President Obama Press Conference pt.1

Guy  Benson observed:

In case you missed it, Katie offers a fairly comprehensive recapof President Obama’s press conference below.  As is often the case, his performance was rather frustrating to watch, and seemed interminable.  A few initial reactions:

Debt Ceiling: The president called on Republicans to back off their “stubborn” refusal to compromise on their “sacred cow” (no tax hikes), asserting that everyone else at the table has displayed a willingness to do so.  This is news to me, as Democrats have consistently refused to deal seriously with entitlements, and have shamelessly demagogued Republican reform efforts.  One could also argue that Democrats’ true sacred cow in this debate is their insistence on raising taxes, a stance from which they have not backed down.  Obama then employed one of his favorite rhetorical maneuvers, citing the “consensus” of unnamed economists from across the political spectrum (“every single observer…who’s not a politician”) that a “balanced approach” to deficit refuction (ie, tax increases) is required to accomplish that task.  I can think of at least 150 economists who might beg to differ.  NRO’s Daniel Foster dug up a useful video clip on this front.  The president also mentioned his debt commission — which is rich, considering that he ignored all of its major recommendations in crafting his mammouth failure of a 2012 budget.  Plus, would tax hikes really right the ship?  Over to you, Jim Pethokoukis (once again).

In a ham-fisted class warfare gambit, Obama took aim at tax breaks for private jet owners.  His point, presumably, was to highlight an unpopular tax provision Republicans are “protecting” through their blanket refusal to entertain any tax increases.  Say, where’d those evil private jet-related tax breaks come from, anyway?  Clue: The answer may involve an infamous bill that zero House Republicans supported, and that Barack Obama signed into law.  Oops.

_________________________________________________________

According to President Obama the Republicans must accept tax increases. Is that the case?

Curtis Dubay rightly noted:

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) just released its long-term outlook for the federal budget. As expected, we are going broke slightly faster than we were a few months ago.

No doubt the usual bigger-government types will use this news to repeat the mantra that we need to both cut spending and “enhance revenues” (a thinly veiled euphemism for tax hikes). Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner used this oft-repeated line just this week.

But their argument is exactly backwards. The CBO report actually once again proves that no tax hikes are necessary to fix our budget woes.

The CBO calculates that if Congress leaves the tax code as it is today—which would include permanently extending the 2001/2003 tax cuts for all taxpayers (even those greedy, job-producing rich folks and small businesses), patching the alternative minimum tax so it does not impact middle-income families, and continuing a host of other tax-reducing provisions that regularly expire—tax revenues would exceed their historical average of 18 percent of GDP in 2021. Revenue would continue growing thereafter absent any policy changes and soon surpass the all-time record high hit back in 2000 at the height of the Internet-tech boom.

Earlier CBO reports show (and this latest release confirms) that revenue would actually match the 18 percent of GDP mark by 2017 and could get there even sooner.

Renewed economic growth—once it finally takes hold—is the reason tax revenues will shoot up in the coming years. Faster growth means that taxpayers earn more income and move into higher tax brackets. Faster growth also means that there are more taxpayers than before.

The impending rebound in tax revenues seen in the CBO data also rebuts the argument that “taxes as a percentage of GDP are at their lowest levels since 1950.” It has been repeated most recently by Fareed Zakaria.

These low tax receipts have nothing to do with changes in policy, like lower tax rates, as those making this argument would have us believe. Tax revenues are low compared to their historical averages, but that has everything to do with a terrible recession and a worse-than-anemic recovery that has repressed incomes and driven millions to the unemployment lines.

Conveyors of the wrongheaded wisdom about the necessity of tax hikes are trying to convince the American people that there is just no way to lower the deficit with spending cuts alone, that some tax hikes are necessary in any “reasonable” plan.

Higher taxes are not a mathematical necessity. They are a choice Washington politicians would make to expand the size of government. After all, history has shown us that Congress rarely if ever uses revenue from tax hikes to lower the deficit. Rather, it uses the money on new or expanded big-government programs. And tax hikes now would further harm job creation.

The reality is that hikes are not necessary to fix the budget. If Congress restrained spending to its historical level of 20 percent of GDP (rather than the bloated 25 percent that President Obama’s budget aspires for), the deficit would fall to manageable levels as revenues climb, and the national debt would stabilize as a share of the economy.

It is all about the spending, and no amount of reiterating false claims about plunging tax revenue can change that. Washington has spent us into this budget hole and wants more of our money to fill the void they’ve created. It is time they realize they’ll be getting plenty of our money in the coming years, and the only way out of this mess is to cut spending.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) just released its long-term outlook for the federal budget. As expected, we are going broke slightly faster than we were a few months ago.

