God bless your families. God bless America.
NOTE: The President spoke at 11:50 a.m. In his remarks, he referred to Mayor Joseph P. Riley, Jr., of Charleston, SC; Mayor Harry M. Hallman, Jr., of Mount Pleasant, SC; Mayor R. Keith Summey of North Charleston, SC; and Gen. David H. Petraeus, USA, commanding general, Multi-National Force—Iraq.
http://archive.defense.gov/Releases/Release.aspx?ReleaseID=11161
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
News Release
Press Operations
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Release No: 917-07
July 24, 2007
General Officer Announcements
Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates announced today that the President has made the following nominations:
Air Force Gen. Kevin P. Chilton for appointment to the grade of general and assignment as commander, U.S. Strategic Command, Offutt Air Force Base, Neb. Chilton is currently serving as commander, Air Force Space Command, Peterson Air Force Base, Colo.
http://www.history.com/news/gandhis-salt-march-85-years-ago/print
History
REMEMBERING GANDHI’S SALT MARCH
Explore one of Mahatma Gandhi's most legendary chapters in his campaign against British colonial rule in India.
Since the late-1910s, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi had been at the forefront of India’s quest to shake off the yoke of British colonial domination, otherwise known as the “Raj.” The thin and abstemious former lawyer had led civil disobedience against colonial policies, encouraged Indians to boycott British goods, and had served two years in prison on charges of sedition. Gandhi’s philosophy of “satyagraha,” which sought to reveal truth and confront injustice through nonviolence, had made him the most polarizing figure on the subcontinent. While the British regarded him with suspicion, Indians had begun calling him “Mahatma,” or “great-souled.”
When the Indian National Congress redoubled its efforts for independence in January 1930, many assumed Gandhi would stage his most ambitious satyagraha campaign to date. Yet rather than launching a frontal assault on more high profile injustices, Gandhi proposed to frame his protest around salt. As with many other commodities, Britain had kept India’s salt trade under its thumb since the 19th century, forbidding natives from manufacturing or selling the mineral and forcing them to buy it at high cost from British merchants. Since salt was a nutritional necessity in India’s steamy climate, Gandhi saw the salt laws as an inexcusable evil.
Many of Gandhi’s comrades were initially skeptical. “We were bewildered and could not fit in a national struggle with common salt,” remembered Jawaharlal Nehru, later India’s first prime minister. Another colleague compared the proposed protest to striking a “fly” with a “sledgehammer,” yet for Gandhi, the salt monopoly was a stark example of the ways the Raj unfairly imposed Britain’s will on even the most basic aspects of Indian life. Its effects cut across religious and class differences, harming both Hindus and Muslims, rich and poor. On March 2, he penned a letter to British Viceroy Lord Irwin and made a series of requests, among them the repeal of the salt tax. If ignored, he promised to launch a satyagraha campaign. “My ambition,” he wrote, “is no less than to convert the British people through nonviolence and thus make them see the wrong they have done to India.”
Irwin offered no formal response, and at dawn on March 12, 1930, Gandhi put his plan into action. Clad in a homespun shawl and sandals and holding a wooden walking stick, he set off on foot from his ashram near Ahmedabad with several dozen companions and began an overland trek to the Arabian Sea town of Dandi. There, he planned to defy the salt tax by illegally harvesting the mineral from the beachside. The 60-year-old expected to be arrested or even beaten during the journey, but the British feared a public backlash and elected not to quash the march.
With Gandhi setting a brisk pace at its head, the column crossed the countryside at a rate of roughly 12 miles per day. Gandhi paused at dozens of villages along the route to address the masses and condemn both the Raj and the salt tax. He also encouraged government workers to embrace his philosophy of noncooperation by quitting their jobs. “What is government service worth, after all?” he asked during a stop at the city of Nadiad. “A government job gives you the power to tyrannize over others.”
As Gandhi and his followers inched toward the western coastline, thousands of Indians joined their ranks, transforming the small cadre of protestors into a miles-long procession. The New York Times and other media outlets began following the walk’s progress, quoting Gandhi as he denounced the salt tax as “monstrous” and chided the British for “being ashamed to arrest me.” In addition to lambasting the Raj, Gandhi also used his speeches to lecture on the injustices of the Indian caste system, which labeled the lowest classes “untouchable” and deprived them of certain rights. Gandhi stunned onlookers by bathing at an “untouchable” well at the village of Dabhan, and during another stop in Gajera, he refused to begin his speech until the untouchables were allowed to sit with the rest of the audience.
Gandhi and his party finally arrived at Dandi on April 5, having walked 241 miles in the span of just 24 days. The following morning, thousands of journalists and supporters gathered to watch him commit his symbolic crime. After immersing himself in the sparkling waters of the Arabian Sea, he walked ashore where the beach’s rich salt deposits rested. British officials had reportedly ground the salt into the sand in the hope of frustrating Gandhi’s efforts, but he easily found a lump of salt-rich mud and held it aloft in triumph. “With this,” he announced, “I am shaking the foundations of the British Empire.”
Gandhi’s transgression served as a signal for other Indians to join in what had become known as the “Salt Satyagraha.” Over the next several weeks, supporters across the subcontinent flocked to the seaside to illegally harvest the mineral. Women took on a crucial role. Many boiled water to make salt, and others sold illicit salt in city markets or led pickets in front of liquor and foreign cloth shops. “It seemed as though a spring had suddenly been released,” Nehru later said. Some 80,000 people were arrested in the spree of civil disobedience, and many were beaten by police.
Gandhi was taken into custody on May 5, after he announced his intention to lead a peaceful raid on a government salt works at Dharasana. But even with their leader behind bars, his followers pressed on. On May 21, some 2,500 marchers ignored warnings from police and made an unarmed advance on the Dharasana depot. American journalist Webb Miller was on the scene, and he later described what followed. “Suddenly,” he wrote, “at a word of command, scores of native police rushed upon the advancing marchers and rained blows on their heads…Not one of the marchers even raised an arm to fend off the blows. They went down like ten-pins.” Miller’s harrowing account of the beatings circulated widely in the international media, and was even read aloud in the U.S. Congress. Winston Churchill—no great fan of Gandhi—would later admit that the protests and their aftermath had “inflicted such humiliation and defiance as has not been known since the British first trod the soil of India.”
Gandhi remained in lockup until early 1931, but he emerged from prison more revered than ever before. Time Magazine named him its 1930 “Man of the Year,” and newspapers around the globe jumped at any opportunity to quote him or report on his exploits. British Viceroy Lord Irwin finally agreed to negotiate with him, and in March 1931, the two hammered out the Gandhi-Irwin Pact, which ended the satyagraha in exchange for several concessions including the release of thousands of political prisoners. While the agreement largely maintained the Raj’s monopoly over salt, it gave Indians living on the coasts the right to produce the mineral from the sea.
Difficult days still lay ahead. Gandhi and his supporters would launch more protests in the 1930s and 40s and endure even more stints behind bars, and Indian independence would have to wait until 1947—only months before Gandhi was shot dead by a militant Hindu. But while the immediate political results of the Salt March were relatively minor, Gandhi’s satyagraha had nevertheless succeeded in his goal of “shaking the foundations of the British Empire.” The trek to the sea had galvanized Indian resistance to the Raj, and its international coverage had introduced the world to Gandhi and his followers’ astonishing commitment to nonviolence. Among others, Martin Luther King Jr. would later cite the Salt March as a crucial influence on his own philosophy of civil disobedience. Gandhi had sent a simple message by grasping a handful of salt on the beach at Dandi, and millions had answered his call.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=60771
The American Presidency Project
Harry S. Truman
XXXIII President of the United States: 1945 - 1953
Executive Order 10152 - Regulations Relating to the Right of Members of the Uniformed Services to Incentive Pay for the Performance of Hazardous Duty Required by Competent Orders
August 17, 1950
By virtue of and pursuant to the authority vested in me by sections 204 and 501(d) of the Career Compensation Act of 1949, approved October 12, 1949 (Public Law 351, 81st Congress), and as President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the armed forces of the United States, I hereby prescribe the following regulations relating to the right of members of the uniformed services to receive incentive pay for the performance of hazardous duty required by competent orders:
SECTION 1. For the purposes of these regulations:
(a) The terms defined in section 102 of the said Career Compensation Act of 1949 shall have the meanings prescribed therein.
(b) The term "aerial flight" shall be construed to mean flight in an aircraft or glider; and a flight shall be deemed to begin when the aircraft or glider takes off from rest at any point of support and to terminate when it next comes to a complete stop at a point of support.
(c) The term "aviation accident" shall be construed to mean an accident in which a member who is required to participate frequently and regularly in aerial flight is injured or otherwise incapacitated as the result, as attested by the appropriate medical authority of the uniformed service concerned, of (1) jumping from, being thrown from, or being struck by, an aircraft or any part or auxiliary thereof, or (2) participation in any duly authorized aerial flight or other aircraft or glider operations.
SEC. 2. Under such regulations as the Secretary concerned may prescribe, any member of the uniformed services, including members assigned to special, administrative, or school duties, may be required by competent orders to perform hazardous duty.
SEC. 3 (a) Each member who is required by competent orders to participate frequently and regularly in aerial flights, other than glider flights, shall make the flights required as a crew member or as a non-crew member as directed by competent authority.
(b) Determinations as to what constitutes duty as a crew member and duty as a non-crew member shall be made in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned: Provided, that such determinations shall be uniform for all the services to the fullest extent practicable.
SEC. 4. Under such regulations as the Secretary concerned may prescribe, members who are required by competent orders to participate frequently and regularly in aerial flights, other than glider flights, shall be required to meet the following minimum flight requirements, except as otherwise provided in section 10 hereof, in order to be entitled to receive incentive pay for the performance of hazardous duty.
(a) Minimum flight requirements for members on active duty who may qualify for incentive pay under the provisions of section 204 of the Career Compensation Act of 1949:
(1) During one calendar month: 4 hours of aerial flight.
(2) During any two consecutive calendar months when the requirements of subdivision (1) above have not been met: 8 hours of aerial flight.
