Text 2713, 596 rader
Skriven 2006-05-25 23:33:24 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (0605254) for Thu, 2006 May 25
====================================================
===========================================================================
Press Briefing by Tony Snow
===========================================================================

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
May 25, 2006

Press Briefing by Tony Snow
James S. Brady Briefing Room



12:31 P.M. EDT

MR. SNOW: All right, nothing new. No announcements. Let's go to questions.
Jennifer.

Q Thanks, Tony. If we could just try this again on the Blair visit today.
Maliki has said that he thinks his forces will be in control by the end of
the year --

MR. SNOW: By the end of next year, 2007.

Q By the end of next year, pardon me. You have said, obviously, that
there's not going to be any announcement of a hard timetable, specific time
frame for American troops to withdraw. But are they going to try to lay out
conditions, not attaching maybe time frames to it, or specific numbers, or
as you said earlier, divisions, but what does the President and Prime
Minister Blair, what do they want to say to the American people tonight?

MR. SNOW: They'll answer whatever questions you have to say. Again, I think
it's worth pointing out, because there's been a perception that maybe
things aren't moving in Iraq -- that's different. I mean, you've got a new
government. That is a significant development. And you've got a new Prime
Minister. Prime Minister Blair had a chance to meet with Prime Minister
Maliki on Monday. And I don't think it's inconsequential for the two of
them to sit down and take the measure of the man and the government. After
all, everything that we do now relies in large part on the ability of that
government to be able to secure -- to provide security within its borders,
to provide an effective government that will preserve the rights and
freedoms of individuals living there. It depends on its ability to be a
reliable and forward-leaning ally in the war on terror. I mean, all of
those things.

And I know there's a real desire to think that these guys are going to sit
around almost like with a chess board, figuring out how all the pieces are
going to move. Right now the most important thing to do is to take the
measure of the new government and figure out -- to figure out what they
think is going to be feasible. I am sure that they'll talk about a whole
range of options, and you can ask them at 7:30 p.m. exactly what they are,
but I can guarantee you, you're not going to hear we're going to pull
10,000 out here, or 5,000 -- you're just not going to get hard numbers. And
you're not going to get hard dates, because, as always, these decisions
rely on the actual conditions on the ground. It doesn't matter what anybody
can say in terms of blue sky. You got to figure out whether it's possible.

Go ahead. Do you want to get a follow-up?

Q I do. The formation of the government obviously is not inconsequential,
as you said, but what do they want to say about that that's different, that
is going to be reassuring to the American people?

MR. SNOW: I think what's going to be reassuring to the American people is
we have talked for some time now about some fairly miraculous developments
in Iraq, where people have gone a couple of times, under threats of
violence from al Qaeda and others, and they've dipped their finger in the
purple ink, they've gone and made their votes. Now they have an elected
government. That elected government has an elected head, and that is
somebody with whom we can deal. So all of the -- we're not talking about
coalition provisional authorities, we're talking about an Iraqi government.

This is the one thing that we've said we've been working for from the
start. And I think that's a hugely important milestone, and you've got to
look at this as a new beginning and a new opportunity, because there's now
somebody to deal with. And I think that's hugely important, and I think
whatever personal observations they may have about the Prime Minister or
about the government, I think those are going to be interesting and
important for the American people.

Kelly.

Q The President has so many times said it's dangerous to set a timetable
because it sends the wrong signal to the enemy. Why, then, is it okay for
this new Iraqi leader to say, by the end of 2007, that's our goal? Does the
President think that's prudent to lay that --

MR. SNOW: I honestly don't think the President has had any comment on it.
Again, the President is not going to tell the Prime Minister what to say.
The Prime Minister is an elected official. He can say whatever he wants.
The President also has been clear the conditions on the ground will affect
whatever decisions we make.

Again, to remove troops prematurely would not only place Iraqis at risk, it
would place our own forces at risk. So we want to make sure that we keep
forces on the ground only as long as necessary. Again, I'll repeat the
clich one more time: they stand up, we stand down. And as the Iraqis become
more capable to assume the lead combat roles and take over primary combat
responsibilities, then things obviously are going to change, but we're
going to have to wait to see when that actually happens.