No doubt the usual bigger-government types will use this news to repeat the mantra that we need to both cut spending and “enhance revenues” (a thinly veiled euphemism for tax hikes). Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner used this oft-repeated line just this week.

But their argument is exactly backwards. The CBO report actually once again proves that no tax hikes are necessary to fix our budget woes.

The CBO calculates that if Congress leaves the tax code as it is today—which would include permanently extending the 2001/2003 tax cuts for all taxpayers (even those greedy, job-producing rich folks and small businesses), patching the alternative minimum tax so it does not impact middle-income families, and continuing a host of other tax-reducing provisions that regularly expire—tax revenues would exceed their historical average of 18 percent of GDP in 2021. Revenue would continue growing thereafter absent any policy changes and soon surpass the all-time record high hit back in 2000 at the height of the Internet-tech boom.

Earlier CBO reports show (and this latest release confirms) that revenue would actually match the 18 percent of GDP mark by 2017 and could get there even sooner.

Renewed economic growth—once it finally takes hold—is the reason tax revenues will shoot up in the coming years. Faster growth means that taxpayers earn more income and move into higher tax brackets. Faster growth also means that there are more taxpayers than before.

The impending rebound in tax revenues seen in the CBO data also rebuts the argument that “taxes as a percentage of GDP are at their lowest levels since 1950.” It has been repeated most recently by Fareed Zakaria.

These low tax receipts have nothing to do with changes in policy, like lower tax rates, as those making this argument would have us believe. Tax revenues are low compared to their historical averages, but that has everything to do with a terrible recession and a worse-than-anemic recovery that has repressed incomes and driven millions to the unemployment lines.

Conveyors of the wrongheaded wisdom about the necessity of tax hikes are trying to convince the American people that there is just no way to lower the deficit with spending cuts alone, that some tax hikes are necessary in any “reasonable” plan.

Higher taxes are not a mathematical necessity. They are a choice Washington politicians would make to expand the size of government. After all, history has shown us that Congress rarely if ever uses revenue from tax hikes to lower the deficit. Rather, it uses the money on new or expanded big-government programs. And tax hikes now would further harm job creation.

The reality is that hikes are not necessary to fix the budget. If Congress restrained spending to its historical level of 20 percent of GDP (rather than the bloated 25 percent that President Obama’s budget aspires for), the deficit would fall to manageable levels as revenues climb, and the national debt would stabilize as a share of the economy.

It is all about the spending, and no amount of reiterating false claims about plunging tax revenue can change that. Washington has spent us into this budget hole and wants more of our money to fill the void they’ve created. It is time they realize they’ll be getting plenty of our money in the coming years, and the only way out of this mess is to cut spending.

 The LA Times reported yesterday:

Currently on his first state visit to the United Kingdom and Tuesday (May 24) he and First Lady Michelle Obama met the royal family at Buckingham Palace in London. Above is video of their arrival at the palace.

In these pictures, the President and First Lady chat with Prince William and new bride Catherine, now known as the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. The Obamas also met Queen Elizabeth IIand her husband Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh and Prince Charles and his wife Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall.

Upon arrival, the Obamas were greeted with an honor that played the U.S. National Anthem, followed by a 41-gun salute. Tonight there will be a state dinner given by Queen Elizabeth II and tomorrow President Obama will address both houses of Parliament and attend bilateral talks at 10 Downing Street, which is the headquarters of Her Majesty’s government.

For all the photos of the visit so far, check out our gallery.

• President Barack Obama addresses an audience during a campaign fundraising event, in Boston, May 18, 2011.  (AP Photo/Steven Senne)
  
  
   
   

  Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton greets President Obama before his speech at the State Department. Clinton introduced Obama, who joked that she has been accruing quite a few frequent-flier miles.

   

Below is a transcript of an important speech that President Obama gave concerning Israel:

Remarks Of President Barack Obama — “A Moment of Opportunity” Speech

U.S. President Barack Obama speaks at the State Department in Washington on
May 19.
May 19, 2011
The following is a White House transcript of U.S. President Barack Obama’s
speech, as prepared for delivery, at the State Department on May 19:

I want to thank Hillary Clinton, who has traveled so much these last six
months that she is approaching a new landmark — one million frequent flyer
miles. I count on Hillary every day, and I believe that she will go down as
of the finest Secretaries of State in our nation’s history.

The State Department is a fitting venue to mark a new chapter in American
diplomacy. For six months, we have witnessed an extraordinary change take
place in the Middle East and North Africa. Square by square; town by town;
country by country; the people have risen up to demand their basic human
rights. Two leaders have stepped aside. More may follow. And though these
countries may be a great distance from our shores, we know that our own
future is bound to this region by the forces of economics and security;
history and faith.

