Thank you to the citizens of Berlin and to the people of Germany. Let me thank Chancellor Merkel and Foreign Minister Steinmeier for welcoming me earlier today. Thank you Mayor Wowereit, the Berlin Senate, the police, and most of all thank you for this welcome. I come to Berlin as so many of my countrymen have come before. Tonight, I speak to you not as a candidate for President, but as a citizen - a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world.

In the consolidated cases of Boumediene v. Bush and Al Odah v. United States, decided June 12, 2008, the Supreme Court held in a 5-4 opinion that aliens designated as enemy combatants and detained at the U.S. Naval Station in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus. The Court also found that § 7 of the Military Commissions Act (MCA), which limited judicial review of executive determinations of the petitioners’ enemy combatant status, did not provide an adequate habeas substitute and therefore acted as an unconstitutional suspension of the writ of habeas. The immediate impact of the Boumediene decision is that detainees at Guantanamo may petition a federal district court for habeas review of the circumstances of their detention. This report summarizes the Boumediene decision and analyzes several of its major implications for the U.S. detention of alien enemy combatants and legislation that limits detainees’ access to judicial review.

Michael Chertoff, the US homeland security secretary, on Tuesday outlined plans for a "Manhattan project" for information technology security that would see increased sharing of information between government and industry about potential threats. The move, announced at the annual RSA internet security conference in San Francisco, is part of a broader push by George W. Bush to better protect US data networks from threats posed by hackers, thieves and foreign governments.

Americans and Europeans share a common goal – to build an enduring peace based on freedom. Our democracies today are strong and vibrant. Together we can tackle the diverse challenges we face, whether radical religious fanatics who use terror as their weapon of choice, the disturbing turn towards autocracy in Russia or the looming threats of climate change and the degradation of our planet.

If, in the dying light of the Bush administration, we go to war with Iran, it'll all come down to one man. If we do not go to war with Iran, it'll come down to the same man. He is that rarest of creatures in the Bush universe: the good cop on Iran, and a man of strategic brilliance. His name is William Fallon, although all of his friends call him "Fox," which was his fighter-pilot call sign decades ago. Forty years into a military career that has seen this admiral rule over America's two most important combatant commands, Pacific Command and now United States Central Command, it's impossible to make this guy -- as he likes to say -- "nervous in the service." Past American governments have used saber rattling as a useful tactic to get some bad actor on the world stage to fall in line. This government hasn't mastered that kind of subtlety.

William F. Buckley Jr., who marshaled polysyllabic exuberance, famously arched eyebrows and a refined, perspicacious mind to elevate conservatism to the center of American political discourse, died Wednesday at his home in Stamford, Conn. He was 82. Mr. Buckley suffered from diabetes and emphysema, his son Christopher said, although the exact cause of death was not immediately known. He was found at his desk in the study of his home, his son said. “He might have been working on a column,” Mr. Buckley said.

Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, 84, has thrown his support behind John McCain. SPIEGEL spoke with Kissinger about Germany's Afghanistan mission, tepid European commitment to combatting Islamist extremism and whether direct talks with Iran should go ahead.

Thank you, Madame Speaker. Thank you all. Madame Speaker, Vice President Cheney, members of Congress, distinguished guests and fellow citizens, seven years have passed since I first stood before you at this rostrum. In that time, our country has been tested in ways none of us could have imagined. We have faced hard decisions about peace and war, rising competition in the world economy, and the health and welfare of our citizens. These issues call for vigorous debate, and I think it’s fair to say we’ve answered the call. Yet history will record that amid our differences, we acted with purpose. And, together, we showed the world the power and resilience of American self-government.

This report provides background data on United States arms sales agreements with and deliveries to its major purchasers during calendar years 1999-2006. In a series of data tables, it lists the total dollar values of U.S. government-to-government arms sales agreements with its top five purchasers in five specific regions of the world for three specific periods: 1999-2002, 2003-2006, and 2006 alone, and the total dollar values of U.S. arms deliveries to its top five purchasers in those same regions for the periods 1999-2002, 2003-2006, and for 2006 alone. In addition, the report provides data tables listing the total dollar values of U.S. government-to-government arms agreements with and deliveries to its top 10 purchasers worldwide for the periods 1999-2002, 2003-2006, and for 2006 alone.

The 44th president of the United States will assume the job at a time when the country he (or she) leads will be stretched militarily, dependent on enormous daily inflows of oil and dollars, vulnerable to many of the darker manifestations of globalization and broadly unpopular. Few previous inhabitants of the Oval Office have started off with a situation of comparable difficulty.