(3) During any three consecutive calendar months when the requirements of subdivision (2) above have not been met: 12 hours of aerial flight.
(4) For fractions of a calendar month, the time of aerial flight required shall bear the same ratio to the time required for a full calendar month as the period in question bears to a full calendar month.
(5) For fractions of two consecutive calendar months, the period in question shall be considered as a unit and the time of aerial flight required shall bear the same ratio to the time required for a full calendar month as the period in question bears to a full calendar month.
(6) Whenever, under authority conferred by the Secretary concerned, the commanding officer of any member who has been required by competent orders to participate frequently and regularly in aerial flights, other than glider flights, certifies that on account of military operations of the particular command or on account of the unavailability of aircraft such member was unable to perform the aerial flights required by this section, such member may comply with the minimum flight requirements by performing at least 24 hours of aerial flight over a period of six consecutive calendar months, and such requirements may be met at any time during such period.
(b) Minimum flight requirements for members of reserve components of the uniformed services on inactive-duty training who may qualify for incentive pay under the provisions of section 501(d) of the Career Compensation Act of 1949:
(1) During one calendar month: 2 hours of aerial flight.
(2) During any two consecutive calendar months, when the requirements of subdivision (1) have not been met: 4 hours of aerial flight.
(3) During any three consecutive calendar months when the requirements of subdivision (2) above have not been met: 6 hours of aerial flight.
(4) For fractions of a calendar month, the time of aerial flight required shall bear the same ratio to the time required for a full calendar month as the period in question bears to a full calendar month.
(5) For fractions of two consecutive calendar months, the period in question shall be considered as a unit and the time of aerial flight required shall bear the same ratio to the time required for a full calendar month as the period in question bears to a full calendar month.
SEC. 5. Members shall not be entitled to receive incentive pay for the participation in aerial flights for any period while suspended from such participation, unless such suspension is subsequently removed and the minimum flight requirements prescribed in section 4 hereof have been complied with, except as otherwise provided in section 10 hereof.
SEC. 6. Members who, pursuant to competent orders, are attached to a submarine which is in an active status, including a submarine under construction from the time builders' trials commence, shall be entitled to receive incentive pay for the performance of submarine duty. The term "builders' trials" shall be construed to mean trials conducted underway or in free route.
SEC. 7. (a) Members who are qualified as glider personnel under such regulations as the Secretary concerned may prescribe, or who are undergoing training for such qualification, and who are required by competent orders to participate frequently and regularly in glider flights shall be required to perform one or more glider flights, without regard to duration thereof, during any three consecutive calendar months in order to be entitled to receive incentive pay for such period.
(b) Whenever, under authority conferred by the Secretary concerned, the commanding officer of any member who has been required by competent orders to participate frequently and regularly in glider flights certifies that on account of the absence or inadequacy of glider equipment or towing aircraft or other means of propulsion, or on account of military operations of the particular command, such member may comply with the minimum flight requirements by performing four or more glider flights, without regard to duration thereof, during a period of twelve consecutive calendar months, and such requirements may be met at any time during such period.
(c) Members of reserve components of the uniformed services who have complied with the requirement prescribed in this section shall be entitled to receive incentive pay for both active-duty and inactive-duty training performed during such period.
SEC. 8. (a) As used in section 204(a) of the Career Compensation Act of 1949, the term "duty involving parachute jumping as an essential part of military duty" shall be construed to mean duty performed by members who are not in a flying-pay status and who, under such regulations as the Secretary concerned may prescribe, have received a rating as a parachutist or parachute rigger, or are undergoing training for such a rating, and who are required by competent orders to engage in parachute jumping from an aircraft in aerial flight.
(b) Members required by competent orders to engage in parachute jumping shall be required to perform one or more parachute jumps from an airplane in flight during any three consecutive calendar months in order to be entitled to receive incentive pay for such period.
(c) Whenever, under authority conferred by the Secretary concerned, the commanding officer of any member who has been required by competent orders to participate in parachute jumping certifies that on account of the absence of jump equipment or aircraft or on account of military operations of the particular command such member was unable to make the jumps required by this paragraph, such member may comply with the minimum requirements by performing four jumps during a period of twelve consecutive calendar months, and such requirements may be met at any time during such period.
(d) Members of reserve components of the uniformed services who have complied with the requirements prescribed in this section shall be entitled to receive incentive pay for both active-duty and inactive-duty training performed during such period.
SEC. 9. As used in section 204(a) of the Career Compensation Act of 1949-
(a) The term "duty involving intimate contact with persons afflicted with leprosy" shall be construed to mean duty performed by any member who is assigned by competent orders to a leprosarium for the performance of duty for a period of thirty days or more or for a period of instruction, whether or not such leprosarium is under the jurisdiction of one of the uniformed services.
(b) The term "duty involving the demolition of explosives" shall be construed to mean duty performed by members, including members in training for such duties, who, pursuant to competent orders and as a primary duty, demolish by the use of explosives under-water objects, obstacles, or explosives, or recover and render harmless, by disarming or demolition, explosives which, having been projected, launched, dropped, or laid in a normal manner, have failed to explode as intended.
(c) The term "duty at a submarine escape training tank, when such duty involves participation in the training" shall be construed to mean duty performed by members who are regularly assigned to duty involving diving at a submarine escape training tank when such duty is primarily for the purpose of training personnel in the methods of escape from a submerged submarine.
(d) The term "duty at the Navy Deep Sea Diving School or the Navy Experimental Diving Unit, when such duty involves participation in training" shall be construed to mean duty performed by members who are regularly assigned to duty involving diving at the Navy Deep Sea Diving School or the Navy Experimental Diving Unit when such diving is primarily for the purpose of training divers.
SEC. 10. Any member who is required by competent orders to perform hazardous duty and who becomes injured or otherwise incapacitated as a result of the performance of such duty, by aviation accident or otherwise, shall be deemed to have fulfilled all of the requirements for the performance of hazardous duty during such incapacity for a period not to exceed three months following the date as of which such incapacity is determined by the appropriate medical authority.
SEC. 11. Members required by competent orders to perform hazardous duty shall, upon compliance with the requirements of these regulations, be entitled to receive incentive pay during authorized leave of absence.
SEC. 12. The Secretaries concerned are hereby authorized to prescribe such supplementary regulations not inconsistent herewith as they may deem necessary or desirable for carrying out these regulations, and such supplementary regulations shall be uniform for all the services to the fullest extent practicable.
SEC. 13. This order shall become effective on September 1, 1950, except that so much thereof as may be necessary to authorize the payment of incentive pay for hazardous duty under sections 9 and 10 of the order shall be effective as of October 1, 1949.
HARRY S. TRUMAN
THE WHITE HOUSE,
August 17, 1950
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jul/25/nation/na-bush25
Los Angeles Times
Bush ties Al Qaeda in Iraq to Sept. 11
He cites declassified data in linking the group to global terror. Experts challenge his assertions.
July 25, 2007 Josh Meyer, James Gerstenzang and Greg Miller Times Staff Writers
CHARLESTON, S.C. — President Bush made provocative new assertions Tuesday about Al Qaeda's role in Iraq, using recently declassified information to make his case that the global battle with the terrorism network -- and Americans' safety at home -- hinges on keeping U.S. troops there to fight.
Bush's comments were met with skepticism by some terrorism experts and former U.S. intelligence officials, who said the president exaggerated or even misrepresented the facts in Iraq.
Speaking to about 300 troops at Charleston Air Force Base, Bush said that Al Qaeda in Iraq was essentially the same organization that attacked the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001, and that it was by far the biggest threat facing Iraqis and U.S.-led coalition troops there. Bush said that its leaders took orders from Al Qaeda officials coordinating the organization's worldwide jihad, or holy war, and that they would be killing civilians somewhere else if they were not in Iraq.
"Those who justify withdrawing our troops from Iraq by denying the threat of Al Qaeda in Iraq and its ties to Osama bin Laden ignore the clear consequences of such a retreat," Bush said. "If we were to follow their advice, it would be dangerous for the world and disastrous for America.
"Here's the bottom line," he said. "Al Qaeda in Iraq is run by foreign leaders loyal to Osama bin Laden. Like Bin Laden, they are coldblooded killers who murder the innocent to achieve Al Qaeda's political objectives.
"Yet despite all the evidence, some will tell you that Al Qaeda in Iraq is not really Al Qaeda and not really a threat to America," the president continued. "Well, that's like watching a man walk into a bank with a mask and a gun and saying's he's probably just there to cash a check."
Bush's impassioned 28-minute speech was the administration's longest and most detailed argument to date that Al Qaeda in Iraq and Bin Laden's terrorist operation were one and the same. Bush used it, he acknowledged, to rebut his critics' assertions that the Iraqi militant group was not justification enough for keeping U.S. troops in the war-riven country.
"For the security of our citizens and the peace of the world, we must give Gen. [David H.] Petraeus and his troops the time and the resources they need so they can defeat Al Qaeda in Iraq," Bush said of his top commander in the country.
White House officials said Bush used declassified intelligence reports and assessments to make his case, though they would not disclose details of where the information came from.
Bush's address to the 437th Airlift Wing contained oft-repeated assertions that the president and other officials have made in recent months to rally lagging support for the war. He mentioned Al Qaeda 95 times -- and of those, 29 were in references to the group Al Qaeda in Iraq. Bush also employed chilling new language to expand on his warnings that a pullout could have grave consequences in the United States, turning Iraq into a country like Afghanistan in 2001, from which Al Qaeda could plot devastating attacks on U.S. soil.
"If we were not fighting these Al Qaeda extremists and terrorists in Iraq, they would not be leading productive lives of service and charity," Bush said. "Most would be trying to kill Americans and other civilians elsewhere, in Afghanistan or other foreign capitals or on the streets of our own cities."
Some U.S. intelligence and counter-terrorism officials said Bush's broader assertions were in line with analysts' views. They noted that Bush used careful wording and deliberate attribution in cases in which he was citing intelligence that had not been substantiated.
But other experts and former U.S. intelligence officials questioned those assertions.
