Text 2762, 673 rader
Skriven 2006-06-01 23:34:12 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (0606015) for Thu, 2006 Jun 1
===================================================
===========================================================================
Press Briefing by Tony Snow
===========================================================================

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
June 1, 2006

Press Briefing by Tony Snow
James S. Brady Briefing Room



12:37 P.M. EDT

MR. SNOW: All right, welcome. Today marks the beginning of the hurricane
season. I just thought I'd mention it. It's freezing in my office. It's
nice to have it nice and warm and steamy in here.

Presidential call -- Jessica, you will be happy to know that they finally
got together -- President Hu Jintao had a 25-minute conversation this
morning with the President. And it turns out that part of the problem here
was scheduling. The two had tried on a number of occasions to make a phone
call work. It finally did happen today. They talked primarily about Iran.
President Hu noted that they share common interests, one of the key of
which is to make sure that nonproliferation -- that they work together on
nonproliferation; also that they need to resolve the issue of Iran
peacefully and diplomatically. And President Hu was welcoming the U.S.'s
additional participation provided Iran follow through on the conditions
that the President had laid out.

Also, there will be a visit -- President Bush will welcome President Denis
Sassou-Nquesso, the President of the Congo, to the White House on June 5th.
That's next Monday. The President looks forward to working with President
Sassou-Nquesso, the current Chairman of the African Union. The two leaders
will discuss implementation of the May 5, 2006 Darfur peace agreement, NATO
assistance to strengthen the African Union mission in Sudan, and the
follow-on U.N. mission, United Nations authorization to properly transition
to a U.N. peacekeeping force, and ways to strengthen democracy and improve
the lives of the Congolese people.

Yesterday I also promised a Haditha time line, and let me just lay that out
for you as best I can. We've been trying to piece it together. As you know,
on the 19th of November, there was an IED explosion in Haditha, killed one
U.S. Marine and injured two. These were members of the 3rd Battalion, 1st
Marines. In subsequent hours, a number of Iraqis died. Press accounts say
24. The military did dispatch an exploitation team to come in, investigate
the scene and document it.

The following day, the 2nd Marines released a preliminary report claiming
that 15 Iraqis had been killed by an IED. On the 10th of March, Time
Magazine inquired of military sources in Baghdad about the circumstances of
the Haditha incident. General Chiarelli took the call and spoke with them.
On the 14th he directed an investigation. He appointed an Army colonel to
look into the facts and circumstances of the case. On the 3rd of March, the
preliminary report was completed. It recommended further investigation.

Q You mean the 3rd of April?

MR. SNOW: No, 3rd of March.

Q Then do you mean Time Magazine inquired on the 2nd --

MR. SNOW: Let me go back -- I'm sorry -- let me go back. The dates are:
Time Magazine -- did I say March? Sorry -- 10th of February. The 14th of
February was the directing the investigation and the appointment of an Army
colonel.

Now we get into March. March 3rd, the preliminary report was completed. It
recommended further investigation. I'll slow down here because I know
you're taking notes.

On the 9th, General Chiarelli received the initial findings of that
preliminary investigation and he directed further review, which is ongoing.

The following day, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff learned about it. On the 11th, the President received
notification from the National Security Advisor. On the 12th, the
Commanding General of the Multinational Force West, Richard Zilmer,
appointed a Marine colonel to investigate reporting of information at all
levels of the chain of command, and also requested a Naval Criminal
Investigative Service inquiry.

The following day, that is the 13th of March, the initial NCIS team arrived
in Haditha. On the 19th of March, General Chiarelli appointed Major General
Bargewell to investigate two major aspects of what happened in Haditha:
number one, training and preparation of Marines prior to the engagement;
second, reporting of information concerning the incident at all levels of
the chain of command. Time Magazine, that same day, published an Haditha
piece.

The President, since then, has received regular information and briefings
with the Secretary of Defense, who sometimes is accompanied also by the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs -- the most recent was late last week. And I
think that is it. So we've tried to put together the time line, and that is
what we have.

Finally, Secretary Rice, following on yesterday's announcement of the
United States engaging in even more robust diplomacy with regard to Iran,
is in Vienna, as you know, meeting with the EU 3. She has spoken today with
foreign ministers of Austria, the United Kingdom; of the EU 3, she's met
with Javier Solana. She presently is in a dinner with the P5 plus one, and
may or may not be making press comments afterward.

With that, I'm ready for questions.

Q Can you elaborate a little bit on the conversation with President Hu
today? Did President Bush find that President Hu was supportive of the idea
of sanctions if Iran does not stop the uranium enrichment?

MR. SNOW: President Hu, as I understand it, responded in general terms,
favorable terms, but not specific about that.

Q So is there a distinction in the way that he responded and the way that
President Putin responded?