Today, I would like to talk about this change — the forces that are driving
it, and how we can respond in a way that advances our values and strengthens
our security. Already, we have done much to shift our foreign policy
following a decade defined by two costly conflicts. After years of war in
Iraq, we have removed 100,000 American troops and ended our combat mission
there. In Afghanistan, we have broken the Taliban’s momentum, and this July
we will begin to bring our troops home and continue transition to Afghan
lead. And after years of war against al Qaeda and its affiliates, we have
dealt al Qaeda a huge blow by killing its leader — Osama bin Laden.

Bin Laden was no martyr. He was a mass murderer who offered a message of
hate — an insistence that Muslims had to take up arms against the West, and
that violence against men, women and children was the only path to change.
He rejected democracy and individual rights for Muslims in favor of violent
extremism; his agenda focused on what he could destroy — not what he could
build.

Bin Laden and his murderous vision won some adherents. But even before his
death, al Qaeda was losing its struggle for relevance, as the overwhelming
majority of people saw that the slaughter of innocents did not answer their
cries for a better life. By the time we found bin Laden, al Qaeda’s agenda
had come to be seen by the vast majority of the region as a dead end, and
the people of the Middle East and North Africa had taken their future into
their own hands.

That story of self-determination began six months ago in Tunisia. On
December 17, a young vendor named Mohammed Bouazizi was devastated when a
police officer confiscated his cart. This was not unique. It is the same
kind of humiliation that takes place every day in many parts of the world —
the relentless tyranny of governments that deny their citizens dignity. Only
this time, something different happened. After local officials refused to
hear his complaint, this young man who had never been particularly active in
politics went to the headquarters of the provincial government, doused
himself in fuel, and lit himself on fire.

Sometimes, in the course of history, the actions of ordinary citizens spark
movements for change because they speak to a longing for freedom that has
built up for years. In America, think of the defiance of those patriots in
Boston who refused to pay taxes to a King, or the dignity of Rosa Parks as
she sat courageously in her seat. So it was in Tunisia, as that vendor’s act
of desperation tapped into the frustration felt throughout the country.
Hundreds of protesters took to the streets, then thousands. And in the face
of batons and sometimes bullets, they refused to go home — day after day,
week after week, until a dictator of more than two decades finally left
power.

The story of this Revolution, and the ones that followed, should not have
come as a surprise. The nations of the Middle East and North Africa won
their independence long ago, but in too many places their people did not.
In too many countries, power has been concentrated in the hands of the few.
In too many countries, a citizen like that young vendor had nowhere to turn
— no honest judiciary to hear his case; no independent media to give him
voice; no credible political party to represent his views; no free and fair
election where he could choose his leader.

This lack of self determination — the chance to make of your life what you
will — has applied to the region’s economy as well. Yes, some nations are
blessed with wealth in oil and gas, and that has led to pockets of
prosperity. But in a global economy based on knowledge and innovation, no
development strategy can be based solely upon what comes out of the ground.
Nor can people reach their potential when you cannot start a business
without paying a bribe.

In the face of these challenges, too many leaders in the region tried to
direct their people’s grievances elsewhere. The West was blamed as the
source of all ills, a half century after the end of colonialism. Antagonism
toward Israel became the only acceptable outlet for political expression.
Divisions of tribe, ethnicity and religious sect were manipulated as a means
of holding on to power, or taking it away from somebody else.

But the events of the past six months show us that strategies of repression
and diversion won’t work anymore. Satellite television and the Internet
provide a window into the wider world — a world of astonishing progress in
places like India, Indonesia and Brazil. Cell phones and social networks
allow young people to connect and organize like never before. A new
generation has emerged. And their voices tell us that change cannot be
denied.

In Cairo, we heard the voice of the young mother who said, “It’s like I can
finally breathe fresh air for the first time.”

In Sanaa, we heard the students who chanted, “The night must come to an
end.”

In Benghazi, we heard the engineer who said, “Our words are free now. It’s a
feeling you can’t explain.”

In Damascus, we heard the young man who said, “After the first yelling, the
first shout, you feel dignity.”

Those shouts of human dignity are being heard across the region. And through
the moral force of non-violence, the people of the region have achieved more
change in six months than terrorists have accomplished in decades.

Of course, change of this magnitude does not come easily. In our day and age
— a time of 24 hour news cycles, and constant communication — people
expect the transformation of the region to be resolved in a matter of weeks.
But it will be years before this story reaches its end. Along the way, there
will be good days, and bad days. In some places, change will be swift; in
others, gradual. And as we have seen, calls for change may give way to
fierce contests for power.

The question before us is what role America will play as this story unfolds.
For decades, the United States has pursued a set of core interests in the
region: countering terrorism and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons;
securing the free flow of commerce, and safe-guarding the security of the
region; standing up for Israel’s security and pursuing Arab-Israeli peace.