They noted that the Iraq conflict had undoubtedly attracted Islamic extremists who were trained in Afghanistan and might have fought in other theaters. But some cited an official U.S. National Intelligence Estimate released last year that described Iraq as a "cause celebre" for Islamic radicals worldwide, fanning anger and resentment across the Muslim world and beyond.
"I think what the president is saying is in some sense fundamentally misleading," said Robert Grenier, former head of the counter-terrorism center at the CIA as well as the agency's mission manager for the war in Iraq. "If he means to suggest the invasion of Iraq has not created more jihadists bent on killing Americans, and that if Iraq hadn't been there as a magnet they would have been attracted somewhere else, that's completely disingenuous."
The war "has convinced many Muslims that the United States is the enemy of Islam and is attacking Muslims, and they have become jihadists as a result of their experience in Iraq," Grenier said.
Bush also said Al Qaeda in Iraq posed a threat to Americans at home. "We've already seen how Al Qaeda used a failed state thousands of miles from our shores to bring death and destruction to the streets of our cities, and we must not allow them to do so again," he said.
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jul/25/nation/na-bush25/2
Los Angeles Times
(Page 2 of 2)
The Nation
Bush ties Al Qaeda in Iraq to Sept. 11
He cites declassified data in linking the group to global terror. Experts challenge his assertions.
July 25, 2007 Josh Meyer, James Gerstenzang and Greg Miller Times Staff Writers
Several experts said prevailing U.S. intelligence was at odds with that assertion as well.
Bruce Hoffman of Georgetown University, a veteran counter-terrorism analyst and government consultant, said the vast majority of fighters who are part of Al Qaeda in Iraq are Iraqis who have shown little interest in seeking targets beyond that country's borders.
In his speech, Bush acknowledged that the organization was one of several Sunni Muslim radical militant groups in Iraq, but that the intelligence community considered it to be the most dangerous because it was behind "most of the spectacular, high-casualty attacks," which were intended to accelerate sectarian violence.
Frank Hyland, a former consultant at the CIA's counter-terrorism center and at the multi-agency National Counterterrorism Center, said he agreed that Al Qaeda in Iraq was a dangerous organization with ties to Al Qaeda central in Pakistan.
But he added that Al Qaeda in Iraq was one of dozens of groups attacking civilians and U.S.-led troops in Iraq.
Other Sunni groups, Shiite Muslim militias such as the Al Mahdi army, criminal gangs, "throwaway kids" and Iranian intelligence operatives are doing so as well, he said.
A British panel of private and government experts known as the Iraq Commission released a report this month that concluded there were between 50 and 75 "disparate groups, formed to rid the country of coalition forces."
One of the more controversial claims that the Bush administration has made involves the operational link between Al Qaeda in Iraq and Al Qaeda's command-and-control operations headed by Bin Laden and others in Pakistan.
On Tuesday, Bush sought to bolster what he said were direct ties between the two, in response to criticism that the administration has been exaggerating the connections.
Bush said the founder of Al Qaeda in Iraq, the late Abu Musab Zarqawi, merged his organization with Al Qaeda and pledged allegiance to it.
Some experts and former U.S. intelligence officials said Tuesday that the Iraq group had always had its own agenda, as evidenced by a public fallout between Zarqawi and Al Qaeda's No. 2 leader, Ayman Zawahiri, over Zarqawi's killing of Shiite Muslims in Iraq.
Bush alluded to that disagreement in his speech, but he emphasized repeatedly that Al Qaeda in Iraq was part of Al Qaeda's "decentralized chain of command, not ... a separate group" and that the two operations were "united in their overarching strategy."
As evidence of Al Qaeda's connection to the Iraqi group, Bush said, after Zarqawi -- a Jordanian-born Palestinian -- was killed by a U.S. airstrike last year, he was replaced by another foreigner, Egyptian Abu Ayyub Masri, whose ties to the Al Qaeda senior leadership are "deep and long-standing."
Bush said that according to the declassified intelligence, many of Al Qaeda in Iraq's other senior leaders are also foreign militants. They include a Syrian who is Al Qaeda in Iraq's "emir" in Baghdad, a Saudi who is its top spiritual and legal advisor, an Egyptian who fought in Afghanistan in the 1990s and a Tunisian who U.S. officials believe plays a key role in managing foreign fighters, the president said.
Rand Beers, a former senior Bush and Clinton administration counter-terrorism official, said Bush was exaggerating the connections.
"There is no question that he is oversimplifying what is happening there in Iraq," Beers said. "He is misrepresenting where the major front of Al Qaeda is, which is in Pakistan."
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=106452
The American Presidency Project
Dwight D. Eisenhower
XXXIV President of the United States: 1953-1961
Executive Order 10546 - Suspension of Certain Provisions of the Officer Personnel Act of 1947, as Amended, Which Relate to Officers of the Marine Corps of the Grades of First Lieutenant and Captain
July 16, 1954
By virtue of the authority vested in me by section 301 of the Officer Personnel Act of 1947, as amended by section 1 108, it is ordered as follows:
1. The operation of those provisions of Title III of the Officer Personnel Act of 1947, as amended, which relate to the service-in-grade requirements of officers of the Marine Corps of the grades of first lieutenant and captain for eligibility for consideration for temporary promotion to the next higher grade is hereby suspended until June 30, 1957.
2. This order supersedes Executive Order No. 10465 of June 30, 1953, entitled "Suspension of Certain Provisions of the Officer Personnel Act of 1947, as Amended, Which Relate to Officers of the Marine Corps".
DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER
THE WHITE HOUSE,
July 16, 1954.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=9948
The American Presidency Project
Dwight D. Eisenhower
XXXIV President of the United States: 1953-1961
166 - Statement by the President Upon Signing Bill Increasing Reenlistment Bonuses for Members of the Uniformed Services.
July 16, 1954
I HAVE TODAY approved a bill which will substantially increase the size of reenlistment bonuses payable to the men and women in our armed forces who agree to continue to serve after the termination of their current enlistment or period of obligated service. The purpose of these increases is to offer an added inducement for more people to make the service their career, thereby increasing the efficiency of our armed service.
Career personnel--trained, seasoned, and experienced--are the backbone of the armed forces. The weakest aspect of our national defense today is the low rate of reenlistments in our armed forces. The rapid turnover of skilled personnel adversely affects the readiness and effectiveness of combat forces.
In expressing my concern about this situation in the past, I have outlined some of the steps which, I think, will make life in the service more attractive insofar as both intangibles and tangibles are concerned. True pride in service and maintenance of the traditional military benefits and perquisites go hand in hand, each increasing the other and the basic strength of our Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and Coast Guard.
The Secretary of Defense and his principal aides have expressed an equal concern about this problem. They have assured me that efforts to meet it are being made on a broad front. Constructive action is and will continue to be taken administratively and, in addition, certain legislative action has been proposed to the Congress. The bill I signed today falls into this latter category and there are others, particularly those authorizing more adequate family housing and medical care for dependents of military personnel, which are still awaiting Congressional action. To the extent that such benefits encourage individuals to remain in the service, the increased cost resulting from them will, in my opinion, be more than offset by savings in the high cost of training replacements. Even more important, we will have a more effective national defense.
I shall continue to insist that the Department of Defense do everything possible to improve this serious situation, and I shall seek the cooperation of the Congress in this endeavor.
Note: As enacted, the bill is Public Law 506, 83d Congress (68 Stat. 488).
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/07/local/la-me-john-silva-20121207
Los Angeles Times
John D. Silva dies at 92; introduced news helicopter
John D. Silva created the Telecopter, essentially a flying television studio, for KTLA-TV Channel 5 in L.A.
December 07, 2012 By Bob Pool, Los Angeles Times
KTLA engineer John D. Silva is pictured in 1958 with actor Gregory Peck sitting in the KTLA Telecopter, which was to be used to cover the opening of Peck's motion picture "The Big Country."
KTLA engineer John D. Silva is pictured in 1958 with actor Gregory Peck sitting… (Eddie Hoff Photography )
John D. Silva was the chief engineer for KTLA-TV in 1958 when he outfitted a helicopter with a TV camera and changed television news coverage forever.
He turned a rented Bell helicopter into the Telecopter, essentially a flying TV studio. The first of its kind, it put Channel 5 news at the forefront of live aerial coverage of major events like parades, fires, earthquakes and massive freeway snarls.
Hundreds of televised car chases later, Silva's invention is a staple of local television news stations, along with the mobile unit he also had a hand in developing.
Silva, whose two Emmy Awards include one in 1974 for developing the Telecopter, died Nov. 27 in Camarillo of complications of pneumonia, his family said. He was 92.
"John's legacy is of leading the industry to develop new tools. He actually helped define live television in the infancy of this industry," said Dave Cox, KTLA's current chief engineer.
Silva began creating the aerial broadcast studio in strict secrecy, assembling the news chopper in a North Hollywood backyard so other local TV stations wouldn't catch on.
The challenges were great. First, the engineer had to convince KTLA executives to spend $40,000 on broadcast equipment that no one was certain actually worked — no small feat in 1957. Then he had to whittle down 2,000 pounds of television equipment to just 368 pounds so the Bell 47 helicopter could lift off the ground.
On the piston-driven helicopter's maiden flight July 3, 1958, Silva struggled mightily.
During that test flight, his fellow engineers waiting on Mt. Wilson radioed that they were not receiving any video images from the helicopter. Silva knew he would not be able to duplicate the in-flight conditions by trouble-shooting back on the ground. So he asked pilot Larry Scheer to hover at about 1,500 feet as smoothly as he could.
"Larry, I've got to go out there," he told the pilot, adding "I am not going to look down."
Silva then climbed out on the right side skid, clinging with one hand to the copter and using his other hand to unlatch the wooden box containing the microwave transmitter bolted to the outside of the chopper.
When he peered into the box, he could see that one of the transmitter's vacuum tubes was not glowing. The helicopter's vibration and the day's scorching heat had caused it to fail.
Back at the airport, Silva worked overnight to insulate the box and cushion its contents from the Bell 47's bone-jarring shake.
