text:
By Bonnie K. Goodman
Ms. Goodman is the Editor of History Musings. She has a BA in History & Art History & a Masters in Library and Information Studies from McGill University, and has done graduate work in history at Concordia University.
Debt Ceiling Showdown All Posts; News, Quotes, Speeches, Press Conferences & Analysis on History Musings
Political Highlights Debt Ceiling Showdown August 1-2, 2011: Debt Ceiling Crisis Averted House & Senate Pass Bipartisan Compromise Bill — President Obama Signs Budget Control Act of 2011 into Law — History Musings, 8-2-11
Political Highlights Debt Ceiling Showdown July 25-31, 2011: Finally, a Deal! After Week of Partisan Votes in Congress — President Obama, White House, Republican & Democratic Leaders Agree to Debt Deal — Still Needs to Pass House & Senate Votes — History Musings, 8-1-11
Political Highlights Debt Ceiling Showdown Recap July 18-24, 2011: 2 Plans, 8 Days No Debt Deal in Sight — Will the US Default on August 2, 2011? — History Musings, 7-25-11
Political Debt Ceiling Showdown Recap July 6-18, 2011: Bipartisan Senate Compromise Plan Emerges — Obama Sets New Deadline for Friday July 22, 2011 — History Musings, 7-18-11
Full Text of the Budget Control Act of 2011 — PDF
How the Senate voted: 74-26 roll call Tuesday — the Senate passed Budget Control Act of 2011 —
YES: 45 Democrats and 28 Republicans
NO: 6 Democrats and 19 Republicans
How the House of Representatives voted: 269-161 roll call Monday — the House passed Budget Control Act of 2011 —
YES: 95 Democrats and 174 Republicans
NO: 95 Democrats and 66 Republicans
Resources on the Debate About the National Debt — White House
- Joe Biden, Mitch McConnell and the making of a debt deal — Politico, 8-2-11
- Obama Approval Drops to New Low of 40% Similar to his approval rating for handling the debt ceiling negotiations: President Obama's job approval rating is at a new low, averaging 40% in July 26-28 Gallup Daily tracking. His prior low rating of 41% occurred several times, the last of which was in April. As recently as June 7, Obama had 50% job approval…. – Gallop, 7-29-11
- Majority of Americans surveyed believe Congressional leaders behaved like spoiled children: Congressional approval ratings fell to a dismal 14% in the latest CNN/Opinion Research Corp. Survey released Tuesday. It showed a whopping 77% of people felt elected officials in Washington behaved mostly like "spoiled children" in the run-up to the vote.
Only 17% of people surveyed believed the pols behaved like "responsible adults," with 4% saying it was a mixture of both…. – NY Daily News, 8-2-11
- Snapshot: Obama signs debt limit bill: Just hours ahead of a deadline to avert an unprecedented default, President Barack Obama, without public ceremony, signs a bill that raises the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling and sets in motion a plan to reduce U.S. deficits over 10 years…. – Reuters, 8-2-11Fact Sheet: Bipartisan Debt Deal: A Win for the Economy and Budget Discipline — White House, 7-31-11
Timeline of the Debt Ceiling Negotiations — NYT, 7-31-11
SNAPSHOT-U.S. lawmakers close to deal on debt: Here is what is happening on Sunday as lawmakers and the White House race to broker a deal to raise the country's $14.3 trillion borrowing cap by Tuesday's deadline and avoid default on obligations…. – Reuters, 7-31-11
FACTBOX-Key elements of possible U.S. debt deal: U.S. lawmakers were working furiously on Sunday to hammer out details of a deal to raise the U.S. borrowing limit and put in place a deficit-reduction plan to help avert a potentially catastrophic debt default.
Lawmakers, administration officials and aides have made clear that they have yet to agree on the final deal. But they did provide the following details of how the deal is taking shape…. – Reuters, 7-31-11
FACTBOX-What's ahead in the U.S. debt limit fight — Reuters, 7-30-11
How Different Types of Republicans Voted on the Revised Debt Plan: Analysis of how different Republican blocs voted on the revised debt plan… – NYT
Interactive Graphic: House Roll Call: Boehner's Short-Term Debt Ceiling Increase — NYT
Interactive Graphic: Comparing Deficit-Reduction Plans — NYT
Timeline: How U.S. debt talks spiraled into crisis: The United States drifted closer to a credit rating downgrade and default on Wednesday as President Barack Obama's Democrats and their Republican rivals worked on competing plans to cut spending and raise the debt ceiling. Following is a timeline of the U.S. debt debate… – Reuters, 7-30-11
Factbox: Details of competing debt limit plans: House Speaker John Boehner, a Republican, and Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid are pushing rival plans to raise the government's borrowing limit before an August 2 deadline. Reid could modify his plan to attract Republican support once Boehner's bill fails in the Senate. Here are details of the two plans… – Reuters, 7-28-11
Factbox: House factions influence debt/deficit vote: On any major piece of legislation that moves through Congress, various factions within the House of Representatives and Senate can influence chances of success or failure.
That has been especially true in the debate over raising the $14.3 trillion debt limit by August 2 in order to avoid a U.S. government default. Here is a rundown of the various factions — many overlap — and how they shaped the debate and how they might influence the final vote:
Debt ceiling Q&A: How did we get here, what happens next? — LAT, 7-28-11
Debt ceiling poll: Voters with Obama: Most Americans would like to see a mix of spending cuts and tax increases be part of a deal to raise the debt ceiling, a new poll finds, aligning the majority with President Barack Obama's position. Of those surveyed for a Reuters/Ipsos poll released Tuesday, 56 percent said they want to see a mix of approaches used in an agreement to raise the debt ceiling. The poll was conducted overnight Monday, as Obama and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) voiced their views on the impasse in negotiations in back-to-back televised primetime speeches.
Just 19 percent of Americans said they favor a plan like Boehner's, which would rely solely on spending cuts to existing programs to reduce the deficit. Twelve percent said they would prefer a plan to reduce the deficit only by raising taxes.
Americans' blame for the impasse is spread all around, though is particularly strong against congressional Republicans, with 31 percent of those surveyed saying they are responsible for it. Twenty-one percent blamed Obama and nine percent blamed congressional Democrats…. – Politico 7-26-11
New polls confirm Obama's Democratic base crumbles: …"More than a third of Americans now believe that President Obama's policies are hurting the economy, and confidence in his ability to create jobs is sharply eroding among his base," the Post reports.
Strong support among liberal Democrats for Obama's jobs record has plummeted 22 points from 53% down below a third. African Americans who believe the president's measures helped the economy have plunged from 77% to barely half.
Obama's overall job approval on the economy has slid below 40% for the first time, with 57% disapproving. And strong disapprovers outnumber approvers by better than two-to-one. – LAT, 7-26-11
INFOGRAPHIC: Where does our national debt come from?: One of the fundamental things to understand when considering the debate about reducing our national debt is how we accumulated so much in the first place.
To explain the impact various policies have had over the past decade, shifting us from projected surpluses to actual deficits and, as a result, running up the national debt, the White House has developed a graphic for you to review and share. – WH, 7-26-11
- Factbox: How the Obama/Boehner debt talks unraveled: President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner had agreed on the rough outlines of a far-reaching budget deal that would allow the United States to avert an imminent default before Boehner broke off talks on Friday.
Here is a summary of what the two sides had agreed upon, where they had differed, and how things fell apart… – Reuters, 7-24-11
- Timeline: How the debt talks spiraled into crisis: With financial markets on edge, White House officials and Republican leaders scrambled to reassure them that the United States will avert default and lift its $14.3 trillion borrowing limit before August 2. Following is a timeline of the U.S. debt debate…. – Reuters, 7-24-11
- Debt Ceiling for Dummies: Why Compromise Is so Necessary — Huff Post, 7-24-11
- SCENARIOS-Options for raising the U.S. debt limit: Democrats and Republicans in Congress, unable to compromise on how to cut budget deficits and raise U.S. borrowing authority, are now working on their own, competing bills. With nine days' left until the United States runs out of money to pay all its bills after Aug. 2, the two parties were rushing to get their respective bills moving through Congress this week.
Here are some scenarios for raising the debt limit by the early August deadline to avoid a potentially crippling government default:
OBAMA INVOKES THE CONSTITUTION… – Reuters, 7-24-11President Obama USA Today Exclusive Op-ed: Go 'big' on debt deal: For years now, America has been spending more money than we take in. The result is that we have too much debt on our nation's credit card — debt that will ultimately weaken our economy, lead to higher interest rates for all Americans, and leave us unable to invest in things like education, or protect vital programs like Medicare.
Neither party is blameless for the decisions that led to this debt, but both parties have a responsibility to come together and solve the problem. That's what the American people expect of us. Every day, families are figuring out how to stretch their paychecks a little further, sacrifice what they can't afford, and budget only for what's truly important. It's time for Washington to do the same…. – USA Today, 7-21-11
- Poll: Sharp Partisan Divide Over Debt Ceiling Deal: With the deadline to broker a debt ceiling deal fast approaching, Americans are craving a solution but remain strongly divided along party lines over how to achieve it, according to a CNN/ORC poll released today.
The poll finds 64% of Americans want a package that includes both spending cuts and tax increases, although the partisan divide is clear: 83% of Democrats and nearly two-thirds of independents support this combined approach, while only 37% of Republicans say they agree. A majority of Republicans and self-described tea party supporters support a plan that only includes spending cuts…. – NY Daily News, 7-21-11
- 'Cut, cap, and balance' vs. 'gang of six' plan: Which for House GOP?: 'Cut, cap, and balance' legislation, which lays out a GOP plan to eliminate the US budget deficit, is set for a House vote late Tuesday. A symbolic move, the vote is nonetheless vital to Republicans. Here's why…. – CS Monitor, 7-20-11
- Latest developments in debt ceiling standoff: Congress has until Aug. 2 to raise the federal borrowing limit or the government will run out of money and possibly default on its debt. House Republicans say they won't raise the debt limit without equal spending cuts. President Barack Obama and Democrats insist that higher revenues must be included.