We will continue to do these things, with the firm belief that America’s
interests are not hostile to peoples’ hopes; they are essential to them. We
believe that no one benefits from a nuclear arms race in the region, or al
Qaeda’s brutal attacks. People everywhere would see their economies crippled
by a cut off in energy supplies. As we did in the Gulf War, we will not
tolerate aggression across borders, and we will keep our commitments to
friends and partners.

Yet we must acknowledge that a strategy based solely upon the narrow pursuit
of these interests will not fill an empty stomach or allow someone to speak
their mind. Moreover, failure to speak to the broader aspirations of
ordinary people will only feed the suspicion that has festered for years
that the United States pursues our own interests at their expense. Given
that this mistrust runs both ways — as Americans have been seared by
hostage taking, violent rhetoric, and terrorist attacks that have killed
thousands of our citizens — a failure to change our approach threatens a
deepening spiral of division between the United States and Muslim
communities.

That’s why, two years ago in Cairo, I began to broaden our engagement based
upon mutual interests and mutual respect. I believed then — and I believe
now — that we have a stake not just in the stability of nations, but in the
self determination of individuals. The status quo is not sustainable.
Societies held together by fear and repression may offer the illusion of
stability for a time, but they are built upon fault lines that will
eventually tear asunder.

So we face an historic opportunity. We have embraced the chance to show that
America values the dignity of the street vendor in Tunisia more than the raw
power of the dictator. There must be no doubt that the United States of
America welcomes change that advances self-determination and opportunity.
Yes, there will be perils that accompany this moment of promise. But after
decades of accepting the world as it is in the region, we have a chance to
pursue the world as it should be.

As we do, we must proceed with a sense of humility. It is not America that
put people into the streets of Tunis and Cairo — it was the people
themselves who launched these movements, and must determine their outcome.
Not every country will follow our particular form of representative
democracy, and there will be times when our short term interests do not
align perfectly with our long term vision of the region. But we can — and
will — speak out for a set of core principles — principles that have
guided our response to the events over the past six months:

The United States opposes the use of violence and repression against the
people of the region.

We support a set of universal rights. Those rights include free speech; the
freedom of peaceful assembly; freedom of religion; equality for men and
women under the rule of law; and the right to choose your own leaders —
whether you live in Baghdad or Damascus; Sanaa or Tehran.

And finally, we support political and economic reform in the Middle East and
North Africa that can meet the legitimate aspirations of ordinary people
throughout the region.

Our support for these principles is not a secondary interest — today I am
making it clear that it is a top priority that must be translated into
concrete actions, and supported by all of the diplomatic, economic and
strategic tools at our disposal.

Let me be specific. First, it will be the policy of the United States to
promote reform across the region, and to support transitions to democracy.

That effort begins in Egypt and Tunisia, where the stakes are high — as
Tunisia was at the vanguard of this democratic wave, and Egypt is both a
longstanding partner and the Arab World’s largest nation. Both nations can
set a strong example through free and fair elections; a vibrant civil
society; accountable and effective democratic institutions; and responsible
regional leadership. But our support must also extend to nations where
transitions have yet to take place.

Unfortunately, in too many countries, calls for change have been answered by
violence. The most extreme example is Libya, where Moammar Gaddafi launched
a war against his people, promising to hunt them down like rats. As I said
when the United States joined an international coalition to intervene, we
cannot prevent every injustice perpetrated by a regime against its people,
and we have learned from our experience in Iraq just how costly and
difficult it is to impose regime change by force — no matter how
well-intended it may be.

But in Libya, we saw the prospect of imminent massacre, had a mandate for
action, and heard the Libyan people’s call for help. Had we not acted along
with our NATO allies and regional coalition partners, thousands would have
been killed. The message would have been clear: keep power by killing as
many people as it takes. Now, time is working against Gaddafi. He does not
have control over his country. The opposition has organized a legitimate and
credible Interim Council. And when Gaddafi inevitably leaves or is forced
from power, decades of provocation will come to an end, and the transition
to a democratic Libya can proceed.

While Libya has faced violence on the greatest scale, it is not the only
place where leaders have turned to repression to remain in power. Most
recently, the Syrian regime has chosen the path of murder and the mass
arrests of its citizens. The United States has condemned these actions, and
working with the international community we have stepped up our sanctions on
the Syrian regime — including sanctions announced yesterday on President
Assad and those around him.