The next day, July 4, 1958, Silva and Scheer lifted off again. At 12:48 p.m., Silva aimed his hand-held camera toward Hollywood bungalows. Elated Mt. Wilson engineers radioed back, "We've got you!"
From that moment on, TV news was never the same.
"The Telecopter became the envy of every news department in the country and it was many years before anyone was able to match it," veteran KTLA reporter Stan Chambers recalled in his 2008 book "KTLA's News at Ten."
Silva was the kind of guy who "didn't worry about what couldn't be done," Chambers observed in the book. "He concentrated on making the impossible happen."
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=42501
The American Presidency Project
Ronald Reagan
XL President of the United States: 1981 - 1989
Address at Commencement Exercises at Eureka College in Illinois
May 9, 1982
President Gilbert, trustees, administration and faculty, students, and the friends of Eureka College, and particularly those whose day this is, the graduating class of '82:
Dan, you said the 25th and now the 50th.
Do you mind if I try for the 75th? 1
1 The President was commemorating the 50th anniversary of his graduation from Eureka College.
But it goes without saying that this is a very special day for you who are graduating. Would you forgive me if I say it's a very special day for me also? Over the years since I sat where you, the graduating class of 1982, are now sitting, I've returned to the campus many times, always with great pleasure and warm nostalgia. Now, it just isn't true that I only came back this time to clean out my gym locker. [Laughter]
On one of those occasions, as you've been told, I addressed a graduating class here, '"neath the elms," and was awarded an honorary degree. And at that time I informed those assembled that while I was grateful for the honor, it added to a feeling of guilt I'd been nursing for 25 years, because I always figured the first degree they gave me was honorary. [Laughter]
Now, if it's true that tradition is the glue holding civilization together, then Eureka has made its contribution to that effort. Yes, it is a small college in a small community. It's no impersonal, assembly-line diploma mill. As the years pass, if you have let yourselves absorb the spirit and tradition of this place, you'll find the 4 years you've spent here living in your memory as a rich and important part of your life.
Oh, you'll have some regrets along with the happy memories. I let football and other extracurricular activities eat into my study time with the result that my grade average was closer to the C level required for eligibility than it was to straight A's. And even now I wonder what I might have accomplished if I'd studied harder. [Laughter]
Now, I know there are differences between the Eureka College of 1932 and the Eureka of 1982, but I'm also sure that in many ways—important ways—Eureka remains the same. For one thing, it's impossible for you now to believe what I've said about things being the same. We who preceded you understand that very well, because when we were here, we thought old grads who came back only after 5 years-not 50—couldn't understand what our life was like and what had taken place and changed. So, take my word for it. As the years go by, you'll be amazed at how fresh the memory of these years will remain in your minds, how easily you can relive the very emotions that you experienced.
The Class of '32 has no yearbook to record our final days on the campus. The Class of '33 didn't put out a Prism because of the hardships of that Great Depression era. The faculty sometimes went for months on end without pay. And yet this school made it possible for young men and women, myself included, to get an education even though we were totally without funds, our families destitute victims of the Depression. Yes, this place is deep in my heart. Everything that has been good in my life began here.
Graduation Day is called "Commencement," and properly so, because it is both a recognition of completion and a beginning. And I would like, seriously, to talk to you about this new phase—the society in which you're now going to take your place as full-time participants. You're no longer observers. You'll be called upon to make decisions and express your views on global events, because those events will affect your lives.
I've spoken of similarities, and the 1980's like the 1930's may be one of those—a crucial juncture in history that will determine the direction of the future.
In about a month I will meet in Europe with the leaders of nations who are our closest friends and allies. At Versailles, leaders of the industrial powers of the world will seek better ways to meet today's economic challenges. In Bonn, I will join my colleagues from the Atlantic Alliance nations to renew those ties which have been the foundation of Western, free-world defense for 37 years. There will also be meetings in Rome and London.
Now, these meetings are significant for a simple but very important reason: Our own nation's fate is directly linked to that of our sister democracies in Western Europe. The values for which America and all democratic nations stand represent the culmination of Western culture. Andrei Sakharov, the distinguished Nobel Laureate and courageous Soviet human rights advocate, has written in a message smuggled to freedom, "I believe in Western man. I have faith in his mind which is practical and efficient and, at the same time, aspires to great goals. I have faith in his good intentions and in his decisiveness."
This glorious tradition requires a partnership to preserve and protect it. Only as partners can we hope to achieve the goal of a peaceful community of nations. Only as partners can we defend the values of democracy and human dignity that we hold so dear.
There's a single, major issue in our partnership which will underlie the discussions that I will have with the European leaders: the future of Western relations with the Soviet Union. How should we deal with the Soviet Union in the years ahead? What framework should guide our conduct and our policies toward it? And what can we realistically expect from a world power of such deep fears, hostilities, and external ambitions?
I believe the unity of the West is the foundation for any successful relationship with the East. Without Western unity, we'll squander our energies in bickering while the Soviets continue as they please. With unity, we have the strength to moderate Soviet behavior. We've done so in the past, and we can do so again.
Our challenge is to establish a framework in which sound East-West relations will endure. I'm optimistic that we can build a more constructive relationship with the Soviet Union. To do so, however, we must understand the nature of the Soviet system and the lessons of the past.
The Soviet Union is a huge empire ruled by an elite that holds all power and all privilege, and they hold it tightly because, as we've seen in Poland, they fear what might happen if even the smallest amount of control slips from their grasp. They fear the infectiousness of even a little freedom, and because of this in many ways their system has failed. The Soviet empire is faltering because it is rigid—centralized control has destroyed incentives for innovation, efficiency, and individual achievement. Spiritually, there is a sense of malaise and resentment.
But in the midst of social and economic problems, the Soviet dictatorship has forged the largest armed force in the world. It has done so by preempting the human needs of its people, and, in the end, this course will undermine the foundations of the Soviet system. Harry Truman was right when he said of the Soviets that, "When you try to conquer other people or extend yourself over vast areas you cannot win in the long run."
Yet Soviet aggressiveness has grown as Soviet military power has increased. To compensate, we must learn from the lessons of the past. When the West has stood unified and firm, the Soviet Union has taken heed. For 35 years Western Europe has lived free despite the shadow of Soviet military might. Through unity, you'll remember from your modern history courses, the West secured the withdrawal of occupation forces from Austria and the recognition of its rights in Berlin.
Other Western policies have not been successful. East-West trade was expanded in hope of providing incentives for Soviet restraint, but the Soviets exploited the benefits of trade without moderating their behavior. Despite a decade of ambitious arms control efforts, the Soviet buildup continues. And despite its signature of the Helsinki agreements on human rights, the Soviet Union has not relaxed its hold on its own people or those of Western [Eastern] 2 Europe.
2 White House correction.
During the 1970's, some of us forgot the warning of President Kennedy, who said that the Soviets "have offered to trade us an apple for an orchard. We don't do that in this country." But we came perilously close to doing just that.
If East-West relations in the detente era in Europe have yielded disappointment, detente outside of Europe has yielded a severe disillusionment for those who expected a moderation of Soviet behavior. The Soviet Union continues to support Vietnam in its occupation of Kampuchea and its massive military presence in Laos. It is engaged in a war of aggression against Afghanistan. Soviet proxy forces have brought instability and conflict to Africa and Central America.
We are now approaching an. extremely important phase in East-West relations as the current Soviet leadership is succeeded by a new generation. Both the current and the new Soviet leadership should realize aggressive policies will meet a firm Western response. On the other hand, a Soviet leadership devoted to improving its people's lives, rather than expanding its armed conquests, will find a sympathetic partner in the West. The West will respond with expanded trade and other forms of cooperation. But all of this depends on Soviet actions. Standing in the Athenian marketplace 2,000 years ago, Demosthenes said, "What sane man would let another man's words rather than his deeds proclaim who is at peace and who is at war with him?"
Peace is not the absence of conflict, but the ability to cope with conflict by peaceful means. I believe we can cope. I believe that the West can fashion a realistic, durable policy that will protect our interests and keep the peace, not just for this generation but for your children and your grandchildren.
I believe such a policy consists of five points: military balance, economic security, regional stability, arms reductions, and dialog. Now, these are the means by which we can seek peace with the Soviet Union in the years ahead. Today, I want to set this five-point program to guide the future of our East-West relations, set it out for all to hear and see.
First, a sound East-West military balance is absolutely essential. Last week NATO published a comprehensive comparison of its forces with those of the Warsaw Pact. Its message is clear: During the past decade, the Soviet Union has built up its forces across the board. During that same period, the defense expenditures of the United States declined in real terms. The United States has already undertaken steps to recover from that decade of neglect. And I should add that the expenditures of our European allies have increased slowly but steadily, something we often fail to recognize here at home.
The second point on which we must reach consensus with our allies deals with economic security. Consultations are under way among Western nations on the transfer of militarily significant technology and the extension of financial credits to the East, as well as on the question of energy dependence on the East, that energy dependence of Europe. We recognize that some of our allies' economic requirements are distinct from our own. But the Soviets must not have access to Western technology with military applications, and we must not subsidize the Soviet economy. The Soviet Union must make the difficult choices brought on by its military budgets and economic shortcomings.
The third element is regional stability with peaceful change. Last year, in a speech in Philadelphia and in the summit meetings at Cancun, I outlined the basic American plan to assist the developing world. These principles for economic development remain the foundation of our approach. They represent no threat to the Soviet Union. Yet in many areas of the developing world we find that Soviet arms and Soviet supported troops are attempting to destabilize societies and extend Moscow's influence.
High on our agenda must be progress toward peace in Afghanistan. The United States is prepared to engage in a serious effort to negotiate an end to the conflict caused by the Soviet invasion of that country. We are ready to cooperate in an international effort to resolve this problem, to secure a full Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, and to ensure self-determination for the Afghan people.
In southern Africa, working closely with our Western allies and the African States, we've made real progress toward independence for Namibia. These negotiations, if successful, will result in peaceful and secure conditions throughout southern Africa. The simultaneous withdrawal of Cuban forces from Angola is essential to achieving Namibian independence, as well as creating long-range prospects for peace in the region.