Q So you seem to be lowering expectations in terms of specific
announcements.

MR. SNOW: I think I'm lowering your expectations. I've tried never to
create those expectations.

Q But nobody, in your words, is going to be "kissing in Times Square
tomorrow."

MR. SNOW: Right.

Q I understand that. But if you have --

MR. SNOW: Well, there may be people kissing in Times Square for different
reasons. (Laughter.)

Q If you have --

MR. SNOW: I said, "kissing," Lester. (Laughter.)

Q If you have secure transatlantic phone lines, I'm still unclear why this
needs to be a face-to-face, in-person briefing, unless it's sort of the
ceremonial hitting of the reset button. I mean, is that what tonight is?

MR. SNOW: No. There are going to be times -- let me stress again. This is
hugely important. You've got an elected government and you've got an
elected head of government. He started work last Saturday, he had his first
meeting with the Prime Minister on Monday. I suppose you could do some
things with a phone conversation, but I think in a lot of this -- what the
President -- I mean, I've seen the President when he talks about these
things. He's intensely practical, and he's going to want to talk
face-to-face. These sometimes are conversations that are best had with the
two guys sitting in the room asking the questions, reacting to one another,
and I think it's probably a much more efficient and effective way to
transmit knowledge and information and perceptions than just sort of
picking up the phone.

Q Does it have anything to do with both men having very low poll numbers --

MR. SNOW: No, and I know everybody has been trying to read this a political
play on poll numbers. No, it has to do with the fact that you've got a new
elected head of state in Iraq, and I really do think it not only changes
the realities on the ground, it changes the way in which we're going to
approach it, because, to repeat, we've got somebody with whom we can deal
now. We've got an elected official who is going to be there.

Martha.

Q You've said that the Prime Minister -- in regards to the troops, the
Iraqi troops taking the lead in 2007 -- that the Prime Minister can say
anything he wants. Are you saying that you don't necessarily agree with
that?

MR. SNOW: I'm not saying I agree or disagree.

Q Whatever he says, is, we're still just looking at conditions?

MR. SNOW: I was responding to Kelly's question about the fact that the
President has said if -- and he's talking about American troops -- if you
set timetables, you send signals to the enemy. I think, if anything, what
Prime Minister Maliki is trying to -- if he's trying to send a signal, it's
this: he's serious, he's going to fight the bad guys, and he's serious
about taking command in Iraq. I don't think -- I'm not going to draw
judgments on whether he can or can't make it, because as I've said before,
any of these judgments depend on what happens on the ground.

Q But back to Kelly's question, then, again -- is he sending a signal to
the enemy by saying he believes the Iraqi troops can be in the lead by
2007?

MR. SNOW: Well, I think that the signal he's sending is that he means
business.

Q Can you also -- when we talk about the U.S. moving to more of a support
role -- and you've said this in the past -- what do you mean, exactly, by
that?

MR. SNOW: It means, taking people out of lead combat positions and doing --
you can refer back to Prime Minister Maliki's remarks over the weekend,
where he talked about going back and doing more of the support -- and I
don't want to lay out each and every thing, because you know more about
that stuff than I do, but you know what a support role is.

Q But let's clarify what you mean by it. Do you mean pulling back out of
the major cities, being more of a rapid reaction force?

MR. SNOW: It could be any of those. I would refer -- literally, I'm going
to refer military questions to General Casey and General Abizaid and people
who have operational responsibility. It would be irresponsible for me to go
beyond where I've gone.

Q Talk about the Iran piece of this for a second. Are they going to have a
discussion about the incentives that are being offered to Iran, and ways to
entice them into this?

MR. SNOW: I'm sure they are. They're certainly going to talk about the EU3,
and also other extended conversations with the Russians, the Chinese,
trying to draw them into it, as well. The Prime Minister, I think, has said
that -- earlier today, that -- I don't want to paraphrase, but essentially
he didn't want a showdown with Iran, he wants to find a diplomatic path to
this. And I think the United States does, as well. We want to find a
diplomatic way to ensure that Iran suspend all enrichment and reprocessing
of uranium. We also have concerns about human rights and democracy. The
Secretary of State was very strong about that.