The Syrian people have shown their courage in demanding a transition to
democracy. President Assad now has a choice: he can lead that transition, or
get out of the way. The Syrian government must stop shooting demonstrators
and allow peaceful protests; release political prisoners and stop unjust
arrests; allow human rights monitors to have access to cities like Dara’a;
and start a serious dialogue to advance a democratic transition. Otherwise,
President Assad and his regime will continue to be challenged from within
and isolated abroad

Thus far, Syria has followed its Iranian ally, seeking assistance from
Tehran in the tactics of suppression. This speaks to the hypocrisy of the
Iranian regime, which says it stand for the rights of protesters abroad, yet
suppresses its people at home. Let us remember that the first peaceful
protests were in the streets of Tehran, where the government brutalized
women and men, and threw innocent people into jail. We still hear the chants
echo from the rooftops of Tehran. The image of a young woman dying in the
streets is still seared in our memory. And we will continue to insist that
the Iranian people deserve their universal rights, and a government that
does not smother their aspirations.

Our opposition to Iran’s intolerance — as well as its illicit nuclear
program, and its sponsorship of terror — is well known. But if America is
to be credible, we must acknowledge that our friends in the region have not
all reacted to the demands for change consistent with the principles that I
have outlined today. That is true in Yemen, where President Saleh needs to
follow through on his commitment to transfer power. And that is true, today,
in Bahrain.

Bahrain is a long-standing partner, and we are committed to its security. We
recognize that Iran has tried to take advantage of the turmoil there, and
that the Bahraini government has a legitimate interest in the rule of law.
Nevertheless, we have insisted publically and privately that mass arrests
and brute force are at odds with the universal rights of Bahrain’s citizens,
and will not make legitimate calls for reform go away. The only way forward
is for the government and opposition to engage in a dialogue, and you can’t
have a real dialogue when parts of the peaceful opposition are in jail. The
government must create the conditions for dialogue, and the opposition must
participate to forge a just future for all Bahrainis.

Indeed, one of the broader lessons to be drawn from this period is that
sectarian divides need not lead to conflict. In Iraq, we see the promise of
a multi-ethnic, multi-sectarian democracy. There, the Iraqi people have
rejected the perils of political violence for a democratic process, even as
they have taken full responsibility for their own security. Like all new
democracies, they will face setbacks. But Iraq is poised to play a key role
in the region if it continues its peaceful progress. As they do, we will be
proud to stand with them as a steadfast partner.

So in the months ahead, America must use all our influence to encourage
reform in the region. Even as we acknowledge that each country is different,
we will need to speak honestly about the principles that we believe in, with
friend and foe alike. Our message is simple: if you take the risks that
reform entails, you will have the full support of the United States. We must
also build on our efforts to broaden our engagement beyond elites, so that
we reach the people who will shape the future — particularly young people.

We will continue to make good on the commitments that I made in Cairo — to
build networks of entrepreneurs, and expand exchanges in education; to
foster cooperation in science and technology, and combat disease. Across the
region, we intend to provide assistance to civil society, including those
that may not be officially sanctioned, and who speak uncomfortable truths.
And we will use the technology to connect with — and listen to — the
voices of the people.

In fact, real reform will not come at the ballot box alone. Through our
efforts we must support those basic rights to speak your mind and access
information. We will support open access to the Internet, and the right of
journalists to be heard – whether it’s a big news organization or a blogger.
In the 21st century, information is power; the truth cannot be hidden; and
the legitimacy of governments will ultimately depend on active and informed
citizens.

Such open discourse is important even if what is said does not square with
our worldview. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding
voices to be heard, even if we disagree with them. We look forward to
working with all who embrace genuine and inclusive democracy. What we will
oppose is an attempt by any group to restrict the rights of others, and to
hold power through coercion – not consent. Because democracy depends not
only on elections, but also strong and accountable institutions, and respect
for the rights of minorities.

Such tolerance is particularly important when it comes to religion. In
Tahrir Square, we heard Egyptians from all walks of life chant, “Muslims,
Christians, we are one.” America will work to see that this spirit prevails
— that all faiths are respected, and that bridges are built among them. In
a region that was the birthplace of three world religions, intolerance can
lead only to suffering and stagnation. And for this season of change to
succeed, Coptic Christians must have the right to worship freely in Cairo, just as Shia must never have their mosques destroyed in Bahrain.

What is true for religious minorities is also true when it comes to the
rights of women. History shows that countries are more prosperous and
peaceful when women are empowered. That is why we will continue to insist
that universal rights apply to women as well as men — by focusing
assistance on child and maternal health; by helping women to teach, or start
a business; by standing up for the right of women to have their voices
heard, and to run for office. For the region will never reach its potential
when more than half its population is prevented from achieving their
potential.

Even as we promote political reform and human rights in the region, our
efforts cannot stop there. So the second way that we must support positive
change in the region is through our efforts to advance economic development
for nations that transition to democracy.

After all, politics alone has not put protesters into the streets. The
tipping point for so many people is the more constant concern of putting
food on the table and providing for a family. Too many in the region wake up
with few expectations other than making it through the day, and perhaps the
hope that their luck will change. Throughout the region, many young people
have a solid education, but closed economies leave them unable to find a
job. Entrepreneurs are brimming with ideas, but corruption leaves them
unable to profit from them.