Central America also has become a dangerous point of tension in East-West relations. The Soviet Union cannot escape responsibility for the violence and suffering in the region caused by accelerated transfer of advanced military equipment to Cuba.
However, it was in Western Europe—or Eastern Europe, I should say, that the hopes of the 1970's were greatest, and it's there that they have been the most bitterly disappointed. There was hope that the people of Poland could develop a freer society. But the Soviet Union has refused to allow the people of Poland to decide their own fate, just as it refused to allow the people of Hungary to decide theirs in 1956, or the people of Czechoslovakia in 1968.
If martial law in Poland is lifted, if all the political prisoners are released, and if a dialog is restored with the Solidarity Union, the United States is prepared to join in a program of economic support. Water cannons and clubs against the Polish people are hardly the kind of dialog that gives us hope. It's up to the Soviets and their client regimes to show good faith by concrete actions.
The fourth point is arms reduction. I know that this weighs heavily on many of your minds. In our 1931 Prism, we quoted Carl Sandburg, who in his own beautiful way quoted the Mother Prairie, saying, "Have you seen a red sunset drip over one of my cornfields, the shore of night stars, the wave lines of dawn up a wheat valley?" What an idyllic scene that paints in our minds—and what a nightmarish prospect that a huge mushroom cloud might someday destroy such beauty. My duty as President is to ensure that the ultimate nightmare never occurs, that the prairies and the cities and the people who inhabit them remain free and untouched by nuclear conflict.
I wish more than anything there were a simple policy that would eliminate that nuclear danger. But there are only difficult policy choices through which we can achieve a stable nuclear balance at the lowest possible level.
I do not doubt that the Soviet people, and, yes, the Soviet leaders have an overriding interest in preventing the use of nuclear weapons. The Soviet Union within the memory of its leaders has known the devastation of total conventional war and knows that nuclear war would be even more calamitous. And yet, so far, the Soviet Union has used arms control negotiations primarily as an instrument to restrict U.S. defense programs and, in conjunction with their own arms buildup, a means to enhance Soviet power and prestige.
Unfortunately, for some time suspicions have grown that the Soviet Union has not been living up to its obligations under existing arms control treaties. There is conclusive evidence the Soviet Union has provided toxins to the Laotians and Vietnamese for use against defenseless villagers in Southeast Asia. And the Soviets themselves are employing chemical weapons on the freedom-fighters in Afghanistan.
We must establish firm criteria for arms control in the 1980's if we're to secure genuine and lasting restraint on Soviet military programs throughout arms control. We must seek agreements which are verifiable, equitable, and militarily significant. Agreements that provide only the appearance of arms control breed dangerous illusions.
Last November, I committed the United States to seek significant reductions on nuclear and conventional forces. In Geneva, we have since proposed limits on U.S. and Soviet intermediate-range missiles, including the complete elimination of the most threatening systems on both sides. In Vienna, we're negotiating, together with our allies, for reductions of conventional forces in Europe. In the 40-nation Committee on Disarmament, the United Nations [United States] 3 seeks a total ban on all chemical weapons.
3 White House correction.
Since the first days of my administration, we're been working on our approach to the crucial issue of strategic arms and the control and negotiations for control of those arms with the Soviet Union. The study and analysis required has been complex and difficult. It had to be undertaken deliberately, thoroughly, and correctly. We've laid a solid basis for these negotiations. We're consulting with congressional leaders and with our allies, and we are now ready to proceed.
The main threat to peace posed by nuclear weapons today is the growing instability of the nuclear balance. This is due to the increasingly destructive potential of the massive Soviet buildup in its ballistic missile force.
Therefore, our goal is to enhance deterrence and achieve stability through significant reductions in the most destabilizing nuclear systems, ballistic missiles, and especially the giant intercontinental ballistic missiles, while maintaining a nuclear capability sufficient to deter conflict, to underwrite our national security, and to meet our commitment to allies and friends.
For the immediate future, I'm asking my START—and START really means—we've given up on SALT—START means "Strategic Arms Reduction Talks," and that negotiating team to propose to their Soviet counterparts a practical, phased reduction plan. The focus of our efforts will be to reduce significantly the most destabilizing systems, the ballistic missiles, the number of warheads they carry, and their overall destructive potential.
At the first phase, or the end of the first phase of START, I expect ballistic missile warheads, the most serious threat we face, to be reduced to equal levels, equal ceilings, at least a third below the current levels. To enhance stability, I would ask that no more than half of those warheads be land-based. I hope that these warhead reductions, as well as significant reductions in missiles themselves, could be achieved as rapidly as possible.
In a second phase, we'll seek to achieve an equal ceiling on other elements of our strategic nuclear forces, including limits on the ballistic missile throw-weight at less than current American levels. In both phases, we shall insist on verification procedures to ensure compliance with the agreement.
This, I might say, will be the twentieth time that we have sought such negotiations with the Soviet Union since World War II. The monumental task of reducing and reshaping our strategic forces to enhance stability will take many years of concentrated effort. But I believe that it will be possible to reduce the risks of war by removing the instabilities that now exist and by dismantling the nuclear menace.
I have written to President Brezhnev and directed Secretary Haig to approach the Soviet Government concerning the initiation of formal negotiations on the reduction of strategic nuclear arms, START, at the earliest opportunity. We hope negotiations will begin by the end of June.
We will negotiate seriously, in good faith, and carefully consider all proposals made by the Soviet Union. If they approach these negotiations in the same spirit, I'm confident that together we can achieve an agreement of enduring value that reduces the number of nuclear weapons, halts the growth in strategic forces, and opens the way to even more far-reaching steps in the future.
I hope the Commencement today will also mark the commencement of a new era, in both senses of the word, a new start toward a more peaceful and secure world.
The fifth and final point I propose for East-West relations is dialog. I've always believed that people's problems can be solved when people talk to each other instead of about each other. And I've already expressed my own desire to meet with President Brezhnev in New York next month. If this can't be done, I'd hope we could arrange a future meeting where positive results can be anticipated. And when we sit down, I'll tell President Brezhnev that the United States is ready to build a new understanding based upon the principles I've outlined today.
I'll tell him that his government and his people have nothing to fear from the United States. The free nations living at peace in the world community can vouch for the fact that we seek only harmony. And I'll ask President Brezhnev why our two nations can't practice mutual restraint. Why can't our peoples enjoy the benefits that would flow from real cooperation? Why can't we reduce the number of horrendous weapons?
Perhaps I should also speak to him of this school and these graduates who are leaving it today—of your hopes for the future, of your deep desire for peace, and yet your strong commitment to defend your values if threatened. Perhaps if he someday could attend such a ceremony as this, he'd better understand America. In the only system he knows, you would be here by the decision of government, and on this day the government representatives would be here telling most, if not all, of you where you were going to report to work tomorrow.
But as we go to Europe for the talks and as we proceed in the important challenges facing this country, I want you to know that I will be thinking of you and of Eureka and what you represent. In one of my yearbooks , I remember reading that, "The work of the prairie is to be the soil for the growth of a strong Western culture." I believe Eureka is fulfilling that work. You, the members of the 1982 graduating class, are this year's harvest.
I spoke of the difference between our two countries. I try to follow the humor of the Russian people. We don't hear much about the Russian people. We hear about the Russian leaders. But you can learn a lot, because they do have a sense of humor, and you can learn from the jokes they're telling. And one of the most recent jokes I found kind of, well, personally interesting. Maybe you might—tell you something about your country.
The joke they tell is that an American and a Russian were arguing about the differences between our two countries. And the American said, "Look, in my country I can walk into the Oval Office; I can hit the desk with my fist and say, 'President Reagan, I don't like the way you're governing the United States.'" And the Russian said, "I can do that." The American said, "What?" He says, "I can walk into the Kremlin, into Brezhnev's office. I can pound Brezhnev's desk, and I can say, 'Mr. President, I don't like the way Ronald Reagan is governing the United States.'" [Laughter]
Eureka as an institution and you as individuals are sustaining the best of Western man's ideals. As a fellow graduate and in the office I hold, I'll do my best to uphold these same ideals.
To the Class of '82, congratulations, and God bless you.
Note: The President spoke at 3:23 p.m. in the Reagan Physical Education Center. He was introduced by Daniel Gilbert, president of Eureka College.
Citation: Ronald Reagan: "Address at Commencement Exercises at Eureka College in Illinois," May 9, 1982.
JOURNAL ARCHIVE: July 27, 2006
George W. should have spent more time in the library in the 80s than in the bars.
[JOURNAL ARCHIVE 27 July 2006 excerpt ends]
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=10679
The American Presidency Project
Dwight D. Eisenhower
XXXIV President of the United States: 1953-1961
277 - Letter to a College Student Concerning the Administration's Views on Education.
October 29, 1956
Dear Miss Cornell:
Thank you so much for your letter in which you ask me about the position of this Administration on the critically important issue of educating our youth. I am happy to give my answer-particularly to you, a college student young enough to be a bridge to America's tomorrow.
During the past few years, this Administration has given unprecedented emphasis and leadership to the cause of education. Our actions have been based on the time-tested principles that, first, there is a national interest in education, and, second, that the role of the Federal Government is to aid, encourage, and facilitate-but never to control--education.
What is the present status of our educational system and program?
Today, more Americans are receiving more and better education, in better schools and colleges, from more and better teachers, than ever before. This simple fact is both a record of accomplishment and a guarantee of our future.
The classroom shortage, which grew steadily worse over a long period, has been improving now for the past two years. Last year about 67,000 classrooms were built, more than in any year in our history. More classrooms were built during the past four years than in all the preceding twelve.
The teacher shortage has reached a turning point. The number of students entering colleges for teacher training increased 24.5 percent from 1953 to 1955. The current shortage of qualified elementary and high school teachers is estimated at 120,000, a reduction of 20,000 compared with the shortage of last Fall.
The position of teachers, the life-blood of good education, is steadily being improved. Teachers salaries have been increased in many communities, a reflection of improved support and esteem for the role of teachers in our community and national life.