Monday's developments: Obama says the two sides are "making progress" in negotiations. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., says the Senate will meet each day until the issue is resolved.
What's Next: Republican House to vote Tuesday on bill to cut and cap spending and require that Congress pass a balanced budget amendment before the debt ceiling can be raised. While the bill is unlikely to pass the Democratic Senate, Obama threatens to veto it. – AP, 7-18-11
- McConnell Offers Three-Stage Debt-Limit 'Last Choice' Option: Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell proposed a "last choice option" for increasing the U.S. debt limit in three stages in case President Barack Obama and Congress can't agree on a deficit-reduction plan.
McConnell's plan would let the president raise the limit, while accompanying it with offsetting spending cuts, unless Congress struck down his plan with a two-thirds majority. The debt-ceiling increase could occur without the companion spending cuts, McConnell said.
Don Stewart, a spokesman for McConnell, said the plan would allow Obama to raise the debt limit while putting the onus on him and congressional Democrats for any failure to cut spending. At the same time, Republicans wouldn't have to agree to tax increases.
The proposal is "not my first choice," McConnell said, adding that he wanted to show the financial markets that the U.S. will not default on its debts. He said he continues to seek a broader deal to raise the $14.3 trillion debt limit with congressional Democrats and the White House. "We're certainly not going to send a signal to the markets and the American people that default is an option," he said…. – Bloomberg, 7-12-11
- Timeline: Debt debate, 7-11-11: President Barack Obama and top lawmakers will meet again Monday in search of a deal on slashing the U.S. budget deficit and raising the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling before the United States defaults.
Obama wants to strike a deal well before August 2, when the Treasury Department says it will no longer be able to honor its obligations and issue new bonds without breaching the limit that Congress set on how much the United States can borrow.
Republican and Democratic lawmakers say any increase must include measures to ensure the country's debt remains at a sustainable level. The debt-reduction debate is a sharp shift for Washington, which less than a year ago was focused on additional deficit spending to lower the unemployment rate.
Following is a timeline of the debate…. – Reuters, 7-11-11
- Factbox: What's on the table in debt talks: President Barack Obama and congressional leaders resume their White House talks on Monday to see if they have the makings of a deal to trim budget deficits and avert a looming default.
The Treasury Department has warned it will run out of money to cover the country's bills if Congress does not raise the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling by August 2.
Although Democrats and Republicans agree on the need for trillions of dollars in budget savings, they remain sharply divided about how to get there.
Following is a summary of the debate… – Reuters, 7-11-11
- Bruce Bartlett: Five myths about the debt ceiling: In recent months, the federal debt ceiling — last increased in February 2010 and now standing at $14.3 trillion — has become a matter of national debate and political hysteria. The ceiling must be raised by Aug. 2, Treasury says, or the government will run out of cash. Congressional Republicans counter that they won't raise the debt limit unless Democrats agree to large budget cuts with no tax increases. President Obama insists that closing tax loopholes must be part of the package. Whom and what to believe in the great debt-limit debate? Here are some misconceptions that get to the heart of the battle….
1. The debt limit is an effective way to control spending and deficits.
2. Opposition to raising the debt limit is a partisan issue.
3. Financial markets won't care much if interest payments are just a few days late — a "technical default."
4. It's worth risking default on the debt to prevent a tax increase, given the weak economy.
5. Obama must accept GOP budget demands because he needs Republican support to raise the debt limit….


text:
Master your Self-esteem!
Learn how to empower yourself and heal your inner child
You are broken, shattered, hurt and feel like your world is falling apart! You have been abused, mentally, emotionally, physically for as long as you can remember and have completely lost yourself in this incredibly crazy and abusive relationship. Stop allowing your past to control you and your happiness! Stop the vicious endless cycle of abuse and reclaim your self-esteem and self-love!
Join me on a journey of self-discovery that is designed to help you rebuild your broken self-esteem, heal your inner child and adult, and finally learn how to truly love yourself, so that you can manifest real happiness and love back into your life!
(Note: This is a recorded workshop chock-full with valuable coaching instruction, exercises and homework designed to get you to learn how to love yourself so you can live life to the fullest. When you purchase these amazing classes, you can watch them immediately and as many times as you need to solidify the teachings! Instructions to watch will be sent via email after you sign up. All you need is your computer/phone/tablet and a great internet connection!)
Learn how to heal your broken self-esteem and rebuild your confidence so that you can fall in love with yourself and find everlasting happiness.
When you sign up for the "Master Your Self-Esteem Challenge" you receive instant access to:
5 Videos, each between 10 and 15 minutes long designed to help you learn where the source of your broken self-esteem comes from plus giving you practical coaching advice from a marriage therapist
5 Workbooks, designed to help you solidify the teachings so that you can take action immediately to change and build your self love!
5+ Daily Emails, designed to inspire you and guide you through the process
Lifetime access to the course so that you can revisit it whenever you need a boost of self-love or self-esteem
Lesson 1: Discover the source of your broken self-esteem
Get real clarity where the core issue of your self-image originated from, and acknowledge your inner child.
Understand how these issues manifest in your daily life.
How awareness and understanding leads to healing.
Lesson 2: Your limiting beliefs and how to overcome them.
You will learn how to become super clear and aware of your thoughts and beliefs
Step into your power and take control of your mind.
Unlock your limiting beliefs so you can set yourself free and fly
Lesson 3: How to be a Victor in your life
Discover how resilient you really are and honor the hero within you. .
Learn to celebrate yourself and step into your power, you are so much stronger then you know.
Lesson 4: Give yourself the love you want and need to heal your inner child
Understand what it is you and your inner child need in order to fully embrace and love yourself.
Learn how to give yourself the healing messages you need to hear so that you can empower yourself.
Create a Go to list of love and empowerment messages!
Lesson 5: Madly fall in love with yourself
Manifest self love and confidence into your life so that can take on the world and let go of all your fears and insecurities.
Step into your best self and the woman you know you can truly be!
"I never imagined that being coached could be so helpful in such an immediate and practical way. Pearl is fully focused as the listens and has the ability to see the running theme to its absolute core, in the challenges I face day to day.
Pearl teaches me how to teach myself which is a skill I benefit from every waking hour. If you are 100% committed to yourself and to Pearl's coaching, you will see immediate success that will continue to build on itself. Pearl has changed the quality of my life for the better and I am forever grateful to her. Her work is seriously amazing, practical and powerful"
"I knew I was not strong enough to get through my divorce without some help, I looked online for a divorce counselor and found Pearl. I got so lucky finding Pearl. She has not only helped me through the divorce but more importantly, she has helped me figure out why I got myself into a bad marriage in the first place. She is an amazing, knowledgeable divorce counselor and also an incomparable life coach and therapist.
From the very first session, Pearl made me feel stronger and more in control of my situation. She focused on moving me into a position of mental strength. She has a great instinct to help solve issues step by step. Pearl is probably the best listener I have ever encountered in my life. She helps me understand myself and to figure out how to heal myself and to then move to a better place. Through Pearl's work, I have become more clear, capable and empowered.
I tell everyone I know to call her!! I don't know how I would have gotten through this incredibly trying time without her."
"Just when I thought I couldn't see any light at the end of this dark tunnel of divorce I met Pearl, she saved me and encouraged me to stay strong and stood by my side checking in on a daily basis!
All her work is done from experience and the goodness of her heart.
I felt like I was talking to a best friend through every session. I'm so grateful to have had Pearl Flax guide me through this lonnngggg and difficult journey!!
Would definitely recommend her!!"
"Pearl truly cares about you as a person and your development. This course is filled with love and so much support! Her passion shines through and I learned so much about myself as a result of all the love and energy that she put into this course.
Thank you thank you thank you!
Definitely sign up and certainly sign up to work with her personally if she's still taking private clients!"
About your Host: Pearl Flax
As an international relationship and divorce empowerment coach, Pearl works with couples and women who are struggling in their relationships to learn how to re-kindle their marriages and bring love back into their life!
She also coaches women that are in the process of a divorce to help guide and empower them during this very challenging time in their life.
Pearl's mission is to help empower as many women as possible, and pay forward everything she has learned from her own troubling journey.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Father Patrick DesBois, author and Holocaust expert, has been in Montreal at the Montreal Holocaust Memorial Centre to speak during Education Week <www.mhmc.ca>.
He is the president of the Yahad-in-Unum Association, a group which has brought to light the percise conditions under which 1.5 million Jews who lived in the Ukraine were exterminated by mobile Nazi units during the Second World War.
He has a website called "Mass Shooting of Jews in Ukraine (1941-1944): The Holocaust by Bullets", and he travels the Ukraine finding people who lived there at the to hear the stories.
He has used the German and Soviet archives, gathering eyewitness reports of the execution and burial sites, and to gather material proof of the genocide. The sites are recorded, including its GPS readings, and personal items are recovered by the teams including victims glasses, children's games, and jewellery.
He will appear tomorrow night at 7:00 p.m at the Barney Danson Theatre in the Canadian War Museum, 1 Vimy Place, to tell the story.
The website is <www.warmuseum.ca>, and the phone number is 819.776.8600.


text:
Wiltern Show Announced
KROQ presents Jane's Addiction at the Wiltern on October 27th. Opening the show will be London-based thenewno2.
Tickets go on sale to the public Friday, September 21st at 10am, but members of the site can access presale tickets starting Tuesday, September 18th.
Click here for more information: http://janesaddiction.com/events/137711


text:
Standard housing design
SNLN 30 plummer (pillow) block housings are split housings consisting of a cap and base (fig. 1). They have two holes cast into the base for attachment bolts.