The greatest untapped resource in the Middle East and North Africa is the
talent of its people. In the recent protests, we see that talent on display,
as people harness technology to move the world. It’s no coincidence that one
of the leaders of Tahrir Square was an executive for Google. That energy now
needs to be channeled, in country after country, so that economic growth can
solidify the accomplishments of the street. Just as democratic revolutions
can be triggered by a lack of individual opportunity, successful democratic
transitions depend upon an expansion of growth and broad-based prosperity.

Drawing from what we’ve learned around the world, we think it’s important to
focus on trade, not just aid; and investment, not just assistance. The goal
must be a model in which protectionism gives way to openness; the reigns of
commerce pass from the few to the many, and the economy generates jobs for
the young. America’s support for democracy will therefore be based on
ensuring financial stability; promoting reform; and integrating competitive
markets with each other and the global economy – starting with Tunisia and
Egypt.

First, we have asked the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to
present a plan at next week’s G-8 summit for what needs to be done to
stabilize and modernize the economies of Tunisia and Egypt. Together, we
must help them recover from the disruption of their democratic upheaval, and
support the governments that will be elected later this year. And we are
urging other countries to help Egypt and Tunisia meet its near-term
financial needs.

Second, we do not want a democratic Egypt to be saddled by the debts of its
past. So we will relieve a democratic Egypt of up to $1 billion in debt, and
work with our Egyptian partners to invest these resources to foster growth
and entrepreneurship. We will help Egypt regain access to markets by
guaranteeing $1 billion in borrowing that is needed to finance
infrastructure and job creation. And we will help newly democratic
governments recover assets that were stolen.

Third, we are working with Congress to create Enterprise Funds to invest in
Tunisia and Egypt. These will be modeled on funds that supported the
transitions in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall. OPIC will
soon launch a $2 billion facility to support private investment across the
region. And we will work with allies to refocus the European Bank for
Reconstruction and Development so that it provides the same support for
democratic transitions and economic modernization in the Middle East and
North Africa as it has in Europe.

Fourth, the United States will launch a comprehensive Trade and Investment
Partnership Initiative in the Middle East and North Africa. If you take out
oil exports, this region of over 400 million people exports roughly the same
amount as Switzerland. So we will work with the EU to facilitate more trade
within the region, build on existing agreements to promote integration with
U.S. and European markets, and open the door for those countries who adopt
high standards of reform and trade liberalization to construct a regional
trade arrangement. Just as EU membership served as an incentive for reform
in Europe, so should the vision of a modern and prosperous economy create a
powerful force for reform in the Middle East and North Africa.

Prosperity also requires tearing down walls that stand in the way of
progress — the corruption of elites who steal from their people; the red
tape that stops an idea from becoming a business; the patronage that
distributes wealth based on tribe or sect. We will help governments meet
international obligations, and invest efforts anti-corruption; by working
with parliamentarians who are developing reforms, and activists who use
technology to hold government accountable.

Let me conclude by talking about another cornerstone of our approach to the
region, and that relates to the pursuit of peace.

For decades, the conflict between Israelis and Arabs has cast a shadow over
the region. For Israelis, it has meant living with the fear that their
children could get blown up on a bus or by rockets fired at their homes, as
well as the pain of knowing that other children in the region are taught to
hate them. For Palestinians, it has meant suffering the humiliation of
occupation, and never living in a nation of their own. Moreover, this
conflict has come with a larger cost the Middle East, as it impedes
partnerships that could bring greater security, prosperity, and empowerment
to ordinary people.

My Administration has worked with the parties and the international
community for over two years to end this conflict, yet expectations have
gone unmet. Israeli settlement activity continues. Palestinians have walked
away from talks. The world looks at a conflict that has grinded on for
decades, and sees a stalemate. Indeed, there are those who argue that with
all the change and uncertainty in the region, it is simply not possible to
move forward.

I disagree. At a time when the people of the Middle East and North Africa
are casting off the burdens of the past, the drive for a lasting peace that
ends the conflict and resolves all claims is more urgent than ever.

For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure.
Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t
create an independent state. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or
prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And
Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of
Israel to exist.

As for Israel, our friendship is rooted deeply in a shared history and
shared values. Our commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable. And we
will stand against attempts to single it out for criticism in international
forums. But precisely because of our friendship, it is important that we
tell the truth: the status quo is unsustainable, and Israel too must act
boldly to advance a lasting peace.

The fact is, a growing number of Palestinians live west of the Jordan River.
Technology will make it harder for Israel to defend itself. A region
undergoing profound change will lead to populism in which millions of people
— not just a few leaders — must believe peace is possible. The
international community is tired of an endless process that never produces
an outcome. The dream of a Jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled
with permanent occupation.