This past year has certainly provided ample entertainment for those interested in politics. The activities of Congress and the unexpected blessing of an extra year of presidential campaigning fill our newspapers, televisions, and blogs. The problem is that this entertainment tends to focus on the petty and the personal, and seems to avoid a serious discussion of the emerging challenges our country and the next president, Republican or Democrat, will face in the coming four years. This evening I want to talk a bit about some of those challenges in this still young and uncertain century.

Thanks for the opportunity to be here, and it's a pleasure to be in New York, to spend some time with such a distinguished group -- I'm looking out here, seeing a lot of familiar faces and old friends -- and an opportunity to talk about the organization I actually have the privilege to lead, the Central Intelligence Agency. We're an organization with a clear objective: to protect the American people. We have a number of missions that feed into that, to protect America, and one of those missions we share with the council, which is to help our policymakers make sense of global events.

Before September 11th 2001, substantial majorities consistently told pollsters that they were proud to be Americans. In a Gallup trend question from January 2001, for example, 55 percent described themselves as “extremely” proud of being an American and 32 percent “very” proud. Just 2 percent said they were “only a little” or “not at all” proud. In June 2006, when Gallup last repeated the question, 57 percent described themselves as extremely proud and 25 percent very proud. Six percent said they were only a little or not at all proud. The events of September 11th produced overt displays of patriotism. People said they flew their flags more than in the past and they sang the Star Spangled Banner. Those activities have receded, but patriotic sentiment is still strong. According to a June 2006 Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll, 56 percent of those surveyed believed that Americans are more patriotic today than they were five years ago. American patriotism is not blind patriotism. Polls show that Americans find a lot to criticize in their society. But they still love their country, and they are not reluctant to say so.

Hybrid conservatives are becoming the dominant species. Polls indicate that Rudy Giuliani—the thrice-married, twice-divorced, pro-choice, civil-union-supporting former New York City mayor—has become the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination. In key states, Giuliani is polling even with or ahead of likely Democratic challengers. Meanwhile, commentators, particularly on the left, are forecasting with increasing confidence the coming of a conservative crack-up.

A 47-nation survey finds global public opinion increasingly wary of the world’s dominant nations and disapproving of their leaders. Anti-Americanism is extensive, as it has been for the past five years. At the same time, the image of China has slipped significantly among the publics of other major nations. Opinion about Russia is mixed, but confidence in its president, Vladimir Putin, has declined sharply. In fact, the Russian leader’s negatives have soared to the point that they mirror the nearly worldwide lack of confidence in George W. Bush.

America’s strength has long been tied to its commitment to diversity and its openness to the waves of immigrants arriving on its shores from every corner of the world. The talents and energies of these immigrants and their dedication to the values of their adopted country have made the United States the world’s strongest and most adaptive nation. Muslim American immigrants, while a relatively recent addition to the American mosaic, were on a path taken by many previous immigrant groups prior to the September 11, 2001, attacks. Those groups had come to the United States in search of the American dream and through hard work achieved much economic success. The path also eventually led them to full participation in U.S. civic and political life.

Many American and foreign observers believe that the painful and so far unsuccessful intervention in Iraq will make the United States more reluctant to go to war in the future. Three powerful factors, however, suggest that, to the contrary, the United States may resort to military action more, not less, often in the future. The character of US foreign policy, manifested over two centuries, is that of a nation willing to use force with relative frequency on behalf of both principles and tangible interests and generally believing in the justness and appropriateness of military action in international affairs. The distribution of power in the world since the collapse of the Soviet Union—not very different today, despite the rise of powers such as China and India—invites military intervention by a dominant military power unchecked by the deterrent power of any nation or grouping of nations with roughly equal strength.

In 1790, before there was a First Amendment, George Washington sent a celebrated message to the Jews of Newport, Rhode Island: “It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.”

In Voltaire’s Micromegas, a gigantic visitor from another planet asks a sailor why humans bicker so much. “Because we agree on the two or three things we understand,” explains the sailor, “and we disagree on the two or three thousand things we don’t understand.” The bickering over Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction has become deafening — and we still don’t understand what was at stake.

It's difficult to see why George Tenet would be so incautious as to write his own self-justifying apologia, let alone give it the portentous title At the Center of the Storm. There is already a perfectly good pro-Tenet book written by a man who knows how to employ the overworked term storm. Bob Woodward's 2002 effort, Bush at War, was, in many of its aspects, almost dictated by George Tenet. How do we know this? Well, Tenet is described on the opening page as "a hefty, outgoing son of Greek immigrants," which means that he talked to Woodward on background. Further compliments are showered upon him.