The housings are designed on the "building block" principle to enable a wider choice of bearings and seals as well as a variety of shaft-bearing combinations.


text:
Nordex is to supply eight N80/2500 turbines for the Screggagh wind farm in Country Tyrone. The project is DW's first in the province to go to construction.
DW has four projects in totaling 50MW with planning permission in Northern Ireland and another eight totaling 100MW awaiting approval.
According to Windpower Monthly's Market Status Report for the UK, Northern Ireland achieved a 9.5% boost in installed wind power for 2009.


text:
Believe it or not, my favorite aspect of Diablo III is not the Real Money Auction house. Nope! Nor is it the always-on internet requirement. I know!
No, my favorite aspect of Diablo III is the amazing, disgusting, visceral sound design. When my monk plows through a gaggle of succubi, the sound is what makes all my mouse-clicking feel like more than mouse-clicking. It makes the game feel meaty, impactful.
In a cool interview over at Kill Screen, Blizzard sound designer Joseph Lawrence talks about how they got all those grody sounds.
Well when we started this game, we all knew that we were going to need an absolutely metric ton of gushy, gooey, squishy sounds. 'Cause that kind of stuff is everywhere in the game. Over the years we've done numerous sessions for those-we've put our hands in giant vats of yogurt, glue. One particularly disgusting session that just looked horrible by the time we got done was this pile of stuff I'd been manipulating with my hands-it started off as bits of spaghetti, then I mixed in some yogurt [and] chocolate sauce; I think there were some packing peanuts. All these different liquids have a different viscosity and way they sound sticky. We used all manner of vegetables; by the time it was done there was this big pile of disgusting brown goo. There was even a New York steak at the bottom of it that I was slapping against to make splat sounds.
I can't tell you how many trips to the grocery store I had to turn in to the accounting department when I'd bought 10 watermelons and crab legs. It's like, "Mmm, what's for dinner? Doesn't really look very good!" [Laughs] The grocery store is just a playground for a sound designer. There are so many things there that make an interesting noise, and there's no end to the combination of things you can squish together and smash.
Ha, ew. Lawrence says that when they record, they'll usually have to have two guys in a room together, since one winds up so covered in goopy pureed food that he can't work the recording equipment.
Man, from game to game and studio to studio, one thing seems clear: Sound designers sure do seem to have the most fun.
The Sounds of Violence [Kill Screen]


text:
Try these popular pages
If you typed in the web address, check you have typed it correctly.
If still no luck, you may find what you are looking for on our site map or try one of these popular pages.
- Find train times and book tickets
- Live departures and arrivals
- Delay Repay - Compensation
- Planned engineering works
- Timetables
- Contact us


text:
Greek lamb with potatoes & olives
Entertain the easy way with this quick-to-prepare rustic one-pot - just serve with crusty bread
Nutrition and extra info
Nutrition: per serving
- kcal772
- fat51g
- saturates19g
- carbs42g
- sugars8g
- fibre6g
- protein38g
- salt2.03g
- 800g medium-size potatoes, skin on, thinly sliced
The world's favourite root vegetable, the potato comes in innumerable varieties. A member of…
- 4 large tomatoes, thinly sliced
A member of the nightshade family (along with aubergines, peppers and chillies), tomatoes are in…
- 1 aubergine, thinly sliced
Although it's technically a fruit (a berry, to be exact), the aubergine is used as a…
- 4 garlic cloves, chopped
- 3 tbsp oregano leaves, plus extra for sprinkling
Closely related to marjoram, of which it is the wild equivalent, oregano has a coarser, more…
- 85g pitted Kalamata olives, halved
Widely grown all over the Mediterranean, where they've been cultivated since biblical times…
- 5 tbsp olive oil, plus a drizzle
Olive oilol-iv oyl
Probably the most widely-used oil in cooking, olive oil is pressed from fresh olives. It's…
- 100g feta cheese, crumbled
- 4 lamb steaks
A lamb is a sheep that is under 1 year old; between 1 and 2 years old you will find it sold as…
Heat oven to 200C/180C fan/gas 6. Layer up half the potato, tomato and aubergine in a baking dish, scattering with garlic, oregano and olives, and drizzling with oil and seasoning as you go.
Scatter over the feta, then repeat the layers until all the ingredients are used up. Finish with potatoes and a little oil.
Bake for 50 mins or until the veg are tender (cover with foil if they're getting too brown). Top with the lamb steaks, rubbing with a little more oil and seasoning. Bake for 15-20 mins more until the lamb is cooked. Allow to rest and cool a bit before scattering with oregano and serving with crusty bread.


text:
This page can be viewed at http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a0101missilethreat&scale=2
This is a scalable context timeline. It contains events related to the event January 20-September 10, 2001: Bush Administration Sees Rogue States with Missiles as Top Security Threat instead of Al-Qaeda. You can narrow or broaden the context of this timeline by adjusting the zoom level. The lower the scale, the more relevant the items on average will be, while the higher the scale, the less relevant the items, on average, will be.
After Richard Nixon wins the presidency (see November 5, 1968), he orders a review of the Sentinel anti-ballistic missile program (see September 18, 1967). It is suspended and later reintroduced in a more modest form under the moniker "Safeguard." Nixon says the program will protect "our land-based retaliatory forces against a direct attack by the Soviet Union." Safeguard has serious conception and design flaws, and is never completely deployed; when the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty is signed with the Soviet Union (see May 26, 1972), the program is scaled back and eventually terminated by Congress. Author Stephen Schwartz will later write that the Sentinel/Safeguard program is "the only time that Congress has successfully voted down a major strategic nuclear weapons program supported by the executive branch." (Schwartz 1998, pp. 286-288; Federation of American Scientists 1/15/2008)
Impelled in part by anti-ballistic missiles deployed in both the US and the Soviet Union (see September 18, 1967 and 1969-1976), the two nuclear superpowers begin the first round of Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, later known as SALT I. The negotiations are designed to limit both anti-ballistic missile systems and offensive nuclear arsenals. An agreement will be signed three years later (see May 26, 1972 and May 26, 1972). (Federation of American Scientists 1/15/2008)
The US and the Soviet Union sign the Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems (ABM) Treaty. It will be ratified by the US Senate in August 1972, and will go into force in October 1972. Originally, the treaty agrees that each nation can have only two ABM deployment areas, located so that those areas cannot provide a nationwide ABM defense or become the basis for developing one. In essence, the ABM Treaty prevents either nation from developing a missile defense system (see March 23, 1983), and allows each country the likelihood of destroying the other with an all-out nuclear barrage. The treaty puts in place the doctrine of MAD, or Mutual Assured Destruction, which states that because both nations can obliterate the other in a nuclear exchange, neither one will trigger such a strike. In 1976, an addendum to the treaty further limits the number of ABM deployment areas from two to one; the Soviets will deploy a rudimentary ABM system around Moscow, but the US never does, and even deactivates its single ABM site near Grand Forks, North Dakota. In 2001, US President George W. Bush will unilaterally withdraw from the treaty (see December 13, 2001 and June 14, 2002). (Federation of American Scientists 1/15/2008)
President Reagan announces his proposal for the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI, later nicknamed "Star Wars"), originally conceived two years earlier (see 1981). SDI is envisioned as a wide-ranging missile defense system that, if it works, will protect the United States from nuclear attacks from the Soviet Union or other countries with ballistic missiles, essentially rendering nuclear weapons, in Reagan's words, "impotent and obsolete." Reagan says, "I call upon the scientific community in our country, those who gave us nuclear weapons, to turn their great talents now to the cause of mankind and world peace, to give us the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete." Soviet leader Yuri Andropov's response is unprececented in its anger (see March 27, 1983); Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrinyn says SDI will "open a new phase in the arms race." (PBS 2000; Scoblic 2008, pp. 129)
US Hardliners 'Ecstatic' - Hardliners in and out of the Reagan administration are, in author J. Peter Scoblic's characterization, "ecstatic, seeing SDI as the ultimate refutation of [the principle of] mutual assured destruction and therefore of the status quo, which left [the US] unable to seek victory over the Soviet Union." The day after the speech, Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) sends Reagan a one-sentence letter: "That was the best statement I have heard from any president."
'Less Suicidal' Adjunct to First Strike - Scoblic will write that if SDI is implemented as envisioned, "[a]lthough the Soviets would still be able to inflict enough damage that a first strike by the United States would be suicidal, it would be 'less suicidal' to the extent that such a concept made sense, which some Reagan officials believed it did. In short, SDI was a better adjunct to a first strike than it was a standalone defense. That made it critically destabilizing, which is why missile defense had been outlawed by [earlier treaties] in the first place." (Scoblic 2008, pp. 129-130)
The US announces that the Soviet Union has established a large early-warning radar system near the city of Krasnoyarsk. The installation violates the 1972 ABM Treaty (see May 26, 1972), which requires that such installations be located near the nation's border and oriented outward. It is possible that the Soviet radar installation is built in response to the US's recent decision to violate the ABM treaty by developing a missile defense system (see March 23, 1983). (Federation of American Scientists 1/15/2008)
National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane, speaking for the Reagan administration, proposes a new, "broad" interpretation of the US-Soviet Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty (see May 26, 1972) on national television. McFarlane proposes that space-based and mobile systems and components based on "other physical principles," i.e. lasers, particle beams, etc., should be developed and tested, but not deployed. (The traditional, "narrow" interpretation of the treaty is more restrictive.) Days later, President Reagan announces that while he and his administration support this "broad" interpretation, as a matter of national policy, the US's Strategic Defense Initiative (see March 23, 1983) will continue to observe the more traditional interpretation. (Federation of American Scientists 1/15/2008)
President Reagan and Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev meet in Reykjavik, Iceland, for a second summit, to follow on the success of their first meeting almost a year before (see November 16-19, 1985). They base their discussion on Gorbachev's January proposals of deep cuts in the two nations' nuclear arsenals (see January 1986).