So yes, they're going to try to figure out how to get the job done, and to
try to do it through diplomatic means.

Carl.

Q Some have suggested that the letter from the President of Iran and that
his remarks last weekend saying he wanted to talk with the Bush
administration represents a sea change for the Islamic Republic that has
ignored the United States and called it the "Great Satan" for the last
three decades. What's the President's response to those critics who say
he's missing an opportunity here to talk to people who up until now have
just been antagonistic and not willing to talk?

MR. SNOW: Well, a couple of things. First, if anything, what that letter
and the subsequent stories about trying to reach out through secondary
channels indicates is the pressure is working, that the President's
diplomatic strategy is working. The President also is continuing to work
through diplomatic channels. Look, we don't have formal diplomatic ties
with Iran. The President has worked through appropriate international
forums; he's going to continue to do that. The message is clear: There are
certain things that Iran has to do, period. And that's the American
position, that hasn't changed.

Q In the past, it's been said that their behavior has raised questions of
trust. Are these overtures dismissed as parlor games and stalling tactics
or does the administration take them with even a modicum of seriousness?

MR. SNOW: Well, I'm not going to go behind the scenes and tell you how
people are interpreting this. This is a private communication between
Ahmadinejad and the President, and he tends not to talk about private
letters, even those that have been leaked to the global press. I'm just not
going to -- I'm not going to push any further forward yet.

Q Tony, we're told that White House aides are involved in some sort of
negotiations over Congressman Jefferson's documents, negotiating with House
leaders about maybe giving these documents to the House Ethics Committee or
some other body while the legal and constitutional questions are worked
out. Can you tell us how those talks are going --

MR. SNOW: What I'll tell you is to stay tuned. You've got a shifting
situation where, just to repeat what I've said all along, this White House
is interested in maintaining and recognizing the constitutional concerns of
members of Congress and the law enforcement obligations of the executive
branch.

Q Has the President been personally involved in that because of Speaker
Hastert going to him and talking about it?

MR. SNOW: I'm not going to give you any behind the scenes tick-tock right
now. As I said, just stay tuned.

Q Okay, one other quick thing. Speaker Hastert gave a radio interview to
WGN where he said this ABC news story last night about him possibly being
investigated by the Justice Department was an attempt to "intimidate him,"
and that he won't be intimidated, basically. There are suggestions --

MR. SNOW: That's his interpretation. I'd refer you back to the Department
of Justice, and I talked to him last night. They said, this simply didn't
happen. And so, I don't know --

Q False information can be leaked to intimidate someone, as well, whether
it's true or not --

MR. SNOW: Any official in a position of responsibility -- the Department of
Justice said it's just not true, and that they're not leaking -- that
they're not leaking information to try to undermine the House Speaker. Just
false, false, false. I got pretty categorical denials, but for further
information, it's probably smarter, again, to refer you back to them
because they can answer any follow ups and try to answer any suspicion,
skepticism, or question.

Q Final thing. Is the President at all, though -- all of these issues on
the table, concerned about his relationship with the Republican Speaker of
the House deteriorating because he seemed to be fighting on all these
issues? He's concerned about whether the President's Justice Department is
intimidating him. Whether any of that is true or not, there is -- seems to
be a palpable battle here between the Speaker --

MR. SNOW: As far as I can tell, the Speaker, today, didn't call out the
President. He was talking about officials at the Department of Justice. And
again, I'm telling, as far as I know, it's a bogus story. But the one thing
I haven't heard -- and I've seen the Speaker twice this week. I have not --
and I've seen him interact with the President. I have not seen him getting
angry at the President.

Q Has the White House made any progress on helping the veterans on this
theft situation? With Memorial Day coming, I just wondered if there will be
any special statement from the President?

MR. SNOW: Well, what's interesting is, the assumption of the question,
Connie, is that there is harm done. We don't know. We're proceeding with an
abundance of caution. We are letting everybody know not merely that a theft
occurred, but we've given out numbers for a hotline. Let me just flip
through my thing here, because it's probably worth reminding people, once
again, what the hotline number is, and also the website. First, the
website: www.firstgov.gov. First -- f-i-r-s-t.gov. Firstgov.gov. And the
800 number is 1-800-FED-INFO. 1-800-333-4636. Apparently, in the first
couple of days, it got about 100,000 calls, average wait time about 11
seconds.