Thank you for that welcome, and thank you President and Mrs. Bush for this invitation to speak at Texas A&M, a proud university with time honored traditions. I've only been here for a few hours, but spending that time with students here, I understand why you chose this place for your library. You are all lucky to have a national treasure here in this library. I'm not talking about the memorabilia and records - I'm talking about President and Mrs. Bush.

El rito nos reúne en un momento crucial, cuando las decisiones son difíciles y el valor es necesario. Iniciamos el año 2007 con muchas tareas ya iniciadas y otras que debemos iniciar. En todo esto, se nos pide mucho. Debemos tener la voluntad para confrontar difíciles retos y enemigos decididos, y la sabiduría para enfrentarlos simultáneamente.

You can measure the scale of an American president’s troubles by the number of skutniks he deploys during his State of the Union address. Every year during his big set-piece speech to Congress, the president will digress from the main thrust of his remarks to offer fulsome praise to some member of the audience in the gallery. This person will have been carefully selected in advance by the president’s speechwriters as an exemplar of some virtue and placed there for the purpose.

Last week, Venezuela swore in for a third term President Hugo Chávez -- a man who routinely denounces U.S. "imperialism" and who referred to President George W. Bush as the devil in a speech before the United Nations. Chávez's reelection caused some commentators here to fret about the so-called "pink tide" of socialism that is sweeping Latin America, from Bolivia to Brazil, but there has been no sense of shock or outrage that a politician spouting fiery anti-American rhetoric could win 63 percent of the votes in his country.

Es evidente que necesitamos cambiar nuestra estrategia en Iraq. Así que mi equipo de seguridad nacional, comandantes militares y diplomáticos llevaron a cabo un análisis integral. Consultamos con congresistas de ambos partidos, nuestros aliados en el extranjero y distinguidos expertos externos. Nos beneficiamos de las sensatas recomendaciones del Grupo de Análisis sobre Iraq, un panel bipartidista encabezado por el ex secretario de Estado James Baker y el ex congresista Lee Hamilton. En nuestras discusiones, todos concordamos que no hay una fórmula mágica para el éxito en Iraq. Y un mensaje se escuchó fuerte y claro: El fracaso en Iraq sería un desastre para Estados Unidos.

We are now in a period of confusion and disorientation, almost despair. I think it is worthwhile to look back historically to see how we got to where we are today. In the mid to late 1980s, the idea of American decline was in vogue. Japan was rising, China was awakening, Europe was consolidating, America was said to have been in the midst of what historian Paul Kennedy called “imperial overstretch.” The conventional wisdom of the time was that the bipolar world of the United States and the Soviet Union would yield to a new world structure which would be multipolar, with power fairly equally divided between Japan, perhaps China, a diminished Soviet Union, a consolidating Europe, the United States, and perhaps other rising countries such as India or perhaps even Brazil. That’s how the world looked in the mid to late 1980s.

As I leave, I do feel urgency, but I also feel optimism. I know that the American people can summon that same grit that helped our founders forge from a wilderness, a new frontier. I know it because I have seen it over my own lifetime. It’s the same steel that sent our fathers and grandfathers across oceans to defend free nations from tyrants. That same grit that gave Americans the will to endure 40 years of the Cold War under the specter of nuclear annihilation.

It's dramatic. In World War II, the attack on Pearl Harbor was stunning, but it followed a long series of (events) in Europe, and even in Asia, that were not stunning to the American people. The threat anticipated on the West Coast was real and palpable. The mobilization of the country, and declaring war, moved us to the next step. The large number of people who went to serve from almost every community in the nation, was an example of the extent to which people were engaged.

The battered and bruised Bush Administration is being pressured to make a foreign policy mistake that would further infuriate its conservative base -- nominate defeated liberal Republican Rep. Jim Leach as the next U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Leach is a favorite of the crowd that favors world government financed by global taxes. He would fit in quite nicely at the world body. But he would not be a reliable defender of American interests.

Following is the transcript of the session of nomination hearing for Robert M. Gates as provided by Federal News Service. Dr. Gates has a long and distinguished record of service to the nation. After establishing a firm educational foundation at the College of William & Mary, Commonwealth of Virginia, he served in the United States Air Force from 1966 through 1969. Dr. Gates then joined the Central Intelligence Agency, where he spent over 26 years -- a quarter of a century -- as an intelligence professional, including a period of nearly nine years assigned to the National Security Council.

This report is prepared annually to provide Congress with official, unclassified, quantitative data on conventional arms transfers to developing nations by the United States and foreign countries for the preceding eight calendar years for use in its various policy oversight functions. All agreement and delivery data in this report for the United States are government-to-government (FMS) transactions. Some general data are provided on worldwide conventional arms transfers by all suppliers, but the principal focus is the level of arms transfers by major weapons suppliers to nations in the developing world.