Elimination of All Nuclear Weapons by 1996 - Gorbachev and his negotiators begin by reiterating Gorbachev's proposals for a 50 percent cut in all nuclear weapons, deep reductions in Soviet ICBMs, and the elimination of all European-based intermediate nuclear weapons. Reagan and his negotiators counter with a proposal for both sides to destroy half of their nuclear ballistic missiles in the next five years, and the rest to be destroyed over the next five, leaving both sides with large arsenals of cruise missiles and bomber-based weapons. Gorbachev ups the ante, proposing that all nuclear weapons be destroyed within 10 years. Reagan responds that it would be fine with him "if we eliminated all nuclear weapons," implicitly including all tactical nuclear weapons in Europe and everywhere else. Gorbachev says, "We can do that," and Secretary of State George Shultz says, "Let's do it."
Agreement Founders on SDI - The heady moment is lost when the two sides fail to reach an agreement on SDI—the Americans' "Star Wars" missile defense system (see March 23, 1983). Gorbachev cannot accept any major reductions in nuclear weapons if the US has a viable missile defense system; Reagan is convinced that SDI would allow both sides to eliminate their nuclear weapons, and offers the SDI technology to the Soviets. Gorbachev finds Reagan's offer naive, since there is no guarantee that future presidents would honor the deal. Reagan, in another example of his ignorance of the mechanics of the US nuclear program (see April 1981 and After), does not seem to realize that even a completely effective SDI program would not defend against Soviet cruise missiles and long-range bombers, and therefore would not end the threat of nuclear destruction for either side. Author J. Peter Scoblic will later write, "[SDI] would have convinced the Soviet Union that the United States sought a first-strike capability, since the Americans were so far ahead in cruise missile and stealth bomber technology." Gorbachev does not ask that the US abandon SDI entirely, but simply observe the terms of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty (see May 26, 1972) and confine SDI research to the laboratory. Reagan refuses. Gorbachev says that if this is the US's position, then they would have to "forget everything they discussed." Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze breaks in, saying that the two nations are "so close" to making history that "if future generations read the minutes of these meetings, and saw how close we had come but how we did not use these opportunities, they would never forgive us." But the agreement is not to be.
Participants' Reactions - As Shultz later says, "Reykjavik was too bold for the world." Shultz tells reporters that he is "deeply disappointed" in the results, and no longer sees "any prospect" for a third summit. Gorbachev tells reporters that Reagan's insistence on retaining SDI had "frustrated and scuttled" the opportunity for an agreement. Gorbachev says he told Reagan that the two countries "were missing a historic chance. Never had our positions been so close together." Reagan says as he is leaving Iceland that "though we put on the table the most far-reaching arms control proposal in history, the general secretary [Gorbachev] rejected it." Scoblic will later write, "In the end, ironically, it was Reagan's utopianism, hitched as it was to a missile shield, that preserved the status quo." (Cannon 10/13/1986; Scoblic 2008, pp. 140-142)
Hardline Sabotage - One element that contributes to the failure of the negotiations is the efforts to undermine the talks by hardline advisers Richard Perle and Ken Adelman, who tell Reagan that confining SDI to research facilities would destroy the program. Perle and Adelman are lying, but Reagan, not knowing any better, believes them, and insists that SDI remain in development. (Scoblic 2008, pp. 143-144)
Going Too Far? - Reagan's negotiators, even the most ardent proponents of nuclear reduction, are shocked that he almost agreed to give up the US's entire nuclear arsenal—with Shultz's encouragement. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and French President Francois Mitterand are horrified at the prospect, given that NATO's nuclear arsenal in Europe is the only real counterweight to the huge Red Army so close to the borders of Western European nations. (Scoblic 2008, pp. 140-142)
Failure of Trust - The US-Soviet talks may well have foundered on an inability of either side to trust the other one to the extent necessary to implement the agreements. During the talks, Soviet aide Gyorgy Arbatov tells US negotiator Paul Nitze that the proposals would require "an exceptional level of trust." Therefore, Arbatov says, "we cannot accept your position." (Savranskaya and Blanton 3/12/2008)
Russian President Boris Yeltsin proposes that the US and Russia engage in a "joint" global defense system that would supplant the US-only Strategic Defense Initiative (see March 23, 1983 and January 29, 1991). He says that Russia will continue to honor the US-Soviet Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (see May 26, 1972), and proposes that all existing anti-satellite (ASAT) programs be eliminated and banned. (Federation of American Scientists 1/15/2008)
President-elect Bill Clinton announces that his administration rejects the idea of a US-only space-based defense system (see March 23, 1983 and January 29, 1991) and would instead support the development of what he calls "a limited missile defense system within the strict framework" of the ABM Treaty (see May 26, 1972). He announces that his administration also supports the development and deployment of theater missile defense (TMD) systems "to protect our troops from short- and medium-range missiles." (Federation of American Scientists 1/15/2008)
The Clinton administration rejects the Reagan/Bush "broad interpretation" of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (see May 26, 1972 and October 6-11, 1985) in favor of the narrow, "traditional" interpretation. A senior government official informs Congress that "it is the position of the Clinton administration that the 'narrow,' or 'traditional,' interpretation of the ABM Treaty is the correct interpretation and, therefore, that the ABM Treaty prohibits the development, testing, and deployment of sea-based, air-based, space-based, and mobile land-based ABM systems and components without regard to technology utilized." (Federation of American Scientists 1/15/2008)
US President Bill Clinton and Russian President Boris Yeltsin issue a joint statement that they have "agreed on the fundamental importance of preserving the viability and integrity of the ABM Treaty" (see May 26, 1972). In the statement, Clinton and Yeltsin state: "Both sides have an interest in developing and fielding effective theater missile defense systems on a cooperative basis. The presidents agree that the two sides will conduct a joint exercise of theater missile defenses and early warning. This exercise would contribute to providing a basis for US and Russian forces to operate together, for example, in peacekeeping operations." (Federation of American Scientists 1/15/2008)
US President Bill Clinton and Russian President Boris Yeltsin issue a joint statement announcing that they endorse a set of principles for negotiating the deployment of "theater missile defense" systems (TMD), designed for protection from intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBMs) and smaller "tactical" or "battlefield" nuclear weapons. TMD systems will not be designed and implemented in a manner that poses a serious threat to either side's nuclear arsenals. They both agree that the 1972 ABM Treaty (see May 26, 1972) "does not apply to theater missile defense systems that may simply have a theoretical capability against some strategic missiles but which would not be militarily significant in the context of operational considerations." They agree that "theater missile defense systems will not be deployed by the sides for use against each other," and that "the scale of deployment—in number and geographic scope—of theater missile defense systems by either side will be consistent with theater missile defense programs confronting that side." The two nations will develop their respective TMD systems "on a cooperative basis." (Federation of American Scientists 1/15/2008)
President Clinton signs the National Missile Defense Act of 1999 (NMDA), which states in its entirety, "It is the policy of the United States to deploy as soon as is technologically possible an effective National Missile Defense system capable of defending the territory of the United States against limited ballistic missile attack (whether accidental, unauthorized, or deliberate)." The NMDA mandates that the US will deploy some sort of missile defense system (see March 23, 1983 and January 29, 1991), but Clinton will refuse to order the system's deployment in 2000, in part because it has failed its tests and in part because to deploy the system would require the US to withdraw from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (see May 26, 1972), a move Clinton is unwilling to make. Clinton will acknowledge that the US makes its own national security decision, but will add, "We can never afford to overlook the fact that the actions and reactions of others in this increasingly interdependent world do bear on our security." (US Senate 7/22/1999; White House 7/22/1999; Scoblic 2008, pp. 173-174)
President Clinton considers building a radar facility as part of a proposed national missile defense system. Clinton's legal advisers have told him that he could "interpret" the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty (see May 26, 1972) to allow such a facility, even though the treaty clearly prohibits any moves towards a missile defense system. Clinton later authorizes the construction of a radar facility in Alaska, but leaves the bulk of the decision-making to the next administration. (Agence France-Presse 6/21/2000; Savage 2007, pp. 67) Clinton's successor, George W. Bush, will withdraw from the treaty entirely (see December 13, 2001).