There is an increase in the number of students preparing for careers in science and engineering. Private gifts to higher education have reached new heights. Additional nationwide scholarship programs are under way. Education is playing a larger international role in improving world understanding.
Under our system, education is basically a community function. It requires the active support of citizens in their own homes. With this in mind, I initiated the White House Conference on Education. Under this program, half a million citizens met in almost 4,000 communities across the country to study and act on the problems of their schools. I know the labors of all these people have been, and will continue to be, of great benefit to education.
I deplore the cynical political criticism that has been directed at the efforts of these half-million people, who understood and shouldered their responsibility. Citizen interest and responsibility in educational problems was stirred by this Conference. It gave impetus and direction to a long-felt need for action.
In two special messages to Congress I submitted a program of Federal action designed to serve the cause of education.
In the first, I requested an unprecedented increase of nearly 100 percent in funds for the Office of Education in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, from three and one-fourth million dollars to more than six million dollars. Congress approved an increase of about 65 percent. These funds are now at work expanding services in the Office and for the first time establishing, in cooperation with colleges and universities, a program of research on some of the basic problems in education.
In the second message, I requested a five-year program of Federal aid to help needy communities build more schools. There are two simple and indisputable facts about this legislation. First, it was not enacted. Second, the only ones who will suffer because of this failure are those who count most but cannot vote, our children.
At the next session of Congress, I shall ask for similar legislation. But, with one precious year lost, I shall ask that the job be done in four years instead of five. It is my earnest hope that the men and women of the next Congress will unite in good will for our children to enact this legislation.
The larger student enrollments, which helped create today's problems in elementary and secondary education, will be felt increasingly in higher education. To increase our understanding of the problems ahead in this field, and to help lead the American people to effective action to meet them, I have appointed an outstanding group of laymen and educators, the President's Committee on Education Beyond the High School.
In this realm of higher education a special problem results from the increasing impact of scientific development on our lives and the international competition in this development both for peaceful profit and for warlike potential. I have therefore acted to encourage the training of more scientists, engineers and technicians. By my appointment a distinguished committee is now working on an action program in this field.
My associates and I are ever mindful of our educational problems, and we are constantly striving for new ideas and greater achievement. The entire Administration program in this field has one all-embracing purpose, the conservation and cultivation of our most precious resource--our youth.
I am most appreciative of your having taken the time and trouble to write to me, and, as a citizen, I am grateful for your sincere interest in our country's future.
Sincerely,
DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER
Miss Karen Cornell
Post Office Box 6272
Asheville
North Carolina
Note: Miss Cornell's letter of October 9 was released with the President's reply.
http://www.gateworld.net/atlantis/s4/transcripts/420.shtml
GateWorld
STARGATE ATLANTIS
THE LAST MAN
EPISODE NUMBER - 420
DVD DISC - Season 4, Disc 5
ORIGINAL U.S. AIR DATE - 03.07.08
Some time later, Rodney is writing on a whiteboard in a small cluttered apartment.
McKAY (voiceover): I quit the research firm; took a job teaching physics at a local community college. Not much money, but it gave me the free time I needed.
(He walks from the whiteboard to a desk, sits down and continues writing on a notepad.)
(Time passes. Rodney is again working on the whiteboard.)
McKAY (voiceover): I'll admit it wasn't much of a life.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=33378
The American Presidency Project
Jimmy Carter
XXXIX President of the United States: 1977 - 1981
Proclamation 4756 - Tribute to Eight American Servicemen
May 6, 1980
By the President of the United States of America
A Proclamation
The names of the eight American servicemen who died in a mission of rescue in Iran will forever stand among the names of heroes. They were valiant men. They knew the danger of the task for which they had volunteered, and they were willing to confront that danger because they wished to right a terrible wrong.
At a time when the delicate, age-old patterns of diplomatic communication that help maintain the peace of the world are under direct attack, we have a great need of men and women ready to make the sacrifices that freedom and security require. The eight who gave their lives while attempting to free their fellow Americans from an illegal and intolerable captivity were such individuals. They knew the price that freedom can demand, and they were prepared to pay it. They laid down their lives for their countrymen, for their Nation's honor, and for the principles of justice and civilization. We mourn their loss; we admire their courage; we respect their dedication; and we reaffirm the principles for which they died.
Now, Therefore, I, Jimmy Carter, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces (36 U.S.C. 178) do hereby proclaim that, as a mark of respect to the memory of these brave men, the flag of the United States shall be flown at half-staff on all buildings, grounds and naval vessels of the Federal Government in the District of Columbia and throughout the United States and its Territories and possessions upon notification of the provisions of this Proclamation until sunset on Friday, May 9.
I also direct that the flag shall be flown at half-staff for the same length of time at all United States embassies, legations, consular offices, and other facilities abroad, including all military facilities and naval vessels and stations.
In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this sixth day of May, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and eighty, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and fourth.
JIMMY CARTER
http://www.britannica.com/biography/Pierre-Teilhard-de-Chardin
Encyclopædia Britannica
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
French philosopher and paleontologist
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, (born May 1, 1881, Sarcenat, France—died April 10, 1955, New York City, New York, U.S.), French philosopher and paleontologist known for his theory that man is evolving, mentally and socially, toward a final spiritual unity. Blending science and Christianity, he declared that the human epic resembles “nothing so much as a way of the Cross.” Various theories of his brought reservations and objections from within the Roman Catholic Church and from the Jesuit order, of which he was a member. In 1962 the Holy Office issued a monitum, or simple warning, against uncritical acceptance of his ideas. His spiritual dedication, ... (100 of 935 words)
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=106567
The American Presidency Project
Dwight D. Eisenhower
XXXIV President of the United States: 1953-1961
Executive Order 10441 - Continuing in Effect Certain Appointments as Officers and Warrant Officers of the Army and the Air Force
March 31, 1953
By .virtue of the authority vested in me by section 1 (c) of the Emergency Powers Continuation Act, approved July 3, 1952 (66 Stat. 330), as amended, I hereby continue in effect until and including July 1, 1953, all appointments as officers and as warrant officers of the Army and of the Air Force of persons on active duty on March 31, 1953, who are determined, as provided in the Missing Persons Act (56 Stat. 143), as amended, to have been in a status of missing, missing in action, interned, captured, beleaguered, or besieged at any time after June 25, 1950, and before July 1, 1953, which under the following provisions of law would terminate after April 27, 1952, and before July 1, 1953:
1. Sections 37 and 38 of the act of June 3, 1916 (ch. 134, 39 Stat. 189, 190), as amended (10 U.S.C. 358, 32 U.S.C. 19), and section 127a of that act as added by the act of June 4, 1920 (ch. 227, 41 Stat. 785), as amended (10 U.S.C. 513).
2. Section 515 (e) of the act of August 7, 1947 (ch. 512, 61 Stat. 907; 10 U.S.C. 506d (e)).
3. Section 3 of the act of August 21, 1941 (ch. 384, 55 Stat. 652), as amended (10 U.S.C. 591a).
DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER
THE WHITE HOUSE,
March 31, 1953.
JOURNAL ARCHIVE: 11/1/2006 3:14 PM
May 4, 2005, was the day I went to the Kent Police department for help. I named George W. Bush specifically as one of the people harassing me. The policeman didn’t ask me any questions. He dumped me off at the St. Francis hospital in Federal Way where the first thing they did was secretly drug my food. I found it very hard to restrain the urge to laugh shortly after I had eaten.
[JOURNAL ARCHIVE 01 November 2006 excerpt ends]
http://www.tv.com/shows/rowan-and-martins-laugh-in/episode-1-74105/
tv.com
Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In Season 1 Episode 1
Episode #1
Aired Monday 8:00 PM Jan 22, 1968 on NBC
The series official debut features the debut of Tiny Tim, a look at the American family, and a salute to the establisment.
AIRED: 1/22/68
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111282/releaseinfo
IMDb
Stargate (1994)
Release Info
USA 28 October 1994
http://www.selffix.com/product_images/ac85f87680c1e402414e7c8f73d9dc82.jpg
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=3773
The American Presidency Project
Richard Nixon
XXXVII President of the United States: 1969-1974
89 - Special Message to the Congress on Science and Technology.
March 16, 1972
To the Congress of the United States:
The ability of the American people to harness the discoveries of science in the service of man has always been an important element in our national progress. As I noted in my most recent message on the State of the Union, Americans have long been known all over the world for their technological ingenuity--for being able to "build a better mousetrap"--and this capacity has undergirded both our domestic prosperity and our international strength.
We owe a great deal to the researchers and engineers, the managers and entrepreneurs who have made this record possible. Again and again they have met what seemed like impossible challenges. Again and again they have achieved success. They have found a way of preventing polio, placed men on the moon, and sent television pictures across the oceans. They have contributed much to our standard of living and our military strength.
But the accomplishments of the past are not something we can rest on. They are something we must build on. I am therefore calling today for a strong new effort to marshal science and technology in the work of strengthening our economy and improving the quality of our life. And I am outlining ways in which the Federal Government can work as a more effective partner in this great task.
The importance of technological innovation has become dramatically evident in the past few years. For one thing, we have come to recognize that such innovation is essential to improving our economic productivity--to producing more and better goods and services at lower costs. And improved productivity, in turn, is essential if we are to achieve a full and durable prosperity--without inflation and without war. By fostering greater productivity, technological innovation can help us to expand our markets at home and abroad, strengthening old industries, creating new ones, and generally providing more jobs for the millions who will soon be entering the labor market.
This work is particularly important at a time when other countries are rapidly moving upward on the scientific and technological ladder, challenging us both in intellectual and in economic terms. Our international position in fields such as electronics, aircraft, steel, automobiles and shipbuilding is not as strong as it once was. A better performance is essential to both the health of our domestic economy and our leadership position abroad.
At the same time, the impact of new technology can do much to enrich the quality of our lives. The forces which threaten that quality will be growing at a dramatic pace in the years ahead. One of the great questions of our time is whether our capacity to deal with these forces will grow at a similiar rate. The answer to that question lies in our scientific and technological progress.