Arab reactions to American support for Israel in its recent conflict with Hezbollah have put anti-Americanism in the headlines once again. Around the world, not just in the Middle East, when bad things happen there is a widespread tendency to blame America for its sins, either of commission or omission.

Desde el horror del 11 de septiembre, hemos aprendido mucho sobre el enemigo. Ahora sabemos que son malvados y matan sin misericordia, mas no sin un propósito. Ahora sabemos que constituyen una red de extremistas a quienes los incita una visión perversa del islamismo, una ideología totalitaria que odia la libertad, rechaza la tolerancia y aborrece toda disensión. Y ahora sabemos que su objetivo es establecer un imperio islámico radical donde las mujeres son prisioneras en sus casas, los hombres son golpeados por faltar al rezo y los terroristas tienen un refugio desde el cual planear y lanzar ataques contra Estados Unidos y otras naciones civilizadas. La guerra contra este enemigo es más que un conflicto militar. Es la lucha ideológica decisiva del siglo XXI y el llamado de nuestra generación.

Tom [American Legion Commander Tom Bock], I understand that your son is flying a Chinook in Iraq -- following in his dad's proud tradition of military service. Our country is deeply grateful to him -- and to all of you who have children or relatives serving in our nation's military.

Since George W. Bush assumed the presidency five years ago, arguments about the proper role of religious faith in politics have been at the center of American political debate. To many members of the intellectual and media establishments, and to others in the wider world, Bush seems a disturbing historical aberration. Not only does the president talk openly about God, but his political beliefs are plainly informed by his religious faith. He regularly incorporates Bible scriptures into his political speeches, asserts that he heard God’s call to run for the presidency, and has said that he has prayed for God’s help since taking office, including when he decided to lead the United States into war in Iraq.

Ronald Reagan's vision that the United States would one day need a missile defense system was again validated last week when North Korea assembled and fueled a missile capable of delivering a nuclear weapon to American cities.

Deep divisions on foreign policy emerged within Italy's center-left coalition yesterday, with hard-line communists attacking moderate Foreign Minister Massimo D'Alema's pro-American stance as he prepared to meet Condoleezza Rice in Washington today.

With the recent suicides, reports that detainees have been abused, mounting foreign pressure to close the detention center, and its Gulag-like symbolic resonance, the continued political viability of the Guantánamo Bay camp is increasingly in doubt. President Bush has himself said that he would like to close Guantánamo. But is he putting politics before American security? If Guantánamo is shut down, what will be done with the detainees?

In President Bush's first term, some of his top officials, like Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney, liked to score political points at home by being rude about the Europeans. These days, with Bush's approval ratings so low, the boot is on the other foot, and European leaders are vying to tell their constituents how tough they can be with the Americans.

Common sense and most academic thinking argue that a hegemon’s prime objective should seek to maintain the prevailing international system, but that is not the world in which we live today. Measured in any conceivable way, the United States has a greater share of world power than any other country in history.

The United States is a successful society today because over the past two or three generations it has applied Quigley’s Law more thoroughly and more widely than any other society in history, and, in doing so, has shaped much of the world. Until 1940, the United States was not much more Quigley-minded than most other great powers.

If Congress does not approve the U.S.-India nuclear deal, “it would have a real and negative effect on the bilateral relationship,” concludes a new Council Special Report. Congress should adopt a two-stage approach, formally endorsing the deal’s basic framework, while delaying final approval until it is assured that critical nonproliferation needs are met. “Patience and a few simple fixes would address major proliferation concerns while ultimately strengthening the strategic partnership,” says the report.

D-Day. The very name conjures up echoes of American sacrifice and courage.

The United States and Vietnam agreed Monday to increase their military contacts and to discuss additional ways to broaden their defense cooperation, American officials said.

The U.S. and eight other countries will gather this week to negotiate a final road map for the Pentagon's biggest weapons program, a $276 billion fighter-jet project that has struggled to live up to its billing as a model of global cooperation.

Working with our international partners, the United States is making every effort to achieve a successful diplomatic outcome, but the international community has made clear that the Iranian regime must not acquire nuclear weapons. The vital interests of the United States, of our friends and allies in the region, and of the entire international community are at risk, and the United States will act accordingly to protect those common interests.

Heavy deployments of American troops to the Middle East are an essential part of the global war on terrorism. However, the duration of troop deployments has been a source of controversy within the United States. There is controversy about whether there are too many or too few soldiers in Iraq, controversy about the nature of America’s geopolitical ambitions, and controversy about the impact on the families of soldiers. Much of the debate is carried on in a fact-free vacuum, lacking the context of American troops’ traditional footprint around the globe for the past half-century.