Texas Governor George W. Bush, the Republican candidate for president, accepts his party's nomination for president during the Republican National Convention in Philadelphia. During his speech, he declares his intent to move the United States away from observing "outdated" treaties such as the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia (see May 26, 1972). "Now is the time," he says, "not to defend outdated treaties, but to defend the American people." Less than a year after taking office, Bush will unilaterally withdraw the US from the treaty (see December 13, 2001). (Savage 2007, pp. 140)
Hours after the USS Cole is bombed (see October 12, 2000), presidential candidate Governor George W. Bush is asked about the bombing. He replies, "Today, we lost sailors because of what looks like to be a terrorist attack. Terror is the enemy. Uncertainty is what the world is going to be about, and the next president must be able to address uncertainty. And that's why I want our nation to develop an antiballistic missile system that will have the capacity to bring certainty into this uncertain world." Author Craig Unger comments, "Bush's proposal of an antiballistic missile system suggests that he failed to understand that al-Qaeda's terrorism was fundamentally different from conventional warfare." (Unger 2004, pp. 107, 479) Bush will make similar comments on other occasions, causing the 9/11 Commission to later note, "Public references by candidate and then President Bush about terrorism before 9/11 tended to reflect [his] priorities, focusing on state-sponsored terrorism and [weapons of mass destruction] as a reason to mount a missile defense." (9/11 Commission 7/24/2004, pp. 509)
While still campaigning to become president, George W. Bush frequently argued the US should build an anti-ballistic missile shield (see October 12, 2000). After Bush is made president, the development of such a shield and getting out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty the US has signed that would prevent such a shield, becomes the top US security priority (see May 26, 1972 and December 13, 2001). Senior officials and cabinet members make it their top agenda item in meetings with European allies, Russia, and China. Five Cabinet-level officials, including Condoleezza Rice, travel to Moscow to persuade Russia to abandon the ABM Treaty. Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith is there on September 10 to make the same case. (Cirincione 9/5/2004)
Ballistic Missiles 'Today's Most Urgent Threat' - In a major speech given on May 1, 2001, Bush calls the possible possession of missiles by rogue states "today's most urgent threat." (New York Times 5/2/2001) In a June 2001 meeting with European heads of state, Bush names missile defense as his top defense priority and terrorism is not mentioned at all (see June 13, 2001). It will later be reported that Rice was scheduled to give a major speech on 9/11, in which, according to the Washington Post, she planned "to promote missile defense as the cornerstone of a new national security strategy, and [made] no mention of al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, or Islamic extremist groups." However, the speech will be cancelled due to the 9/11 attacks (see September 11, 2001). (Wright 4/1/2004)
Criticism and Controversy - Bush's missile shield stance is highly controversial. For instance, in July 2001 a Guardian article is titled, "US Defies Global Fury Over Missile Shield." (New York Times 5/2/2001) Domestic critics suggest the missile shield could start a new arms race and cost over $500 billion. (Ferraro 5/3/2001)
Diverting Attention from Terrorism - Some argue that Bush's missile focus is diverting attention from terrorism. For instance, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) tells Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld at a June 2001 hearing that the US is spending too much money on missile defense and not "putting enough emphasis on countering the most likely threats to our national security… like terrorist attacks." (Cirincione 9/5/2004) On September 5, 2001, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd writes: "And why can George W. Bush think of nothing but a missile shield? Our president is caught in the grip of an obsession worthy of literature" and notes that "sophisticated antimissile interceptors can't stop primitive, wobbly missiles from rogue nations, much less germ warfare from terrorists." (Dowd 9/5/2001) On September 10, 2001, Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE) warns that if the US spends billions on missile defense, "we will have diverted all that money to address the least likely threat, while the real threats come into this country in the hold of ship, or the belly of a plane." In 2004, a San Francisco Chronicle editorial will suggest that if the Bush administration had focused less on the missile shield and had "devoted more attention, more focus and more resources to the terrorist threat, the events of Sept. 11 might have been prevented." (Cirincione 9/5/2004)
Neoconservative journalist Lawrence Kaplan argues that the US must withdraw from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (see May 26, 1972) and immediately begin development of a new missile defense system (see March 23, 1983 and January 29, 1991). "[M]issile defense is about preserving America's ability to wield power abroad," Kaplan writes. "It's not about defense. It's about offense. And that's exactly why we need it." (Scoblic 2008, pp. 176)
President Bush gives a speech at the National Defense University outlining what he calls a "new strategic framework" for the nation's strategic defense policy. "This afternoon, I want us to think back some 30 years to a far different time in a far different world," he tells his listeners. "The United States and the Soviet Union were locked in a hostile rivalry.… Our deep differences were expressed in a dangerous military confrontation that resulted in thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at each other on hair-trigger alert. Security of both the United States and the Soviet Union was based on a grim premise: that neither side would fire nuclear weapons at each other, because doing so would mean the end of both nations." Bush is referring to the concept of "mutual assured destruction," or MAD, which has driven the policies of the US and the former Soviet Union since the 1950s. "We even went so far as to codify this relationship in a 1972 ABM [Anti-Ballistic Missile] Treaty (see May 26, 1972), based on the doctrine that our very survival would best be insured by leaving both sides completely open and vulnerable to nuclear attack," he says.
A Different Threat - Times have now changed: "Today, the sun comes up on a vastly different world.… Today's Russia is not yesterday's Soviet Union.… Yet, this is still a dangerous world, a less certain, a less predictable one. More nations have nuclear weapons and still more have nuclear aspirations. Many have chemical and biological weapons. Some already have developed… ballistic missile technology.… And a number of these countries are spreading these technologies around the world. Most troubling of all, the list of these countries includes some of the world's least-responsible states. Unlike the Cold War, today's most urgent threat stems not from thousands of ballistic missiles in the Soviet hands, but from a small number of missiles in the hands of these states, states for whom terror and blackmail are a way of life." Bush cites the example of Iraq's Saddam Hussein, who, he says, could have forced a very different outcome to the 1991 Gulf War (see January 16, 1991 and After) had he "been able to blackmail with nuclear weapons." Hussein is an exemplar of today's hate-driven dictators, Bush asserts: "Like Saddam Hussein, some of today's tyrants are gripped by an implacable hatred of the United States of America. They hate our friends, they hate our values, they hate democracy and freedom and individual liberty. Many care little for the lives of their own people. In such a world, Cold War deterrence is no longer enough."
ABM Treaty Now a Hindrance to US Security - "To maintain peace, to protect our own citizens and our own allies and friends, we must seek security based on more than the grim premise that we can destroy those who seek to destroy us," Bush says. "Today's world requires a new policy, a broad strategy of active non-proliferation, counter proliferation and defenses.… We need new concepts of deterrence that rely on both offensive and defensive forces. Deterrence can no longer be based solely on the threat of nuclear retaliation.… We need a new framework that allows us to build missile defenses to counter the different threats of today's world. To do so, we must move beyond the constraints of the 30-year-old ABM Treaty. This treaty does not recognize the present, or point us to the future. It enshrines the past. No treaty that prevents us from addressing today's threats, that prohibits us from pursuing promising technology to defend ourselves, our friends and our allies is in our interests or in the interests of world peace.… We can, and will, change the size, the composition, the character of our nuclear forces in a way that reflects the reality that the Cold War is over." Bush is heralding his intention of withdrawing from the 1972 ABM Treaty (see December 13, 2001). Bush says of the treaty: "We should leave behind the constraints of an ABM Treaty that perpetuates a relationship based on distrust and mutual vulnerability. This Treaty ignores the fundamental breakthroughs in technology during the last 30 years. It prohibits us from exploring all options for defending against the threats that face us, our allies and other countries. That's why we should work together to replace this Treaty with a new framework that reflects a clear and clean break from the past, and especially from the adversarial legacy of the Cold War." (Bush 5/1/2001; CNN 5/1/2001; Scoblic 2008, pp. 171-172)
An Old Response to a New Threat - Author J. Peter Scoblic later calls Bush's rationale "disingenuous." He explains: "Conservatives had wanted to field missile defenses ever since the Soviet Union had developed ICBMs.… But somewhat paradoxically, following the collapse of the Soviet Union—and with it the likelihood of of a missile attack—conservative calls for missile defense increased" (see September 27, 1994). (Scoblic 2008, pp. 171-172) Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace calls Bush's proposal "tragically mistaken." (PBS 5/1/2001) Senator John Kerry (D-MA), an outspoken opponent of Bush's foreign policies, says: "This is essentially a satisfy-your-base, political announcement. It serves no other purpose." (Sanger 5/1/2001)
John Bolton, a neoconservative lawyer at the American Enterprise Institute, begins his term as the State Department's undersecretary for arms control and international security, heading the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA). Bolton, who like many other neoconservatives is ideologically opposed to the very idea of reducing the US's nuclear arsenal, enters his office in the State Department and places a memento on his coffee table: a hand grenade mounted on a small wooden base with a plaque reading "Truest Reaganaut" (see January 1981 and After). Bolton will lead the movement within the Bush administration to withdraw the US from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (see May 26, 1972 and December 13, 2001). (American Enterprise Institute 2005; Scoblic 2008, pp. 159-160)
At President Bush's first meeting with NATO heads of state in Brussels, Belgium, Bush outlines his five top defense issues. Missile defense is at the top of the list. Terrorism is not mentioned at all. This is consistent with his other statements before 9/11. Almost the only time he ever publicly mentions al-Qaeda or bin Laden before 9/11 is later in the month, in a letter that renews Clinton administration sanctions on the Taliban. (CNN 6/13/2001; Wright 4/1/2004) He only speaks publicly about the dangers of terrorism once before 9/11, in May, except for several mentions in the context of promoting a missile defense shield. (Gellman 1/20/2002)
The Shanghai Five (see 1996) becomes known as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and expands to include Uzbekistan. (BBC 6/11/2001) SCO member-states agree unanimously to take the organization to a "higher level" and expand its mission beyond the original objectives of resolving border disputes and dealing with Islamic separatists to include issues such as regional economic development, commerce, and investment. (Shanghai Cooperation [.org] 6/20/2005) Leaders of the organization's member-states say they hope the SCO will counterbalance US dominance of world affairs. According to Chinese President Jiang Zemin, the organization will foster "world multi-polarization" and contribute to the "establishment of a fair and reasonable international order." (Associated Press 6/15/2001) During their meeting in Shanghai, members sign a letter of support for the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty (see May 26, 1972), which the United States has said it wants to scrap to make way for a missile defense shield (see December 13, 2001). (BBC 6/15/2001) SCO members say the defense system will have a "negative impact on world security." (Associated Press 6/15/2001) One Russian official at the meeting says the 1972 ABM Treaty is the "cornerstone of global stability and disarmament." (BBC 6/15/2001) China and Russia also discuss collaborating on a joint program to develop a radar system capable of tracking US F-117A stealth fighter planes. (Lam 6/20/2001)
At a joint press conference in Genoa, Italy, US President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin discuss the necessity of maintaining the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (see May 26, 1972), a treaty from which Bush and many American conservatives wish to withdraw (see May 1, 2001 and June 2001). Putin says, "As far as the ABM Treaty and the issues of offensive arms, I've already said we've come to the conclusion that [the] two of these issues have to be discussed as a set… one and the other are very closely tied." Bush, who agrees with his administration's conservatives, counters that the two nations do not need such treaties because they have "a new relationship based on trust." Putin responds: "The world is far from having international relations that are built solely on trust, unfortunately. That's why it is so important today to rely on the existing foundation of treaties and agreements in the arms control and disarmament areas." Bush's Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, dismisses the idea that the Russians could distrust the US as "silly." (Scoblic 2008, pp. 175)