Ultimately, it is up to Israelis and Palestinians to take action. No peace
can be imposed upon them, nor can endless delay make the problem go away.
But what America and the international community can do is state frankly
what everyone knows: a lasting peace will involve two states for two
peoples. Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people,
and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people; each
state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.

So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of
those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, and a secure Israel. The
United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must
be able to defend itself — by itself — against any threat. Provisions
must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism; to stop the
infiltration of weapons; and to provide effective border security. The full
and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with
the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign,
non-militarized state. The duration of this transition period must be
agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.

These principles provide a foundation for negotiations. Palestinians should
know the territorial outlines of their state; Israelis should know that
their basic security concerns will be met. I know that these steps alone
will not resolve this conflict. Two wrenching and emotional issues remain:
the future of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees. But moving
forward now on the basis of territory and security provides a foundation to
resolve those two issues in a way that is just and fair, and that respects
the rights and aspirations of Israelis and Palestinians.

Recognizing that negotiations need to begin with the issues of territory and
security does not mean that it will be easy to come back to the table. In
particular, the recent announcement of an agreement between Fatah and Hamas
raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel — how can one negotiate
with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to
exist. In the weeks and months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to
provide a credible answer to that question. Meanwhile, the United States,
our Quartet partners, and the Arab states will need to continue every effort
to get beyond the current impasse.

I recognize how hard this will be. Suspicion and hostility has been passed
on for generations, and at times it has hardened. But I’m convinced that the
majority of Israelis and Palestinians would rather look to the future than
be trapped in the past. We see that spirit in the Israeli father whose son
was killed by Hamas, who helped start an organization that brought together
Israelis and Palestinians who had lost loved ones. He said, “I gradually
realized that the only hope for progress was to recognize the face of the
conflict.” And we see it in the actions of a Palestinian who lost three
daughters to Israeli shells in Gaza. “I have the right to feel angry,” he
said. “So many people were expecting me to hate. My answer to them is I
shall not hate…Let us hope,” he said, “for tomorrow”

That is the choice that must be made — not simply in this conflict, but
across the entire region — a choice between hate and hope; between the
shackles of the past, and the promise of the future. It’s a choice that must
be made by leaders and by people, and it’s a choice that will define the
future of a region that served as the cradle of civilization and a crucible
of strife.

For all the challenges that lie ahead, we see many reasons to be hopeful. In
Egypt, we see it in the efforts of young people who led protests. In Syria,
we see it in the courage of those who brave bullets while chanting,
‘peaceful,’ ‘peaceful.’ In Benghazi, a city threatened with destruction, we
see it in the courthouse square where people gather to celebrate the
freedoms that they had never known. Across the region, those rights that we
take for granted are being claimed with joy by those who are prying lose the
grip of an iron fist.

For the American people, the scenes of upheaval in the region may be
unsettling, but the forces driving it are not unfamiliar. Our own nation was
founded through a rebellion against an empire. Our people fought a painful
civil war that extended freedom and dignity to those who were enslaved. And
I would not be standing here today unless past generations turned to the moral force of non-violence as a way to perfect our union — organizing, marching, and protesting peacefully together to make real those words that declared our nation: “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal.”

Those words must guide our response to the change that is transforming the
Middle East and North Africa — words which tell us that repression will
fail, that tyrants will fall, and that every man and woman is endowed with
certain inalienable rights. It will not be easy. There is no straight line
to progress, and hardship always accompanies a season of hope. But the
United States of America was founded on the belief that people should govern
themselves. Now, we cannot hesitate to stand squarely on the side of those
who are reaching for their rights, knowing that their success will bring
about a world that is more peaceful, more stable, and more just.

Soldier of Pakistani para military force

A soldier of Pakistani para military force collects the belongings of his colleagues after a bombing in Shabqadar near Peshawar, Pakistan on Friday, May 13, 2011. A police officer says the death toll in a pair of explosions outside a security force training center in northwest Pakistan has risen to 80. Liaqat Ali Khan says 66 victims in the attack Friday were recruits for the Frontier Corps. The attack is the bloodiest in Pakistan since the U.S. raid that killed the al-Qaida chief on May 2. Ahsanullah Ahsan, a spokesman for the Pakistani Taliban, has said the attack was in retaliation for bin Laden’s death.

Ishtiaz Mahsud of the the Associated Press reported this morning:

Pakistani intelligence officials say a U.S. missile strike killed three people near the Afghan border.

The four missiles struck a vehicle Friday in the Doga Madakhel village of North Waziristan tribal region. North Waziristan is home to many militant groups dedicated to attacking Western troops in Afghanistan.

The two officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to media. They did not know the identities of the dead.