MR. SNOW: Both of them have -- both of them have said that it is absolutely
critical that Iran suspends its nuclear activities. And to be honest,
they're still working through some translation things, so I have not been
able to see the final readout on it. But it was characterized to me, Terry,
by the note-takers, is that it was a general rather than specific response
to the question.

Q So would it be too far to say that Russia and China support the United
States' position for sanctions if Iran does not comply?

MR. SNOW: I think that's probably best left, especially at a time of
continuing diplomacy, to Secretary Rice, who's working the issue right now.

Q Based on what you know --

MR. SNOW: Unfortunately, they had some translation problems today. So I
just -- I cannot give you a specific answer. It would be irresponsible to
try to do so. What I would say is that at this point, there is no daylight,
it's been described "no daylight" between the United States and its allies
on America's decision to join the EU 3 and work with Iran diplomatically to
get Iran to suspend nuclear activities. It also is -- everybody realizes
that the next track would be diplomatic, and it would move to the U.N.
Security Council.

But as often happens, when I say I'm not going to answer hypotheticals, I
would not be surprised if foreign leaders also would keep their options
open, but I just don't know.

Q A senior administration official yesterday said to us that, yes, in fact,
Russia and China were prepared to support sanctions, and it seems that
today, that is not something the administration is emphatically standing
behind.

MR. SNOW: No, no, no. I will defer to the senior administration official
who will have superior knowledge to this. What I was trying to do --
unfortunately, I've gotten a fragmentary readout of the China call, and
that's why I'm cautioning you against going too far. I would suggest that
you accept the word of the senior administration official, who, as you
know, is well-apprised of what's going on.

Q Well, Tony, I don't want to over-interpret this --

MR. SNOW: Please don't.

Q I'll try to keep some limits here. When I was listening to the President
after the Cabinet meeting, he seemed to say that Putin was on board, he had
some sort of favorable, general characterization of his conversation with
him. But there seemed to be a difference between what he was saying about
the call with Putin and how he characterized his discussion with President
Hu. Is there a difference between Russia and China?

MR. SNOW: Well, again, I think you are over-interpreting. Sometimes -- I
want to be very careful about how we do this. Sometimes in conversations,
people will be generally supportive without getting into specifics, and I
think that is probably the best way to characterize it, according to my
knowledge.

Let me tell you what I'll do, is I will try to get more specific guidance,
because, as I said, they've been working through some issues in the
translation today, and I think it's really easy to over-interpret, and I
don't want to get us into a situation where we're creating a story where
there is none.

Q But how did the senior administration official know yesterday to say,
yes, we're getting a positive response --

MR. SNOW: Because the senior administration official has more hands-on
experience in dealing with these diplomatic issues. As I said yesterday,
there had also been ministerial -- I did not get -- nobody waved me off of
anything that the senior administration official heard.

Q But the President specifically -- when he was asked, he said, what Jim's
referring to -- the President said, "I got a positive response from the
President," meaning of Russia.

MR. SNOW: Right.

Q He was then asked was the response from President Hu positive, and he
never really answered that.

MR. SNOW: Well, again, what I got was it was a positive response. And I
read you precisely the points I received from note-takers on it.

Q So the President's remarks this morning don't necessarily override what
the senior administration official said yesterday?

MR. SNOW: I don't believe they do, Carl.

Helen.

Q The President raved today about the economy. How much has been primed by
the war, spending for the military industrial complex?

MR. SNOW: Not much, Helen. As a matter of fact, if you take a look --
you're trying to revive the guns for butter -- the guns and butter
argument. If you really want to take a look at the economy, go back and
take a look at when tax cuts took effect.

Q -- that's a deficit argument.

MR. SNOW: Yes, and a lot of those have long since been discredited because
they just don't work.

Q Oh, really?

MR. SNOW: Yes. You take a look at the path of economic growth, and you will
see that there has been a real relationship between tax cuts and economic
growth in recent years, and also deficits.

Q And the war has nothing to do -- war spending to the tune of $5 billion,
$6 billion a month in Iraq?

MR. SNOW: In an economy that generates how many trillions of dollars of
activity? No, it's not a major factor in economic growth. What is a major
factor in economic growth is continued investment on the part of Americans
and businesses in an economy that continues to offer jobs to upwards of 140
million people.

Q But priming the war has nothing to do with it at all?

MR. SNOW: No. It is at best a minor factor, Helen.

Q What is the state of play of the discussions in Vienna, Tony? Have they
reached an agreement on an incentive package?

MR. SNOW: Again, Secretary Rice is continuing to have conversations. I
think probably we should defer to her after she completes the dinner with
the P5 plus one, if she should be making remarks afterward.

Q So it doesn't sound like there is a deal yet?

MR. SNOW: I just don't know. Believe it or not, she's been in meetings all
day. It's a little difficult to get a precise readout, so be patient on it.