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice publicly joins the chorus of Bush administration officials demanding that the US withdraw from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (see May 26, 1972, May 1, 2001 and June 2001). Rice, an expert on the former Soviet Union, describes herself as a former "high priestess of arms control" who has changed her thinking. She says there is no longer a reason to discuss respective numbers of ballistic missiles held by the US and Russia, or, as she says, no further reason to debate "how many warheads could dance on the head of an SS-18." (McFeatters 7/16/2001; Scoblic 2008, pp. 184)
The rising demand for President Bush to make good on his stated intention to withdraw the United States from the 1972 ABM treaty with Russia (see May 26, 1972, August 3, 2000, May 1, 2001, and June 2001) alarms Yale law professor Bruce Ackerman. Ackerman, a constitutional law expert, writes that Bush lacks the authority to make such a decision. "Presidents don't have the power to enter into treaties unilaterally," he writes. "This requires the consent of two-thirds of the Senate, and once a treaty enters into force, the Constitution makes it part of the 'supreme law of the land'—just like a statute. Presidents can't terminate statutes they don't like. They must persuade both houses of Congress to join in a repeal. Should the termination of treaties operate any differently?" Ackerman cites several historical instances, the most recent in 1978, when then-President Carter pulled the US out of a treaty with Taiwan, and was challenged unsuccessfully in a lawsuit that was dismissed by the Supreme Court. "[T]he court did not endorse the doctrine of presidential unilateralism," Ackerman notes, but felt the issue should be resolved "by the executive and legislative branches." Congress should not allow Bush to withdraw from the treaty, Ackerman writes. "If President Bush is allowed to terminate the ABM treaty, what is to stop future presidents from unilaterally taking America out of NATO or the United Nations?" he asks. "The question is not whether such steps are wise, but how democratically they should be taken. America does not enter into treaties lightly. They are solemn commitments made after wide-ranging democratic debate. Unilateral action by the president does not measure up to this standard." Instead, he recommends: "Congress should proceed with a joint resolution declaring that Mr. Bush cannot terminate treaty obligations on his own. And if the president proceeds unilaterally, Congress should take further steps to defend its role in foreign policy." (Ackerman 8/29/2001; Savage 2007, pp. 140)
National Security Adviser Rice is scheduled to deliver a speech claiming to address "the threats and problems of today and the day after, not the world of yesterday." The speech is never given due to the 9/11 attacks earlier in the day, but the text is later leaked to the media. The Washington Post calls the speech "telling Insight into the administration's thinking" because it promotes missile defense and contains no mention of al-Qaeda, bin Laden, or Islamic extremist groups. The only mention of terrorism is in the context of the danger of rogue nations such as Iraq. In fact, there are almost no public mentions of bin Laden or al-Qaeda by Bush or other top Bush administration officials before 9/11, and the focus instead is on missile defense. (Wright 4/1/2004; unknown 4/1/2004)
Nine Republican senators, led by conservatives Jesse Helms (R-NC), Trent Lott (R-MS), and Jon Kyl (R-AZ), send a letter to President Bush urging him to withdraw from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (see May 26, 1972, May 1, 2001, and June 2001). They explain their position by arguing that the ABM Treaty has become "the most significant obstacle to improved relations between the United States and Russia." This argument is a complete reversal of conservatives' earlier positions: that arms control agreements such as the ABM Treaty did nothing to stabilize relations between the US and its nuclear-armed opponents. The argument also flies in the face of public and private statements by Russian leaders, who consider the treaty one of the key elements of stable US-Russian relations. Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly stressed the importance of the treaty in maintaining nuclear parity between the two nations (see July 2001), even as Russia seeks to reduce its nuclear arsenal from 6,000 to 1,500 deployed missiles. In 2008, author J. Peter Scoblic will speculate as to why conservatives wish to withdraw from the treaty: "For isolationists, missile defense renewed the dream of Fortress America, allowing us to retreat even further from crises abroad. For nationalists and moralists, missile defense was a shield against engagement and detente in the event that, say, North Korea was to develop a nuclear-armed ICBM (see August 31, 1998). For neoconservatives, missile defense was a necessary adjunct to their proactive vision of changing regimes and democratizing the world" (see March 12, 2001). (Scoblic 2008, pp. 174-176)
John Yoo and Robert Delahunty of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) write a classified memo to John Bellinger, the senior legal counsel to the National Security Council. Yoo and Delahunty claim that President Bush has the unilateral authority to "suspend certain articles" of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty between the US and Russia (see May 26, 1972). Six months later, President Bush will withdraw the US from the treaty (see December 13, 2001). (US Department of Justice 11/15/2001 ; American Civil Liberties Union [PDF] 1/28/2009 ) The memo will not be released until two months after the Bush administration leaves the White House (see March 2, 2009).
President Bush announces that the US is unilaterally withdrawing from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty (see May 26, 1972). The treaty, negotiated with the former Soviet Union in 1972, sets strict limitations on missile and missile defense developments by both Russia and the US. After the six-month withdrawal period is concluded in mid-2002, the US will begin developing an anti-missile defense system, an outgrowth and extension of the old "Star Wars" system (see March 23, 1983). Bush tells reporters: "Today I am giving formal notice to Russia that the United States of America is withdrawing from this almost 30-year-old treaty.… I have concluded the ABM treaty hinders our government's ability to develop ways to protect our people from future terrorist or rogue state missile attacks." Bush explains: "The 1972 ABM treaty was signed by the United States and the Soviet Union at a much different time, in a vastly different world. One of the signatories, the Soviet Union, no longer exists and neither does the hostility that once led both our countries to keep thousands of nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert, pointed at each other.… Today, as the events of September 11 made all too clear, the greatest threats to both our countries come not from each other, or from other big powers in the world, but from terrorists who strike without warning or rogue states who seek weapons of mass destruction." Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld calls the treaty "outdated." (White House 12/13/2001; CNN 12/14/2001)
Follows Failure to Persuade Russia to Drop Treaty - The decision follows months of talks in which Bush officials attempted without success to persuade Russia to set the treaty aside and negotiate a new one more favorable to US interests. Bush says that he and Russian President Vladimir Putin "have also agreed that my decision to withdraw from the treaty will not in any way undermine our new relationship or Russian security." Putin calls Bush's decision a "mistake," and says the two nations should move quickly to create a "new framework of our strategic relationship." Putin says on Russian television that the US decision "presents no threat to the security of the Russian Federation." He also says that the US and Russia should decrease their present stockpiles of nuclear weapons. He wants what he calls "radical, non-reversible and verifiable reductions in offensive weapons"; in turn, the Bush administration is against any sort of legally binding agreements. Putin says, "Today, when the world has been faced with new threats, one cannot allow a legal vacuum in the sphere of strategic stability." (CNN 12/14/2001; CNN 12/14/2001)
'Abdication of Responsibility' - Senate Democrats (see December 13-14, 2001) and non-proliferation experts (see December 13, 2001) strongly question the decision to withdraw. Singapore's New Straits Times writes: "History will one day judge the US decision to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in the same way it views the US failure in 1919 to join the League of Nations—as an abdication of responsibility, a betrayal of humankind's best hopes, an act of folly. By announcing the decision now, in the midst of a war on terrorism that commands worldwide support, the Bush administration has also displayed a cynicism that will adversely affect the mood of cooperation that has characterized international relations since September 11." (Carter 2004, pp. 272-273) Sweden's foreign ministry warns of possibly "serious consequences for the future of international disarmament." (BBC 12/13/2001)
Seizure of Presidential Power - Regardless of the wisdom of withdrawing from the treaty, Bush's decision has another effect that is subjected to far less public scrutiny: by unilaterally withdrawing the US from the treaty on his own authority, Bush, in the words of author Charlie Savage, "seized for the presidency the power to pull the United States out of any treaty without obtaining the consent of Congress." Savage, writing in 2007, will note that the Constitution does not provide a clear method of withdrawing the US from an international treaty. However, he will write, judging from the fact that the US Senate must vote to ratify a treaty before it becomes binding, it can be inferred that the Founders intended for the legislature, not the executive branch, to have the power to pull out of a treaty. In Volume 70 of the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton wrote that treaties are far too important to entrust to the decision of one person who will be in office for as few as four years. Hamilton wrote, "The history of human conduct does not warrant that exalted opinion of human virtue which would make it wise in a nation to commit interests of so delicate and momentous a kind, as those which concern its intercourse with the rest of the world, to the sole disposal of a magistrate created and circumstanced as would be a president of the United States." (Savage 2007, pp. 140)
The Heritage Foundation sponsors a celebration of the US's impending withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (see May 26, 1972 and June 14, 2002). The invitation reads: "ABM: RIP. For 30 years, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty has served to bolster the policy of mutually assured destruction (MAD) and impose crippling restrictions on the nation's missile defense programs (see March 23, 1983). President Bush, recognizing the inappropriateness of MAD and the policy of vulnerability to missile attack, announced on December 13, 2001 (see December 13, 2001) that the United States is withdrawing from the treaty." Several hundred conservatives, including senators, House representatives, generals, policy makers, and academics, gather in the caucus room of the Russell Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill, taking part in what one participant calls "a cheerful wake for a flawed treaty." Author J. Peter Scoblic will write: "The mood was, not surprisingly, buoyant, for 'flawed' was really too mild a description for the loathing the assembled crowd felt for the agreement. To the right wing, the ABM Treaty had symbolized everything that was wrong with American foreign policy during the Cold War: negotiating with evil, fearing nuclear war instead of preparing to win it (see Spring 1982 and January 17, 1983), and abandoning faith in American exceptionalism and divine superiority." (Scoblic 2008, pp. 157)
A day after the US's unilateral withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty goes into effect (see May 26, 1972 and December 13, 2001), Russia announces that it will no longer abide by the terms of the 1993 START II missile reduction treaty. (Federation of American Scientists 1/15/2008; Federation of American Scientists 1/15/2008)
The Observer's Ed Vulliamy writes: "One year on, the United States is more isolated and more regarded as a pariah than at any time since Vietnam, possibly ever. The bookends of that year are headlines in the French newspaper Le Monde. On 12 September 2001 it declared: 'Now We Are All Americans.' But last month, in Le Monde Diplomatique: 'Washington Dismantles the International Architecture'; a reflection on a year of treaties broken or ignored (see March 7, 2001, March 27, 2001, July 9, 2001, July 23-25, 2001, November 19, 2001-December 7, 2001, December 13, 2001, December 31, 2001, August 28, 2002, and September 20, 2002), and a brazen assertion of the arrogance of power." (Vuillamy 8/18/2002)
Jay Bybee, the head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), is stepping down to become a federal judge (see February 5, 2003). White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and Vice President Cheney's lawyer, David Addington, want OLC lawyer John Yoo to take Bybee's place. But Attorney General John Ashcroft, miffed at Yoo's bureaucratic maneuvers to give the White House a direct connection into the department and cut Ashcroft out of the loop, refuses. Yoo resigns in the summer of 2003 and resumes his position as a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley. Instead, Ashcroft and the White House will choose Jack Goldsmith to head the OLC (see October 6, 2003). Goldsmith seems a perfect replacement for Yoo—the two had coauthored one Wall Street Journal op-ed that claimed treaties were not binding on the US, and another Journal op-ed claiming that President Bush had the right to unilaterally withdraw the US from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (see May 26, 1972). Goldsmith was also a supporter of the administration's military commissions program, noting that the need for "swift justice" was transcendant. (Savage 2007, pp. 182)
Author and professor of politics Stephen Zunes writes a lengthy, point-by-point rebuttal to President George Bush's February 28 speech, in which Bush claimed that overthrowing Saddam Hussein will bring peace and democracy to the Middle East (see February 26, 2003). Zunes calls the speech "sanctimonious and highly misleading," and decries the fact that while it received plenty of media attention, it garnered little critical response in the press.