As we face the new challenges of the 1970's, we can draw upon a great reservoir of scientific and technological information and skill--the result of the enormous investments which both the Federal Government and private enterprise made in research and development in recent years. In addition, this Nation's historic commitment to scientific excellence, its determination to take the lead in exploring the unknown, have given us a great tradition, a rich legacy on which to draw. Now it is for us to extend that tradition by applying that legacy in new situations.
In pursuing this goal, it is important to remember several things. In the first place, we must always be aware that the mere act of scientific discovery alone is not enough. Even the most important breakthrough will have little impact on our lives unless it is put to use--and putting an idea to use is a far more complex process than has often been appreciated. To accomplish this transformation, we must combine the genius of invention with the skills of entrepreneurship, management, marketing and finance.
Secondly, we must see that the environment for technological innovation is a favorable one. In some cases, excessive regulation, inadequate incentives and other barriers to innovation have worked to discourage and even to impede the entrepreneurial spirit. We need to do a better job of determining the extent to which such conditions exist, their underlying causes, and the best ways of dealing with them.
Thirdly, we must realize that the mere development of a new idea does not necessarily mean that it can or should be put into immediate use. In some cases, laws or regulations may inhibit its implementation. In other cases, the costs of the process may not be worth the benefits it produces. The introduction of some new technologies may produce undesirable side effects. Patterns of living and human behavior must also be taken into account. By realistically appreciating the limits of technological innovation, we will be in a better position fully to marshal its amazing strengths.
A fourth consideration concerns the need for scientific and technological manpower. Creative, inventive, dedicated scientists and engineers will surely be in demand in the years ahead; young people who believe they would find satisfaction in such careers should not hesitate to undertake them. I am convinced they will find ample opportunity to serve their communities and their country in important and exciting ways.
The fifth basic point I would make concerning our overall approach to science and technology in the 1970's concerns the importance of maintaining that spirit of curiosity and adventure which has always driven us to explore the unknown. This means that we must continue to give an important place to basic research and to exploratory experiments which provide the new ideas on which our edifice of technological accomplishment rests. Basic research in both the public and private sectors today is essential to our continuing progress tomorrow. All departments and agencies of the Federal Government will continue to support basic research which can help provide a broader range of future development options.
Finally, we must appreciate that the progress we seek requires a new partnership in science and technology--one which brings together the Federal Government, private enterprise, State and local governments, and our universities and research centers in a coordinated, cooperative effort to serve the national interest. Each member of that partnership must play the role it can play best; each must respect and reinforce the unique capacities of the other members. Only if this happens, only if our new partnership thrives, can we be sure that our scientific and technological resources will be used as effectively as possible in meeting our priority national needs.
With a new sense of purpose and a new sense of partnership, we can make the 1970's a great new era for American science and technology. Let us look now at some of the specific elements in this process.
STRENGTHENING THE FEDERAL ROLE
The role of the Federal Government in shaping American science and technology is pivotal. of all our Nation's expenditures on research and development, 55 percent are presently funded by the Federal Government. Directly or indirectly, the Federal Government supports the employment of nearly half of all research and development personnel in the United States.
A good part of our Federal effort in this field has been directed in the past toward our national security needs. Because a strong national defense is essential to the maintenance of world peace, our research and development in support of national security must always be sufficient to our needs. We must ensure our strategic deterrent capability, continue the modernization of our Armed Forces, and strengthen the overall technological base that underlies future military systems. For these reasons, I have proposed a substantial increase for defense research and development for fiscal year 1973.
In this message, however, I would like to focus on how we can better apply our scientific resources in meeting civilian needs. Since the beginning of this Administration, I have felt that we should be doing more to focus our scientific and technological resources on the problems of the environment, health, energy, transportation and other pressing domestic concerns. If my new budget proposals are accepted, Federal funds for research and development concerning domestic problems will be 65 percent greater in the coming fiscal year than they were in 1969.
But increased funding is not the only prerequisite for progress in this field. We also need to spend our scarce resources more effectively. Accordingly, I have moved to develop an overall strategic approach in the allocation of Federal scientific and technological resources. As a part of this effort, I directed the Domestic Council last year to examine new technology opportunities in relation to domestic problems. In all of our planning, we have been concentrating not only on how much we spend but also on how we spend it.
My recommendations for strengthening the Federal role in science and technology have been presented to the Congress in my State of the Union message, in my budget for fiscal year 1973, and in individual agency presentations. I urge the Congress to support the various elements of this new Federal strategy.
1) We are reorienting our space program to focus on domestic needs--such as communications, weather forecasting and natural resource exploration. One important way of doing this is by designing and developing a reusable space shuttle, a step which would allow us to seize new opportunities in space with higher reliability at lower costs.
2) We are moving to set and meet certain civilian research and development targets. In my State of the Union Message, my Budget Message and in other communications with the Congress, I have identified a number of areas where new efforts are most likely to produce significant progress and help us meet pressing domestic needs. They include:
--Providing new sources of energy without pollution. My proposed budget for fiscal year 1973 would increase energy-related research and development expenditures by 22 percent.
--Developing fast, safe, pollution-free transportation. I have proposed spending 46 percent more in the coming fiscal year on a variety of transportation projects.
--Working to reduce the loss of life and property from natural disasters. I have asked, for example, that our earthquake research program be doubled and that our hurricane research efforts be increased.
--Improving drug abuse rehabilitation programs and efforts to curb drug trafficking. Our budget requests in this critical area are four times the level of 1971.
--Increasing biomedical research efforts, especially those concerning cancer and heart disease, and generally providing more efficient and effective health care, including better emergency health care systems.
3) We will also draw more directly on the capabilities of our high technology agencies--the Atomic Energy Commission, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Bureau of Standards in the Department of Commerce-in applying research and development to domestic problems.
4) We are making strong efforts to improve the scientific and technological basis for setting Federal standards and regulations. For example, by learning to measure more precisely the level of air pollution and its effects on our health, we can do a more effective job of setting pollution standards and of enforcing those standards once they are established.
5) I am also providing in my 1973 budget for a 12 percent increase for research and development conducted at universities and colleges. This increase reflects the effort of the past 2 years to encourage educational institutions to undertake research related to important national problems.
6) Finally, I believe that the National Science Foundation should draw on all sectors of the scientific and technological community in working to meet significant domestic challenges. To this end, I am taking action to permit the Foundation to support applied research in industry when the use of industrial capabilities would be advantageous in accomplishing the Foundation's objectives.
SUPPORTING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR
The direction of private scientific and technological activities is determined in large measure by thousands of private decisions--and this should always be the case. But we cannot ignore the fact that Federal policy also has a great impact on what happens in the private sector. This influence is exerted in many ways--including direct Federal support for such research and development.
In general, I believe it is appropriate for the Federal Government to encourage private research and development to the extent that the market mechanism is not effective in bringing needed innovations into use. This can happen in a number of circumstances. For example, the sheer size of some developmental projects is beyond the reach of private firms particularly in industries which are fragmented into many small companies. In other cases, the benefits of projects cannot be captured by private institutions, even though they may be very significant for the whole of society. In still other cases, the risks of certain projects, while acceptable to society as a whole, are excessive for individual companies.
In all these cases, Federal support of private research and development is necessary and desirable. We must see that such support is made available--through cost-sharing agreements, procurement policies or other arrangements.
One example of the benefits of such a partnership between the Federal Government and private enterprise is the program I presented last June to meet our growing need for clean energy. As I outlined the Federal role in this effort, I also indicated that industry's response to these initiatives would be crucial. That response has been most encouraging to date. For example, the electric utilities have already pledged some $25 million a year for a period of 10 years for developing a liquid metal fast breeder reactor demonstration plant. These pledges have come through the Edison Electric Institute, the American Public Power Association, and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. This effort is one part of a larger effort by the electrical utilities to raise $150 million annually for research and development to meet the growing demand for clean electric power.
At the same time, the gas companies, through the American Gas Association, have raised $10 million to accelerate the effort to convert coal into gas. This sum represents industry's first year share in a pilot plant program which will be financed one-third by industry and two-thirds by the Federal Government. When it proves feasible to proceed to the demonstration stage, industrial contributions to this project will be expected to increase.
APPLYING GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED TECHNOLOGIES
An asset unused is an asset wasted. Federal research and development activities generate a great deal of new technology which could be applied in ways which go well beyond the immediate mission of the supporting agency. In such cases, I believe the Government has a responsibility to transfer the results of its research and development activities to wider use in the private sector.
It was to further this objective that we created in 1970 the new National Technical Information Service in the Department of Commerce. In addition, the new incentives programs of the National Science Foundation and the National Bureau of Standards will seek effective means of improving and accelerating the transfer of research and development results from Federal programs to a wider range of potential users.
One important barrier to the private development and commercial application of Government-sponsored technologies is the lack of incentive which results from the fact that such technologies are generally available to all competitors. To help remedy this situation, I approved last August a change in the Government patent policy which liberalized the private use of Government-owned patents. I directed that such patents may be made available to private firms through exclusive licenses where needed to encourage commercial application.
As a further step in this same direction, I am today directing my Science Adviser and the Secretary of Commerce to develop plans for a new, systematic effort to promote actively the licensing of Government-owned patents and to obtain domestic and foreign patent protection for technology owned by the United States Government in order to promote its transfer into the civilian economy.
IMPROVING THE CLIMATE FOR
INNOVATION
There are many ways in which the Federal Government influences the level and the quality of private research and development. Its direct supportive efforts are important, but other policies--such as tax, patent, procurement, regulation and antitrust policies--also can have a significant effect on the climate for innovation.
We know, for instance, that a strong and reliable patent system is important to technological progress and industrial strength. The process of applying technology to achieve our national goals calls for a tremendous investment of money, energy and talent by our private enterprise system. If we expect industry to support this investment, we must make the most effective possible use of the incentives which are provided by our patent system.