The strike occurred amid tensions between the U.S. and Pakistan over the May 2 American raid that killed al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden on Pakistani soil. The U.S. relies heavily on the covert, CIA-run missile program to kill Taliban and al-Qaida militants in Pakistan’s tribal areas.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP’s earlier story is below.

SHABQADAR, Pakistan (AP) — A pair of suicide bombers attacked recruits leaving a paramilitary training center in Pakistan on Friday, killing 80 people in the first retaliation for the killing of Osama bin Laden by American commandos last week.

The blasts in the northwest were a reminder of the savagery of al-Qaida-linked militants in Pakistan. They occurred even as the country faces international suspicion that elements within its security forces may have been harboring bin Laden, who was killed in a raid in Abbottabad, about a three hours’ drive from the scene of the bombing.

“We have done this to avenge the Abbottabad incident,” Ahsanullah Ahsan, a spokesman for the Pakistani Taliban, told The Associated Press in a phone call. He warned that the group was also planning attacks on Americans living inside Pakistan.

The bombers blew themselves up in Shabqadar at the main gate of the facility for the Frontier Constabulary, a poorly equipped but front-line force in the battle against al-Qaida and allied Islamist groups like the Pakistani Taliban close to the Afghan border. Like other branches of Pakistan’s security forces, it has received U.S. funding to try to sharpen its skills.

At least 80 people were killed, including 66 recruits, and around 120 people were wounded, said police officer Liaqat Ali Khan.

Around 900 young men were leaving the center after spending six months of training there. They were in high spirits and looking forward to seeing their families, for which some had brought gifts, a survivor said.

Some people were sitting inside public minivans and others were loading luggage atop the vehicles when the bombers struck, witnesses said.

“We were heading toward a van when the first blast took place and we fell on the ground and then there was another blast,” said 21-year-old Rehmanullah Khan. “We enjoyed our time together, all the good and bad weather and I cannot forget the cries of my friends before they died.”

The scene was littered with shards of glass mixed with blood and flesh. The explosions destroyed at least 10 vans.

It was the first major militant attack in Pakistan since bin Laden’s death on May 2, and the deadliest this year.

Militants had pledged to avenge the killing and launch reprisal strikes in Pakistan.

The Taliban spokesman also suggested the attack was aimed as punishment against Pakistani authorities for failing to stop the unilateral U.S. raid that killed bin Laden, something that has sparked popular nationalist and Islamist anger.

“The Pakistani army has failed to protect its land,” Ahsan said.

In its communications, the Taliban often tries to tap into popular sentiments in the country, where anti-Americanism is often stronger than feelings against Islamist militants. This is despite militant attacks over the last four years claiming the lives of many hundreds, if not thousands, of civilians.

Some 350 lawyers sympathetic with Islamists attended special prayers for bin Laden on the premises of the provincial high court in the eastern city of Lahore on Friday. The lawyers cursed the May 2 raid, chanting “Down with America.”

The explosive vests used in Friday’s attacks were packed with ball bearings and nails, police said.

Police official Nisar Khan said a suicide bomber in his late teens or early 20s set off one of the blasts.

“The first blast occurred in the middle of the road, and after that there was a huge blast that was more powerful than the first,” said Abdul Wahid, a 25-year-old recruit whose legs were wounded in the blasts.

He said he was knocked to the ground by the force of the explosions.

“After falling, I just started crawling and dragging myself to a safer place … along the wall of a roadside shop,” he said.

The Sept. 11 mastermind and at least four others were killed by U.S. Navy SEALs who raided bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, a garrison city not far from the capital. Bin Laden is believed to have lived in the large house for up to six years.

Pakistani officials have denied knowing he was there but have criticized the American raid ordered by President Barack Obama as a violation of their country’s sovereignty. To counter allegations that Pakistan had harbored bin Laden, the officials have pointed out that many thousands of Pakistani citizens, and up to 3,000 of its security forces, have died in suicide bombings and other attacks since Sept. 11, 2001, when Islamabad became an ally of the U.S. in taking on Islamist extremists.

Many of the attacks in Pakistan have targeted security forces, but government buildings, religious minorities, public places and Western targets have also been hit.

___

Associated Press writers Ashraf Khan and Deb Riechmann in Islamabad, Babar Dogar in Lahore and Ishtiaq Mahsud in Dera Ismail Khan contributed to this report.

Family members accompany man, who was injured

Family members accompany a man, who was injured by a suicide bomb blast in Charsadda, as he is treated at Lady Reading hospital in Peshawar May 13, 2011. Suicide bombers attacked a Pakistani paramilitary academy on Friday killing 80 people in revenge for the death of Osama bin Laden as Pakistani anger over the U.S. raid to get the al Qaeda leader showed no sign of cooling.