This is something everybody is taking seriously. We hope that there has
been no compromise of personal information. But nobody is taking any
chances. And so they're doing everything possible to try to figure out what
happened.

In addition, Secretary Nicholson today, testifying on the Hill, not only
made abundantly clear his displeasure with a lot of the things that
happened prior to his notification, but also he's outlining a series of
steps that the Veterans Administration is going to take to make sure that
veterans' information is secure, and that people within the department know
exactly what they have to do, what they need to do, what they must do.

Again, for further detail and texture on that stuff, I'll refer you back to
the department.

Q Tony, two quick questions. As far as the global terrorism is concerned,
there is another tape from Osama bin Laden. He's warned, and we are still
living under fear. He's -- apparently that he's watching everything we do,
including this press conference, what's happening in our lives. We have --
the United States has the best intelligence, CIA, and the best military in
the world. What's happening? Somebody is protecting somewhere Osama bin
Laden, so what's going on? Even though there is a big reward on his life or
capture or bring to justice --

MR. SNOW: I'm glad you asked that, because now I'll just tell you
everything we know about bin Laden, we'll just get it off our chest. I
mean, look, it's pretty clear that it's been a priority to look for Osama
bin Laden. It's also pretty clear that that's a very difficult part of the
world to travel in, let along track somebody down in. Are people helping
him? Probably. Are our people doing their very best to find him?
Absolutely. It's a tough business.

Q And second, on Hamas and Iran. As I said yesterday both are one, and both
are not moving anywhere or giving up their ideas or ideals. Now, from time
to time Iranian President threatens Israel, and last time he said that the
Holocaust never existed. But last night, Oprah on her show showed
everything -- what really happened -- so where do we stand now as far as
all those statements destroying Israel and no Holocaust and supporting
Hamas?

MR. SNOW: Well, I think we've made it pretty clear that each of the
statements you have outlined are ones that -- in the case of the Holocaust,
he's wrong; and in the case of threatening Israel, we've said, if there's
any attack on Israel, we'll stand by Israel's side. I mean, the President
has been abundantly clear about that.

Q Does the United States at this point have a formal assessment of whether
it would even be possible for Iraqi security forces to take over security
for the whole country in 2007?

MR. SNOW: I am sure there's an assessment going on right now, but I
honestly -- I haven't seen it, haven't been privy to it. But it would seem
to be part and parcel of trying to proceed forward.

That would be something -- toss it to Eric Ruff over at Defense.

Q Do you have a sense that we will hear from Mr. Blair and the President an
endorsement of that possibility --

MR. SNOW: I'm just -- I know everybody wants -- you want to be able to put
on your calendar, we leave on this date. It's just -- it's not going to
happen. Boy, I'm sure a lot of people wish that that were possible, but,
again, in a war, conditions constantly change. Sometimes things are worse
than you expected, sometimes they're better than you expected. I will
repeat the same phrase. I know it's frustrating, but it's the truth, I
can't go beyond it. You react to the conditions on the ground.

Q The Prime Minister does seem to be putting that on his calendar. I mean,
that --

MR. SNOW: No, no, no -- you can ask him about that, as well. When somebody
talks about in very general terms --

Q I mean, Maliki seems to be putting that on his calendar.

MR. SNOW: Yes, well -- and look, we'll see if he's able to follow through
on it. I mean, it's an interesting question.

Q Yes, Tony. Patrick Fitzgerald yesterday indicated that they would like to
speak, they would like to have the Vice President come and talk in defense
of Mr. Libby since the state of mind of the Vice President was relevant to
Libby's actions since Libby was subject to his direction. Would the White
House be prepared to allow the Vice President to testify --

MR. SNOW: Number one, I'm not going to -- number one, I'm not sure you
characterized properly what was -- the stories were that he'd released
information, he was interested in that line of questioning, and that there
may be some thought of bringing the Vice President to trial. Having said
all that, I'm not going to make any advance legal comment about a situation
other than to say that the Vice President and his office, at all points,
have been thoroughly cooperative with the Special Counsel, and do what we
always do in these particular cases, which is to refer you for further
elucidation to the Department of Justice.