The Pentagon is pressing Congress to approve the development of a new weapon that would enable the United States to carry out nonnuclear strikes against distant targets within an hour after a threat is detected.

Remember the dozens, maybe hundreds, of rapes, murders, stabbings and deaths resulting from official neglect at the Superdome after Hurricane Katrina? The ones that never happened, as even the national media later admitted?

Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is in Washington, where he will be asking for advice and assistance in financing the withdrawal of 50,000 to 100,000 Israeli settlers from 90% to 95% of the West Bank and major portions of Jerusalem, and for the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) to be repositioned largely near the security barrier Israel is constructing. Most Americans are inclined to believe that such disengagement may be a reasonable step toward a two-state solution, even if some territorial disputes remain to be negotiated. It is also widely assumed that Palestinian hostility to Israel is fueled by despair that can only be reduced by Israeli concessions. Both assumptions, however, may be fundamentally flawed.

The Bush administration is moving to establish a new antimissile site in Europe that would be designed to stop attacks by Iran against the United States and its European allies.

When Ehud Olmert, the new Israeli Prime Minister comes calling at the White House this Tuesday, his main objective will be to receive President George W. Bush’s support for and Israeli retreat from the West Bank and Samaria of the Bible, the historic birthplace of the Jewish people. President Bush should voice his strongest opposition to this dangerous and reckless scheme.

El tema de la inmigración suscita emociones intensas, y en semanas recientes, los estadounidenses han presenciado el despliegue de esas emociones. En las calles de las ciudades principales, las muchedumbres se han manifestado a favor de aquéllos que están en nuestro país ilegalmente. En nuestra frontera del sur, otros se han organizado para evitar que los inmigrantes ilegales ingresen. En todo el país, los estadounidenses están tratando de conciliar estas imágenes contrastantes. Y en Washington, ha llegado al momento de una decisión en el debate acerca de la reforma inmigratoria.

Recent years, however, have witnessed a sea change in bilateral relations, with more positive interactions becoming the norm. India’s swift offer of full support for U.S.-led counterterrorism operations after September 2001 was widely viewed as reflective of such change. Today, President Bush calls India a “natural partner” of the United States and his Administration seeks to assist India’s rise as a major power in the new century.

India's relationship with the United States has always been the subject of debate and discussion. Despite being the world’s largest democracy, India could never enjoy a smooth and noncontroversial relationship with the world's oldest democracy—which means that sharing the same value system will not act as a glue to hold states together in the international politics. Until recently, India and the United States, due to their multifarious differences, were considered to be ‘estranged democracies’—but their recent agreement on civil nuclear technology has transformed their relationship, and made them ‘engaged democracies.’

The official document titled National Security Strategy of the United States of America (NSS) (September 2002) describes nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) weapons in the hands of rogue leaders or terrorist groups as among the gravest threats faced by the United States. It lays out four components of American strategy to confront this threat: deterrence and defense, strengthening diplomatic and multilateral efforts, improving abilities to respond to and reduce the effects of the actual use of NBC weapons, and preventive attacks against emerging NBC programs.

Today the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere will hear testimony on the current state of relations between the United States and Mexico. In his National Security Strategy for 2006, President Bush urged a deepening of our ties to Mexico if we want to see cooperative policies be extended and carried out through the region of Latin America.

It is fitting that we should gather in the Baltic region -the very front lines of freedom in the modern world. For several generations, Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia were counted as provinces of an empire. In fact you were ancient nations, with your sovereignty lost by theft. The United States never recognized the legitimacy of that occupation, and we kept faith with you until the day your independence was restored.

Depuis un demi-siècle, la relation des Etats-Unis avec Israël est au centre de la politique américaine au Moyen-Orient. Pourquoi les Etats-Unis ont-ils été prêts à mettre de côté leur propre sécurité pour soutenir les intérêts d'un autre Etat ? Un rapport récent révèle au grand jour les secrets de cette complicité inébranlable.

This report is submitted in compliance with Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f (the “Act”), which requires the Department of State to provide Congress a full and complete annual report on terrorism for those countries and groups meeting the criteria of the Act. Statutory excerpts relating to the terms used in this report and a discussion of the interpretation and application of those terms in this report are included below.

So when did Generals cease to be responsible for outcomes in war? We ask that question amid the latest calls by certain retired senior military officers for Donald Rumsfeld to resign over U.S. difficulties in Iraq.

Five years ago, when Donald Rumsfeld took over at the Pentagon, he quickly moved to assert greater civilian control over senior military officers. But now, well into the Bush administration's second term, there are signs that his firm grip on the Defense Department is slipping as some uniformed officers increasingly chart their own course.