No Proof of Iraqi WMD Nor Terrorist Ties - Zunes notes that Bush offered no proof of Iraqi WMD, nor how, if Iraq indeed has such weapons, it could dominate the Middle East, as Bush said. And, if Bush knows where the Iraqi WMD are, Zunes asks, why hasn't he told the United Nations Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), "which has a mandate to destroy them?" Neither has Bush submitted any evidence of Iraq's ties to terrorist organizations.
Food, Medicine Shortages Due to US-Led Sanctions - Bush's sympathy towards the privations and misery of the Iraqi people are undermined, Zunes writes, by the fact that "[t]he scarcity of basic food and medicines are a direct result of the US-led sanctions against Iraq." He calls Bush's promises of assistance "woefully inadequate."
US Has Long Record of Exerting Control over Middle Eastern Oil - Bush's reassurances that Iraq's oil will be used to benefit its people are hard to swallow, Zunes says, given the US's long record of exerting its own control over Middle Eastern oil reserves (see August 19, 1953).
Comparison between Iraq, World War II Axis Historically Invalid - Zunes finds Bush's comparison of Iraq to World War II-era Japan and Germany completely without historical basis.
Unlikely Overthrow Will Bring Peaceful Palestinian Autonomy - He finds no more validity in Bush's assertion that overthrowing Hussein will lead to peaceful Palestinian autonomy, noting that as long as the US supports Israel's harsh policies against the Palestinians, peace and autonomy are unlikely outcomes, and also noting that Bush blocked the publication of the "road map for peace" brokered by the US, the UN, Russia, and the European Union for fear that it might lead to the election loss of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
Bush's Concern for UN, International Relations Hard to Believe - And Zunes will not be convinced of Bush's internationalist leanings, given his administration's penchant for sabotaging, ignoring, and breaking international treaties (see March 7, 2001, March 27, 2001, July 9, 2001, July 23-25, 2001, November 19, 2001-December 7, 2001, December 13, 2001, December 31, 2001, August 28, 2002, and September 20, 2002). As for the UN "fulfill[ing] its founding purpose" by accepting the resolution for war, Zunes will note, "The founding purpose of the UN Security Council is to protect international peace and security, not to legitimize the invasion of one country by another." If people around the world are truly interested in freedom, Zunes will conclude, they "must work even harder to stop President Bush from invading Iraq." (Zunes 3/8/2003)
Warren Bass, the 9/11 Commission staffer allocated to review National Security Council documentation, comes to favor an account of events in the Bush administration given by former counterterrorism "tsar" Richard Clarke over one given by National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. Clarke has claimed that the administration did not take the risk of an al-Qaeda attack seriously enough in the summer of 2001, whereas Rice claims the administration did everything it could to prevent one.
Documentation, Speeches, Briefings - Bass comes to this judgment partly because of the small amount of Rice's e-mails and internal memos about terrorism from the spring and summer of 2001: there is, in author Philip Shenon's words, "almost nothing to read." In addition, she made very few references to terrorism in speeches and public appearances. For example, a speech she was to give on 9/11 itself about national security contained only a passing reference to terrorism (see September 11, 2001). On the contrary, Clarke left a pile of documents and a "rich narrative" of events at the White House concerning al-Qaeda, including warnings about an upcoming catastrophic terrorist attack in the summer of 2001. Bass also sees that Clarke was not allowed to brief President Bush on al-Qaeda before 9/11, whereas he repeatedly talked to President Bill Clinton about it.
Memo Warned of Attacks One Week before 9/11 - He is especially astounded to find a memo dated September 4, 2001 warning of a forthcoming attack by Osama bin Laden (see September 4, 2001). However, when he shows this to his team leader, Michael Hurley, they both realize it may be difficult to get this memo included in the commission's report due to expected opposition from 9/11 Commission Executive Director Philip Zelikow, who the staff suspects is biased towards Rice (see January 3, 2001, Before December 18, 2003, May-June 2004 and February 28, 2005). (Shenon 2008, pp. 146-149)
Memo Called a "Jeremiad" - The September 4 memo is mentioned in the commission's final report, but is followed by a comment from Rice saying she saw it as a warning "not to get dragged down by bureaucratic inertia." The report then calls the memo a "jeremiad" (a prolonged lamentation) and attributes it to Clarke's inability "to persuade [the CIA and Pentagon] to adopt his views, or to persuade his superiors to set an agenda of the sort he wanted or that the whole government could support." (Shenon 2008, pp. 212-213)
The 2005 NPT Review Conference, held once every five years to review and extend the implementation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (see July 1, 1968), is an unusually contentious affair, and the US is at the center of the imbroglio. After the 2000 NPT Review Conference (see Late May, 2000), the US, under George W. Bush, refused to join in calls to implement the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT—see September 10, 1996). The US's recalcitrance is, if anything, magnified five years later. Many representatives of the NPT signatories focus their ire upon the US, even though two signatories, Iran and North Korea, are, in author J. Peter Scoblic's words, "violating either the spirit or the letter of the treaty" in developing their own nuclear weapons. Other nations send their foreign ministers to the conference, and in turn the US could have been expected to send Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. (In 1995 and 2000, the US had sent, respectively, Vice President Al Gore and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to represent the US.) Instead, the US sends State Department functionary Stephen Rademaker. Not only is Rademaker's lesser rank a studied insult to the conference, Rademaker himself is an ardent conservative and a protege of arms control opponent John Bolton. Rademaker enters the conference prepared to use the forum to browbeat Iran and North Korea; instead, he finds himself defending the US's intransigence regarding the CTBT. The New Agenda Coalition, made up of Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, South Africa, Sweden, and New Zealand—all allies of the US—focuses on "the troubling development that some nuclear-weapon states are researching or even planning to develop new or significantly modify existing warheads," a Bush administration priority (see May 1, 2001 and December 13, 2001). "These actions have the potential to create the conditions for a new nuclear arms race." Even Japan, usually a solid US ally, says that all nuclear-armed states should take "further steps toward nuclear disarmament." Canada, the closest of US allies both in policy and geography, is more blunt, with its representative saying, "If governments simply ignore or discard commitments whenever they prove inconvenient, we will never build an edifice of international cooperation and confidence in the security realm." And outside the conference, former British Foreign Minister Robin Cook lambasts the US in an op-ed entitled "America's Broken Unclear Promises Endanger Us All," blasting the Bush administration for its belief that "obligations under the nonproliferation treaty are mandatory for other nations and voluntary for the US." For his part, Rademaker says just before the conference, "We are not approaching this review conference from the cynical perspective of, we are going to toss a few crumbs to the rest of the world, and, by doing that, try to buy goodwill or bribe countries into agreeing to the agenda that we think they should focus on rather than some other agenda." In 2008, Scoblic will interpret Rademaker's statement: "In other words, the administration was not going to engage in diplomacy even if it would encourage other states to see things our way—which only meant that it was quite certain they never would." (United Nations 5/2005; Scoblic 2008, pp. 277-280)
White House officials give the press a broad outline of President Obama's ambitious arms-control agenda. Obama's plan calls for dramatic cuts in both US and Russian nuclear arsenals, an end to a Bush administration plan for a more advanced nuclear warhead, the ratification of a global treaty banning underground nuclear testing, and a worldwide ban on the production of nuclear weapons material. The long-term goal, officials say, is "a world without nuclear weapons" in which the US leads by example. Obama's plans are striking departures from the Bush administration agenda, which had little use for arms-control treaties (see May 24, 2002 and Late May 2005) and pulled out entirely from the anti-ballistic missile treaty with Russia (see December 13, 2001). Obama has said his plans are based in part on the work of the bipartisan Nuclear Security Project, headed by former Democratic Senator Sam Nunn, former Clinton administration Defense Secretary William Perry, and former Republican Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Shultz.