The way we apply our antitrust laws can also do much to shape research and development. Uncertain reward and high risks can be significant barriers to progress when a firm is small in relation to the scale of effort required for successful projects. In such cases, formal or informal combinations of firms provide one means for hurdling these barriers, especially in highly fragmented industries. On the other hand, joint efforts among leading firms in highly concentrated industries would normally be considered undesirable. In general, combinations which lead to an improved allocation of the resources of the nation are normally permissible, but actions which lead to excessive market power for any single group are not. Any joint program for research and development must be approached in a way that does not detract from the normal competitive incentives of our free enterprise economy.
I believe we need to be better informed about the full consequences of all such policies for scientific and technological progress. For this reason, I have included in my budget for the coming fiscal year a program whereby the National Science Foundation would support assessments and studies focused specifically on barriers to technological innovation and on the consequences of adopting alternative Federal policies which would reduce or eliminate these barriers. These studies would be undertaken in close consultation with the Executive office of the President, the Department of Commerce and other concerned departments and agencies, so that the results can be most expeditiously considered as further Government decisions are made.
There are a number of additional steps which can also do much to enhance the climate for innovation.
1) I shall submit legislation to encourage the development of the small, high technology firms which have had such a distinguished pioneering record. Because the combination of high technology and small size makes such firms exceptionally risky from an investment standpoint, my proposal would provide additional means for the Small Business Investment Companies (SBICs) to improve the availability of venture capital to such firms.
a. I propose that the ratio of Government support to SBICs be increased. This increased assistance would be channeled to small business concerns which are principally engaged in the development or exploitation of inventions or of technological improvements and new products.
b. I propose that the current limit on Small Business Administration loam to each SBIC be increased to $20 million to allow for growth in SBIC funds devoted to technology investments.
c. I propose that federally regulated commercial banks again be permitted to achieve up to 100 percent ownership of an SBIC, rather than the limited 50 percent ownership which is allowed at present.
d. To enhance risk-taking and entrepreneurial ventures, I again urge passage of the small business tax bill, which would provide for extending the eligibility period for the exercise of qualified stock options from 5 to 8 or 10 years, reducing the holding period for non-registered stock from 3 years to 1 year, and extending the taxloss carry-forward from 5 to 10 years. These provisions would apply to small firms, as defined in the proposed legislation.
2) I have requested in my proposed budget for fiscal year 1973 that new programs be set up by the National Science Foundation and the National Bureau of Standards to determine effective ways of stimulating non-Federal investment in research and development and of improving the application of research and development results. The experiments to be set up under this program are designed to test a variety of partnership arrangements among the various levels of government, private firms and universities. They would include the exploration of new arrangements for cost-sharing, patent licensing, and research support, as well as the testing of incentives for industrial research associations.
3) To provide a focal point within the executive branch for policies concerning industrial research and development, the Department of Commerce will appraise, on a continuing basis, the technological strengths and weaknesses of American industry. It will propose measures to assure a vigorous state of industrial progress. The Department will work with other agencies in identifying barriers to such progress and will draw on the studies and assessments prepared through the National Science Foundation and the National Bureau of Standards.
4) To foster useful innovation, I also plan to establish a new program of research and development prizes. These prizes will be awarded by the President for outstanding achievements by individuals and institutions and will be used especially to encourage needed innovation in key areas of public concern. I believe these prizes will be an important symbol of the Nation's concern for our scientific and technological challenges.
5) An important step which could be of great significance in fostering technological innovations and enhancing our position in world trade is that of changing to the metric system of measurement. The Secretary of Commerce has submitted to the Congress legislation which would allow us to begin to develop a carefully coordinated national plan to bring about this change. The proposed legislation would bring together a broadly representative board of private citizens who would work with all sectors of our society in planning for such a transition. Should such a change be decided on, it would be implemented on a cooperative, voluntary basis.
STRONGER FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL
PARTNERSHIPS
A consistent theme which runs throughout my program for making government more responsive to public needs is the idea that each level of government should do what it can do best. This same theme characterizes my approach to the challenges of research and development. The Federal Government, for example, can usually do a good job of massing research and development resources. But State and local governments usually have a much better "feel" for the specific public challenges to which those resources can be applied. If we are to use science and technology effectively in meeting these challenges, then State and local governments should have a central role in the application process. That process is a difficult one at best; it will be even more complex and frustrating if the States and localities are not adequately involved.
To help build a greater sense of partnership among the three levels of the Federal system, I am directing my Science Adviser, in cooperation with the office of Intergovernmental Relations, to serve as a focal point for discussions among various Federal agencies and the representatives of State and local governments. These discussions should lay the basis for developing a better means for collaboration and consultation on scientific and technological questions in the future. They should focus on the following specific subjects:
1) Systematic ways for communicating to the appropriate Federal agencies the priority needs of State and local governments, along with information concerning locally-generated solutions to such problems. In this way, such information can be incorporated into the Federal research and development planning process.
2) Ways of assuring State and local governments adequate access to the technical resources of major Federal research and development centers, such as those which are concerned with transportation, the environment, and the development of new sources of energy.
3) Methods whereby the Federal Government can encourage the aggregation of State and local markets for certain products so that industries can give government purchasers the benefits of innovation and economies of scale.
The discussions which take place between Federal, State and local representatives can also help to guide the experimental programs I have proposed for the National Science Foundation and the National Bureau of Standards. These programs, in turn, can explore the possibilities for creating better ties between State and local governments on the one hand and local industries and universities on the other, thus stimulating the use of research and development in improving the efficiency and effectiveness of public services at the State and local level.
WORLD PARTNERSHIP IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
The laws of nature transcend national boundaries. Increasingly, the peoples of the world are irrevocably linked in a complex web of global interdependence--and increasingly the strands of that web are woven by science and technology.
The cause of scientific and technological progress has always been advanced when men have been able to reach across international boundaries in common pursuits. Toward this end, we must now work to facilitate the flow of people and the exchange of ideas, and to recognize that the basic problems faced in each nation are shared by every nation.
I believe this country can benefit substantially from the experience of other countries, even as we help other countries by sharing our information and facilities and specialists with them. To promote this goal, I am directing the Federal agencies, under the leadership of the Department of State, to identify new opportunities for international cooperation in research and development. At the same time, I am inviting other countries to join in research efforts in the United States, including:
--the effort to conquer cancer at the unique research facilities of our National Institutes of Health and at Fort Detrick, Maryland; and
--the effort to understand the adverse health effects of chemicals, drugs and pollutants at the new National Center for Toxicological Research at Pine Bluff, Arkansas.
These two projects concern priority problems which now challenge the whole world's research community. But they are only a part of the larger fabric of cooperative international efforts in which we are now engaged.
Science and technology can also provide important links with countries which have different political systems from ours. For example, we have recently concluded an agreement with the Soviet Union in the field of health, an agreement which provides for joint research on cancer, heart disease and environmental health problems. We are also cooperating with the Soviet Union in the space field; we will continue to exchange lunar samples and we are exploring prospects for closer cooperation in satellite meteorology, in remote sensing of the environment, and in space medicine. Beyond this, joint working groups have verified the technical feasibility of a docking mission between a SALYUT Station1 and an Apollo spacecraft.
1 A Soviet orbital space laboratory station.
One result of my recent visit to the People's Republic of China was an agreement to facilitate the development of contacts and exchanges in many fields, including science and technology. I expect to see further progress in this area.
The United Nations and a number of its specialized agencies are also involved in a wide range of scientific and technological activities. The importance of these tasks--and the clear need for an international approach to technical problems with global implications--argues for the most effective possible organization and coordination of various international agencies concerned. As a step in this direction, I proposed in a recent message to the Congress the creation of a United Nations Fund for the Environment to foster an international attack on environmental problems. Also, I believe the American scientific community should participate more fully in the science activities of international agencies.
To further these objectives, I am taking steps to initiate a broad review of United States involvement in the scientific and technological programs of international organizations and of steps that might be taken to make United States participation in these activities more effective, with even stronger ties to our domestic programs.
Finally, I would emphasize that United States science and technology can and must play an important role in the progress of developing nations. We are committed to bring the best of our science and technology to bear on the critical problems of development through our reorganized foreign assistance programs.
A NEW SENSE OF PURPOSE AND A NEW
SENSE OF PARTNERSHIP
The years ahead will require a new sense of purpose and a new sense of partnership in science and technology. We must define our goals clearly, so that we know where we are going. And then we must develop careful strategies for pursuing those goals, strategies which bring together the Federal Government, the private sector, the universities, and the States and local communities in a cooperative pursuit of progress. Only then can we be confident that our public and private resources for science and technology will be spent as effectively as possible.
In all these efforts, it will be essential that the American people be better equipped to make wise judgments concerning public issues which involve science and technology. As our national life is increasingly permeated by science and technology, it is important that public understanding grow apace.
The investment we make today in science and technology and in the development of our future scientific and technical talent is an investment in tomorrow--an investment which can have a tremendous impact on the basic quality of our lives. We must be sure that we invest wisely and well
RICHARD NIXON
THE WHITE HOUSE,
March 16, 1972.
http://www.griffith.ox.ac.uk/gri/5eaton2.html
M. Eaton-Krauss, The Sarcophagus In The Tomb of Tutankhamun.
32 pp; 20 pls; 4 figs; ISBN 0 900416 57 2; 1993. £25.00.
On February 12, 1924, Howard Carter presided over the lifting of the lid from the sarcophagus in the tomb of Tutankhamun to reveal the shrouded nest of coffins that contained the royal mummy. While the sarcophagus had received summary notice at first, it was later virtually ignored in the excitement generated by the gold coffins. Now, almost seven decades later, the sarcophagus finally received the attention this magnificent monument deserves.
Following a detailed analysis of the sarcophagus's architecture and decoration, this book focuses on hitherto unrecognized evidence that the box was altered in antiquitiy, in all likelihood to adapt it for Tutankhamun from a previous owner. The list of possible candidates for the original ownership of the box is reviewed, with the balance of evidence favouring Tutankhamun's predecessor, his putative brother Smenkhkare.
The book includes translation of and commentary of the inscriptions
- posted by H.V.O.M - Kerry Wayne Burgess 10:53 AM Pacific Time Spokane Valley Washington USA Tuesday 19 April 2016