President Bush and President Musharraf have affirmed the long-term, strategic partnership between their two countries. In 2004, the United States acknowledged its aspirations for closer bilateral ties with Pakistan by designating Pakistan as a Major Non-NATO Ally. The U.S.-Pakistan strategic partnership is based on the shared interests of the United States and Pakistan in building stable and sustainable democracy and in promoting peace and security, stability, prosperity, and democracy in South Asia and across the globe.

El frente central de la guerra contra el terrorismo es Iraq. En las semanas pasadas, hemos visto imágenes horrendas provenientes de ese país. Hemos visto un gran templo -la Mezquita Dorada de Samarra- en ruinas después de un brutal ataque terrorista. Hemos visto a la milicia armada tomar represalias atacando mezquitas sunitas. Hemos visto coches bomba quitarles la vida a personas comprando en un atestado mercado de Ciudad Sadr. Hemos visto los cadáveres de iraquíes brutalmente ejecutados o muertos a golpes.

Our agreement with India will make our future more secure, by expanding the reach of the international nonproliferation regime. The International Atomic Energy Agency would gain access to India's civilian nuclear program that it currently does not have.

Today, the Iranian leadership is actively working against all that the U.S. and our allies desire for the region – peace in Lebanon, peace between Israel and the Palestinians, and an end to terrorism. In fact, no country stands more resolutely opposed to our hope for peace and freedom in the Middle East than Iran.

Throughout the deliberations of the two conferences that form the basis of this book, I was struck that so many of my fellow participants knew so little of the history of the Anglo-American relationship.

The United States has been a leader of worldwide efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. To this end, the international community and many individual states have agreed to a range of treaties, laws, and agreements known collectively as the nuclear nonproliferation regime, aimed at keeping nations that do not have nuclear weapons from acquiring them.

The civilian nuclear deal signed Thursday between India and the United States will yield benefits for both countries and allow New Delhi to plug into a once restricted world of nuclear commerce, Indian foreign affairs analysts said Friday.

Israel has always had to be on guard against enemies to have a clear-eyed view of potential threats, and to confront dangers squarely. Throughout its history, the country has faced sudden, random acts of terrorism -- attacks intended to shake Israel's confidence and break the will of its people.

Critics of the Bush Administration often lament that its policies have alienated America's traditional allies and embittered just about everyone else. Everyone except, apparently, a billion or so Indians.

On the eve of President Bill Clinton’s visit to India in March 2000, I was asked by the White House to prepare a brief paper outlining the purpose of the trip and the new vision the US envisioned in its relations with India.

This report, which will be updated as needed, provides an overview of the U.S. nuclear posture to highlight areas of change and areas of continuity.

A stable, democratic, economically thriving Pakistan is considered vital to U.S. interests in Asia. Key U.S. concerns regarding Pakistan include regional terrorism; Pakistan- Afghanistan relations; weapons proliferation; the ongoing Kashmir problem and Pakistan- India tensions; human rights protection; and economic development.

The end of the Cold War freed India-U.S. relations from the constraints of global bipolarity, but interactions continued for a decade to be affected by the burden of history, most notably the longstanding India-Pakistan rivalry and nuclear weapons proliferation in the region.

The 2006 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report (INCSR) is an annual report by the Department of State to Congress prepared in accordance with the Foreign Assistance Act. It describes the efforts of key countries to attack all aspects of the international drug trade in Calendar Year 2005.

Today I am still grateful to the United States for the high price in lives you continue to pay in the fight against terrorism to assure our common security and defend human rights around the world.

Both our countries are linked by a deep commitment to freedom and democracy; a celebration of national diversity, human creativity and innovation; a quest to expand prosperity and economic opportunity worldwide; and a desire to increase mutual security against the common threats posed by intolerance, terrorism, and the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

NATO is continuing its internal transformation as well, evolving from a territorial defense mission to an expeditionary alliance. As Secretary General de Hoop Scheffer has detailed, this means investments in new capabilities, including strategic airlift, special operations forces, and intelligence.

I would now like to offer an overview of the current mission of the men and women of the State Department—a mission that we have called transformational diplomacy.

China’s policy of economic reform and opening up has resulted in the integration of China into the world community in ways more profound than many would have predicted, though the degree and scope of integration has varied by sector and subject. Nowhere is this better seen than in the Chinese government’s efforts to adapt to – and control – new technologies.

Well into the Bush administration's second term, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is concentrating much of his energy on remaking a small but important corner of the military: special-operations forces.