Les.

Q Tony, only two questions. Has the President studied the 1986
comprehensive immigration reform plan approved by Congress and signed by
President Reagan? And if he has, why does he think this comprehensive
immigration reform plan, which does essentially the same thing, will be
successful?

MR. SNOW: Well, I don't think I've got a full roster of the President's
bedside reading, but I think it's safe to say that in assembling the
comprehensive immigration reform, people have taken a very close look at
what happened in 1986. Let me give you a couple of examples. In 1986,
Congress declared an amnesty for three million people who were here
illegally, that said, okay, fine, go about your business, no crime,
nothing. They also drafted a bill that made it a misdemeanor to cross
America's borders without proper documentation or having done what is
standard and usual for those who wish to become citizens. For this
misdemeanor, it assigned no penalty.

Now, what the President has done is he's taken a look at this and he's
said, that's not good enough. So as part of comprehensive reform, what are
we saying to those who are here illegally? And during that span, during
that 20-year span, 11 or 12 million people have made their way illegally
into the United States, many across the Mexican border, many from
elsewhere. The President has said we need to make sure that we have
penalties not only that are serious but enforceable.

So for those that have crossed the border, those who have committed that
misdemeanor, number one, you're going to have to pay a penalty. Members of
Congress are talking about $1,000, $2,000. That will be hashed out. Number
two, you're going to have to pay back taxes. Number three, as the Senate
voted this week, at least according to one proposal, you're going to have
to -- if you've committed one felony or three misdemeanors, you're out of
here. There is also a continuous work requirement; you can't not work.

So what you're putting together now is a requirement. This is just -- these
are baseline requirements for people who have been here illegally. Now,
once you've met all that, what do you do? You basically go to the back of
the line and you're on probation for 11 or 12 years. During that time, you
have to keep your nose clean, you have to keep working, you have to pay
taxes. We've got to know where you are. You're going to get a -- you're
going to get an identification card, a tamper-proof ID, that is going to
have biometric information. Furthermore, your employer now, who in the past
may have had excuses, that employer may have been able to say, I don't
know, that driver's license looked good to me, that fake birth certificate
looked perfectly legal, can't do it anymore. You've now got somebody who's
got biometric information, and if that employer does not, in fact, have
that information, the employer now is liable in a way that he wasn't
before. There's no place to hide.

In addition -- I know you want to ask the question, but I'm giving you the
full answer here. You've got to relish every moment of this.

Q I'm very grateful.

MR. SNOW: So now you're in this process, they got a dozen years probation,
they got to keep clean, the employers don't have any place to hide, they've
got to master the English language. People who, at the end of this process
stand up, put their hands up and take the oath will have spent more money
and waited longer than any group in American history for the right to
become American citizens.

So these are -- if you want to test the people who really want to be
Americans -- I mean, really, really want to be Americans -- this is it.
It's a significant difference from 1986, which is, hey, come on, no harm,
no foul.

Q The other one is, Sayed Hashemi was an officer of the Taliban who was
present when CNN interviewed Osama bin Laden. Now Hashemi has been admitted
to Yale University, and yesterday, during a news conference, Howard Dean
told what he called a "great story" about Yale graduation speaker Anderson
Cooper welcoming members of the Taliban, which Governor Dean said, brought
down the house. And my question, does the President, as a Yale alumnus,
agree with his fellow Yalie, Howard Dean, that this was a "great story?"

MR. SNOW: I think I'll refer that back to Yale. Ask Yale if they think
that's a great story.

Q Tony, the President often mentions corporate crime in his speeches, as
recently as yesterday. We've had the Enron convictions now over the noon
hour. Any comment from the White House?

MR. SNOW: Well, any comment is that the Justice Department -- you know, we
congratulate the Justice Department on successfully concluding a highly
complex conviction, a set of legal proceedings that led to the convictions
today in the Enron case. I mean, the administration has been pretty clear
there is no tolerance for corporate corruption. And furthermore, the
Justice Department has been going aggressively after those who are involved
in corporate corruption.