Criticism - Some conservative organizations and members of the national security community warn that Obama's proposals could weaken US security. Henry Sokolski, a member of the bipartisan US Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism and an advocate of limited arms reduction, says: "This brave new, nuclear world may be anything but peaceful. As the qualitative and quantitative differences between nuclear weapons states become smaller, rivalries are likely to become much more dangerous." The Heritage Foundation's Baker Strang says of the Obama administration: "The problem is that they are betting the physical survival of the US on nothing more than the hope that other nuclear-armed states and any states or non-state actors that join the nuclear club will follow suit by disarming. This gamble involves the highest possible stakes and has an exceedingly low likelihood of success." And neoconservative Frank Gaffney, a Defense Department official during the Reagan administration and president of the Center for Security Policy, says, "Every other declared nuclear weapon state is modernizing its stockpile and the most dangerous wannabes—North Korea and Iran—are building up their offensive missile capabilities and acquiring as quickly as possible the arms to go atop them." Obama may also face opposition from within his Cabinet; Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a Republican holdover from the Bush administration, wants to implement the Reliable Replacement Warhead program (see January 26, 2009), a nuclear warhead replacement program that Obama opposes.
Support - Obama's plan has strong support among Congressional Democrats: Representative Ellen Tauscher (D-CA), who heads the House subcommittee overseeing US nuclear forces, says that reducing US and Russian arsenals, negotiating a treaty to end production of new nuclear weapons material, and ratifying the test ban pact "are all achievable goals. The debate is at a point where it is a question about when we achieve these goals, not if," she says. Ultimately, achieving Obama's goals will be difficult, says nonproliferation expert Joseph Cirincione. "It is going to require a herculean effort," he says. "It is completely doable, but it will require the sustained attention of the president himself." (Bender 2/22/2009)
Home | About | Timelines | Forum | Development | Donate | Contact
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
Except where otherwise noted, the textual content of each timeline is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike


text:
Samsung has released ChatOn for the iPhone, a messaging app aimed to compete with the likes of iMessage and WhatsApp (TMA Review). First released for Android phones several months ago, this multiplatform chat client supports group chat and more.
ChatON brings together all of these methods of communication, expression, and sharing in one place.
1) ChatON supports multi platforms and devices. Users can chat freely through ChatON.
– Currently, ChatON supports iOS, Android, Bada, Samsung Feature and will support Blackberry, Window mobile, web soon.
2) 1:1 Chat, Group Chat, Broadcast, Drawing Message, Picture, Video, Voice, Location, Contact, Calendar.
3) Using ChatON, create your own unique drawing message by hand drawing etc.
4) ChatON provides group management feature for easy group chat
5) ChatON provides Interaction rank which informs you how often you chat with your buddies.
6) For every chat room, you can easily see all sent images and videos in a Trunk.
If you feel there's room for yet another chat app on your iPhone, ChatON is free to download and reviews on iTunes have generally been favorable. Check out the video demo after the break.
 Samsung, ChatON, – Free


text:
Oh please...
There will always be projects that are left out. I can't understand why such a great initiative is used for another round of Google-bashing. Google is spending loads of cash to help open source projects, and still some people have to protest.
There are plenty of FAQs that explain the rules, and of course you need to present your project well for Google to accept it.
In any case, the rockbox project (www.rockbox.org) was happy with the results from last year and is looking forward to the goodies we'll get this year.
Peter (gsoc mentor for rockbox)


text: BTB always has been and always will remain in the herd until improved cattle testing is used on the farm. It is available and must be used now. The current test is cruel to farmers, cattle, badgers and the public. We cannot get on top of a disease when we cannot test for it reliably. #WakeupDefra


text:
Last Updated:07/06/2020
- Search |
- Help |
- FAQs |
- Disclaimer |
- En español
Close popup windowX
Ancillary Providers and Your Network Benefits
|As a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas member, you have access to a large network of providers. To help ensure that you get the highest level of benefits when getting care from certain types of providers, please keep the following things in mind.
Independent Clinical Laboratories
If you are receiving laboratory work at your provider's office, there may be separate charges for this work. One charge may be made by your provider's office for collecting a sample (for example, a blood sample), and another charge from the laboratory for the actual testing and analysis of the sample.
To avoid any out-of-network charges for the laboratory work, ask your doctor about the laboratory he or she uses so that you can verify that the laboratory is in your network.
Due to the number of specialties that fall under "independent laboratory services," you may want to search for these specialties when checking on the network status of a particular laboratory:
Durable and Home Medical Equipment (DME) Suppliers
If you use durable medical equipment (DME) in your home, please note that we determine whether a DME provider is in network based on the state where the purchase was made, not the state the provider is in. For example, if you live in Texas and purchase equipment via mail order from a supplier in Florida, you need to make sure that the provider is in network for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas. If you shop in person at a retail store in Louisiana, check that the provider is in network for Louisiana.
DME providers may also be included under "pharmacy/DME supplier."
Specialty Pharmacies
If you receive specialty pharmacy drugs (for non-routine, biological therapeutics that generally includes injectables and infusion therapies, high-cost therapies and therapies that require complex care) at your provider's office or through the mail, be sure to check the pharmacy's network status. In this case, network status is determined not by your location or the location of the pharmacy, but by the location of the ordering physician (usually your doctor).
Specialty pharmacies may also be included under "pharmacist" or "pharmacy/DME supplier."
If you have any questions or want to confirm whether a provider meets these network criteria, please call Customer Service at the number on the back of your member ID card.
If you are using a screen reader, you may want to call 1-855-710-6984 (TTY/TDD: 711) to simplify your provider search.


text:
Sixteen years after the smash romantic comedy "The Wedding Singer" charmed moviegoers, the film's stars and director are blending seamlessly once again in three-part harmony.
The stars, of course, are Adam Sandler and Drew Barrymore, who have reunited with director Frank Coraci for the family comedy "Blended." In a recent interview, Coraci, who went on to direct Sandler in "The Waterboy" and "Click" after "The Wedding Singer," said he was thrilled to finally get both Sandler and Barrymore together in one film again because the three click so well.
"It was such of a great feeling. We stayed friends over the years, but sometimes you don't see each other as much as you'd like to," Coraci said. "It was not only a great chance to all hang out again, but do what we do well when we're all together."
Opening in theaters nationwide Friday, "Blended" stars Sandler and Barrymore as Jim and Lauren, a pair of single parents who briefly meet on a disastrous blind date, only to be serendipitously thrown together with their kids on a vacation at an African resort.
Coraci said the timing of "Blended" couldn't have been any more perfect, because Sandler and Barrymore, who ended "The Wedding Singer" as a new couple, have each grown into important phases in their personal lives.
"Adam and Drew both have kids, so it really helped the storyline in every way because they understand what it's like to be parents," Coraci said.
Naturally, there are some romantic sparks that fly between Sandler and Barrymore in "Blended," but the movie also addresses how important it is for parents to put their kids first in their personal lives.
"The movie does not fall into the typical cliches of a romantic comedy. They don't fall in love over the typical things you see in movies, they fall in love because each realizes how great the other one is as a parent," Coraci said. "They really need each other because Drew's character has two boys and they really need a father figure, and Adam's character has three girls. But when you see the way the girls dress and have bad haircuts, yet are trying to grow up into women, they need some guidance and Drew is a great person they need in their lives."
Coraci said for the preview audience members who have seen the movie already, the "kids first" narrative has resonated the most.
"That's the core that people really love the most, that it was a whole different way for two people to appreciate and fall in love with each other," Coraci said.
While the chemistry between Barrymore and Sandler was instant, Coraci said what really added to the magic of the production was the fact that the cast and crew filmed the bulk of the movie on location in South Africa.
"We were all there together and it really felt like we were a family. We'd doing things on the weekends like go on safaris with the kids. It was great," Coraci said. "There was something really special about being on location there. Africa has such an amazing rawness as a backdrop. There's not only the nature, but a spiritual thing there. We put a lot of great African music in the movie. We really went beyond the next level of what we did in 'The Wedding Singer.'"
Fans of "The Wedding Singer," Coraci added, will notice a big change in the dynamic between Sandler and Barrymore, and the director couldn't be any more thrilled about it.
"For Drew, I have to say, when we did 'The Wedding Singer,' comedy was a newer thing to her," Coraci recalled. "But with 'Blended,' she is the total champ. The comedy stuff she does in this is unbelievable. She does a lot of the heavy lifting with the physical comedy. It's so great to see her and Adam together because they know each other so well. There's a confidence and fearlessness between them when they're together. There's a section of the movie where they don't like each other so they get to make fun of each other, and because they're such good friends they were really able to go for it."
The release of "Blended" comes on the heels of the debut of Coraci's new Travel Channel series "Chow Masters." Each week on the show, which airs Tuesday nights, the director and his longtime friend/celebrity chef Sammy D. pit three chefs in different cities across the U.S. to come up with the tastiest and most creatively cooked comfort foods.
In Tuesday night's episode, which travels to Los Angeles, the production promises Coraci and Sammy D. will chow down with a "major Hollywood superstar" and "another celebrity pal."
Could it be that Sandler and Barrymore are the ones who will be added to the "Chow Masters" mix? Coraci is tight-lipped about that idea and any other celebrity appearances planned for the show, but the prospect for some delicious cameos are certainly looking good.
Tim Lammers is a nationally syndicated movie journalist and the author of the new ebook Direct Conversations: The Animated Films of Tim Burton (Foreword by Tim Burton).