The expansion of the U.S. economy continued for the fourth consecutive year in 2005. The President has laid out an agenda to maintain the economy's momentum, foster job creation, and ensure that America remains a leader of the global economy.

Ethanol could help cure America's "addiction" to oil, with the fledgling industry poised for a boom to sate the country's thirst for renewable alternatives to gasoline, industry sources said on Wednesday.

The report indicated that the Complex had redundant facilities, security concerns, high cost, excessive competition between the weapons labs, and inadequate equipment for the production plants. To redress these problems, the Task Force proposed restructuring the Complex.

It is important to reject the view that Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is inevitable, that there’s nothing that can be done to stop it. If the U.S. and other key actors do not change some of their policies, Iran probably will proceed to acquire the bomb.

The Defense Department's recently completed Quadrennial Defense Review, which had been billed as an outline for transforming post-9/11 military budgets, supports spending programs that look almost exactly like Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's blueprint from August 2001, minus cuts to the size of the Army.

Iran's nuclear program appears tailor-made for President Bush's doctrine of pre-emption: striking before threats fully materialize. And in recent polls, a surprisingly large number of Americans say they would support U.S. military strikes to stop Tehran from getting the bomb. So why is the White House so committed to the vagaries of diplomacy?

In this decisive year, you and I will make choices that determine both the future and the character of our country. We will choose to act confidently in pursuing the enemies of freedom. We will choose to build our prosperity by leading the world economy - or shut ourselves off from trade and opportunity.

It must send out into the world a diplomatic force, a diplomatic corps that reflects that great diversity. It cannot be that the last three Secretaries of State -the daughter of European immigrants, the son of Jamaican immigrants and a daughter of the American segregated South -would be more diverse than the Foreign Service with which they work.

"We are living through a watershed moment in the story of freedom. Most of the focus now is on this week's elections -- and rightly so. Iraqis will go to the polls to choose a government that will be the only constitutional democracy in the Arab world. Yet we need to remember that these elections are also a vital part of a broader strategy for protecting the American people against the threat of terrorism."

The Coalition has adjusted to win the "battle after the battle" by helping Iraqis consolidate their gains and keep the terrorists from returning.

Para lograr la victoria, seguimos una estrategia integral en Iraq. Los estadounidenses deben tener un entendimiento claro de esta estrategia.cómo vemos la guerra, cómo vemos al enemigo, cómo definimos la victoria y lo que estamos haciendo para lograrla. Por lo tanto, hoy estamos publicando un documento titulado "Estrategia Nacional para la Victoria en Iraq" ("National For Victory in Iraq"). Esta es una versión no clasificada de la estrategia que hemos estado siguiendo y está publicada en el sitio de Internet de la Casa Blanca: whitehouse.gov.

A free Japan is helping to transform the world. Japan and the United States send more aid overseas than any other two countries in the world. Today in Afghanistan, Japanese aid is building a highway that President Karzai says is essential for the economic recovery of this newly democratic nation. In Iraq, Japan has pledged nearly $5 billion for reconstruction.

Preoccupied with war abroad and growing problems at home, U.S. opinion leaders and the general public are taking a decidedly cautious view of America’s place in the world.

This Report sets forth the Commission’s analysis of the U.S.-China relationship in the topical areas designated in the Commission’s Congressional mandate: the areas for the Commission to consider and about which it is to make recommendations to the Congress. These include China’s proliferation practices, its economic reforms, U.S. economic transfers to China, China’s energy needs, its firms’ access to the U.S. capital markets, U.S. investments in China, China’s economic and security impacts in Asia, U.S.-China bilateral programs and agreements, China’s record of compliance with its World Trade Organization commitments, and its government’s media control efforts.

Security Consultative Committee Document. The SCC members reaffirmed their shared view of the security environment, in which new and emerging threats have surfaced as common challenges that can affect thesecurity of nations worldwide, including the U.S. and Japan.

Now we are preparing for 2006. First we must help Iraqis as they hold another vital election in December. Well over 9 million Iraqis voted on Sunday. Whether Iraqis voted yes or no, they were voting for an Iraqi nation, and for Iraqi democracy.

Some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant Jihadism; still others, Islamo-fascism. Whatever it's called, this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam. This form of radicalism exploits Islam to serve a violent, political vision: the establishment, by terrorism and subversion and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom.

For 60 years, we often thought that we could achieve stability without liberty in the Middle East. And ultimately, we got neither. Now, we must recognize, as we do in every other region of the world, that liberty and democracy are the only guarantees of true stability and lasting security.

Foreign-policy “realism” has never been an easy sell in America.