Q The Senate is expected to pass its immigration bill today, and at that
point, the President has been urging them to get their work done and then
have the bill go to conference. When it goes to conference, do you expect
the President to stay at the broad level and push for just a comprehensive
agreement out of conference, or is he going to fight for specific
principles and specific parts of that?

MR. SNOW: You know, let's -- I hate to use this dodge, but I'm going to use
an artful dodge here, which is that, at this point, let's get a bill
through the Senate, let's figure out where the fault lines are. I am sure
that many members of this White House -- but I'm not going to speak for --
I'm just not going to commit the President right now. I'm not his
scheduler. He is the one who is going to make the decisions about whether
he picks up the phone.

But it's abundantly clear that this is of enormous importance to the
President, and he wants to make sure, not merely immigration reform, but
comprehensive immigration reform, along the lines that he laid out to the
nation a week ago, Monday, that that take place. So certainly, many people
here -- the President, I don't know, we'll find out.

Q Where do you see those fault lines at this point shaping up? Can you talk
about that?

MR. SNOW: No, come on. You let the guys on Capitol Hill tell you where the
fault lines are.

Q Tony, you may want to touch on this one, also, but -- (laughter) -- the
guys in the House are pretty definite that they don't want the Senate bill.
If what comes out of conference is much closer to the House bill, is that
something the President is prepared to sign?

MR. SNOW: Let me address the first part, because there's been a lot of talk
about, we just want immigration -- I mean, we want enforcement first. I
think members of the House realize that the other parts of this
comprehensive package are important, and a question they're going to have
ask themselves is, do we really want to oppose comprehensive reform? You're
not going to close the borders overnight. The President has already said,
we're going to start working on this. As a matter of fact, come what may,
with or without the supplemental budget appropriation, we're going to start
moving National Guard forces into relief of Border Patrol agents in the
first few days of June. So that's already beginning to happen.

Now, the question is, if you are a Republican member of Congress and you're
concerned about illegal immigration, do you really want to say to your
constituents, you know, I'm going to wait a couple of years before I take
up the issue of people knowingly hiring illegal aliens; I want to wait a
couple years before I go ahead and try to identify who the illegal aliens
are; I want to wait a couple of years before I start grappling with what to
do with these 11 million or 12 million people who are here illegally?

I think, in many ways, the President has answered the fundamental concern
of many House members in saying, we're going to go ahead, in taking
affirmative measures, to shore up the borders. And so I think it's going to
be interesting -- in other words, I'm not dodging the question, I'm
quibbling with the premise, because, as you know, quite often at the
beginning of these negotiations, people stake out hard positions, and then
over time, as they hear from constituents, or they hear from people at the
White House, or as they begin to reflect on things, sometimes those
positions soften a bit.

I can tell you this: It's pretty clear that members of both houses
understand that they pay a heavier political price for failing to act, than
for acting. And so that's one thing that I've heard from Republicans in
both houses. They want to get something done. So we'll figure out what
comes out of conference, but don't forestall the possibility that House
members may say to themselves, you know what, my constituents really are
worried about people hiring illegals, illegally, and knowing it; they're
worried about trying to identify who's here illegally, for security
reasons; they want to go ahead and start grappling with these issues.

I would not rule out all of those things becoming attractive to people who,
at first blush, before they heard the President's proposal, were a little
bit skeptical.

Q Tony, can I follow up on that just a minute?

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q You and the administration have been cautious to not criticize House
conservatives for their reluctance for the comprehensive aspects that the
President wants. But in saying that it's pretty clear they'll pay a heavy
price for inaction, are you not now, on the threshold of Senate passage,
essentially warning House conservatives that if they do this they are going
to pay?

MR. SNOW: No. I'm telling you what I've heard them say, which is that they
feel they need to act. You know, people may have different definitions of
what they call action, but they all agree they need to do something.

Q Can I ask one more on Enron? Does the administration favor compensating
the victims now in some way?

MR. SNOW: I honestly don't know. I mean, I don't know.

Q Thanks very much.

MR. SNOW: Thank you.

END 12:58 P.M. EDT

===========================================================================
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/05/20060525-4.html

 * Origin: (1:3634/12)