The United States Intelligence Community has repeatedly advised of threat streams suggesting al Qaeda and affiliated groups have considered using a Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Device (VBIED) in a US-based attack. There are numerous historical and current threat streams to suggest the terrorist use of tanker fuel trucks, among other vehicle types, to facilitate a major explosion targeting critical infrastructure and designed to create mass casualties or economic destruction.

The post-cold-war era has seen a remarkable ideological experiment: over the last fifteen years, each of the three major American schools of foreign policy—realism, liberal internationalism, and neoconservatism—has taken its turn at running things.

Nuestra misión en Iraq es clara. Perseguimos a los terroristas. Ayudamos a los iraquíes a construir una nación libre que es una aliada en la guerra en el terror. Promovemos la libertad en el gran Oriente Medio.

The magnitude of America's image problem is such that even popular U.S. policies have done little to repair it. President George W. Bush's calls for greater democracy in the Middle East and U.S. aid for tsunami victims in Asia have been well-received in many countries, but only in Indonesia, India and Russia has there been significant improvement in overall opinions of the U.S.

For over half a century, the United States and India—the world’s largest two democracies and almost 20 percent of the global population—have had a difficult relationship. That situation appears to be changing. Today, there is a growing chorus of views on both sides recommending a long term strategic understanding, perhaps even partnership, between the two nations.

The Egyptian Government must fulfill the promise it has made to its people -and to the entire world- by giving its citizens the freedom to choose. Egypt’s elections, including the Parliamentary elections, must meet objective standards that define every free election.

CAFTA would expand opportunity by creating a more level playing field for our goods and services. Under existing rules, most of Central America's exports already enter the United States duty free -- but U.S. exports still face hefty tariffs. By passing CAFTA, the United States would open up a market of 44 million consumers for our farmers and small business people. CAFTA will replace a system that is often arbitrary with one that is fair and transparent and based on common rules.

The United States is committed for the long term to helping areas affected by the December 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, says Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick.

On March 14, at about the same time Western antiwar groups were organizing their annual spring demonstrations against American efforts in the Middle East, nearly a million Lebanese, including Sunni Muslims, Druze, and Christians, took to the streets of Beirut.

"You are building a free future for your children and grandchildren, and you are helping other nations to do the same. When the Afghan people defied terrorists to vote in that nation's first free presidential elections, Georgian soldiers were there to provide security. And last year, when terrorist violence in Iraq was escalating, Georgia showed her courage. You increased your troop commitment in Iraq fivefold. The Iraqi people are grateful, and so are your American and coalition allies."

"We talked about NATO. The President is very clear about his intentions to meet the obligations to join NATO. And, Mr. President, we look forward to working with you to meet those obligations. NATO is a very important alliance for the United States of America. It's a place where we have our strategic conversations with our transatlantic friends, and we want to help you achieve your objective there."

The United States is working with Palestinians and Israelis to improve security on the ground. Building true security for Israelis and Palestinians demands an immediate, strong and sustained effort to combat terrorism in all its forms.

Few nations spend as much time worrying about how the world perceives them as America does. In the history of superpowers, great powers, or imperial powers, the American concern with likeability is unmatched. Did the Romans, the Ottoman Turks, or the Soviets worry about popularity ratings?

..the Intelligence Community was dead wrong in almost all of its pre-war judgements about Iraq's weapon of mass destruction. This was a major intelligence failure...

The Pentagon is working to develop a suborbital space capsule within the next five years that would be launched from the United States and could deliver conventional weapons anywhere in the world within two hours.

"The attacks of September the 11th, 2001 also revealed the outlines of a new world. In one way, that assault was the culmination of decades of escalating violence. In another way, September the 11th provided a warning of future dangers."

Parte del trabajo en curso del Proyecto de monitorización MEMRI TV es monitorizar las declaraciones de las principales organizaciones terroristas, como Al-Qa'ida o Hezboláh. Lo siguiente son extractos de dos discursos del líder de Hezboláh, el jeque Hassan Nasralah.

The phenomenon of Saudi hate ideology is worldwide, but its occurrence in the United States has received scant attention. This report begins to probe in detail the content of the Wahhabi ideology that the Saudi government has worked to propagate through books and other publications within our borders.

Discurso pronunciado en Washington D.C por José María Aznar en la cena de Gala Anual de los Premios Irving Kristol 2005 AEI.

They addressed security and alliance issues facing the United States and Japan, as well as other aspects of the relationship: Working Together on Challenges Facing the World Today

In a new century, the alliance of Europe and North America is the main pillar of our security. Our robust trade is one of the engines of the world's economy. Our example of economic and political freedom gives hope to millions who are weary of poverty and oppression.

These reports are a key part of this Administration's activities to promote human rights and democracy around the world, part of President Bush's forward strategy of freedom.