Q Two questions. One is, Iran had earlier said that they are not going to
accept this offer, and we were told that you don't accept that as their
final position. Why? What else could emerge?

MR. SNOW: Well, because we said yesterday -- and I said from this podium,
you need to give the Iranians some time to sort of review this. And it
could be predictable, and it was one of the things that we thought might
happen, was that there would be an initial rejection, almost as a way of
trying to lay down a bargaining position, followed by a time of reflection.
And so this is not something that is entirely unexpected or discouraging,
it's something that kind of happens. As you may recall, Ambassador
Khalilzad said, sometimes when you're dealing with the Iranians you'll get
one answer in the morning and one in the afternoon.

What we're looking for is the basis for a stable relationship so that the
Iranians, as they proceed, if they do, in fact, suspend enrichment and
reprocessing activities -- enrichment-related and reprocessing activities
-- then we build a basis of trust. Then we get a place to go. And I think
the first thing to do is to get both sides to a position where they can sit
down at a table and start bargaining not merely on matters of nuclear
weaponry or the fear of developing nuclear capabilities, but also dealing
with issues of human rights, terror, and moving forward to look at ways to
build closer relations down the road in terms of economic, cultural ties,
educational exchanges, and so on.

Q And how long will the U.S. be willing to wait for them to change their
mind before pushing to go back to the Security Council?

MR. SNOW: The U.S. -- again, let's not create a false dichotomy -- this is
not the U.S. versus Iran. It's the international community versus Iran. And
the U.S. cannot act unilaterally in the Security Council. The United States
has, in fact, been working in concert with members of the Security Council
-- P5 plus one is Security Council. So those meetings are ongoing and we
are working with the Security Council, with the EU 3, with the IAEA, with
other allies in the region to make sure that it's clear to Iran -- and I
think this is another important nuance -- to make clear to Iran that
they're not going to be able to divide up the coalition, they're not going
to get people squabbling among each other; instead, we are now united. And
it's important to keep working as a united front.

The question of how, when, where, and why gets you into levels of
speculation where -- we'll consult with our allies and that will be a joint
decision.

Q Two questions. One, as far as the Secretary's speech yesterday is
concerned, is this shifting the policy or a softness on Iran? Because I
still remember the painful images of 1979, America held hostage. And this
President was one who held those particular Americans for 444 days. And
today we are talking to the same person in the President of Iran.

MR. SNOW: I don't think there's any softening at all. The idea that we are
softening by saying to Iran, you've got to do your part of the bargain.
This is something -- Iran spent two years in Paris negotiating with the EU
3, on this very issue, and then just stepped away. What we're saying is
we're going to add the weight of the United States to these negotiations.
We think it is absolutely critical to solve this diplomatically and
peacefully. And therefore, we're going to be adding energy to this. There's
been no change in our position. I don't think it's softening. What it is,
is a sense to say to Iran, you have to act.

So that's -- so I would not characterize it as softening at all because the
condition for further talks is exactly the same as it was two days ago; it
is, Iran must suspend its nuclear activities.

Q President always stood for democracy and freedom for all the needy and
poor people around the world, like in Afghanistan and Iraq. And now as far
as dictator -- he has declared again, under house arrest, national
democratically-elected leader, Aung San Suu Kyi. And it has been including
U.N. Secretary General Kofi also yesterday spoke and criticized the
dictator of Burma. It's been 10 years now she's under house arrest. How
long can we go and support this dictator?

MR. SNOW: Burma is beyond my brief for today, so we will take it up at
another time.*

Q Does the President still consider New York City to be the nation's number
one --

MR. SNOW: I'm sorry. I was looking here, and you were asking there. I'm
sorry. (Laughter.) I must have bad pointing. Go ahead. (Laughter.)

Q Does the President still consider New York City to be the nation's number
one terror target? And if so, how can the administration justify a
40-percent cut in New York City's --

MR. SNOW: Well, a couple of things. Since the year 2001, when the
Department of Homeland Security -- or, actually, 2002 is when the money
started being distributed -- there has been $3.1 billion in aid throughout
the country. New York City has received about 20 percent of that sum --
$650 million. Now, a lot of this money was for capital expenditures, which
are one-time only. And so it is natural to assume that after you have made
those capital expenditures, that some of that's going to fall off. Even
now, New York City is by far the largest recipient of aid of any city in
the United States of America -- since 2002, $650 million. The second
highest recipient of aid in the country is Washington, D.C. at $232
million, just over a third of the amount of New York City.

There are cities all over the country that also -- homeland security
involves all cities all across the nation. And it is the belief of the
administration that once you have handled your basic core responsibilities
in terms of doing that, you're going to be able to readjust your formulas.

Also, the Department of Homeland Security has put together a risk-based
formula for apportioning aid, in other words, try to assess where the risks
are still high. And there are some cities, I guarantee you, that will argue
that they have been shorted over the years.

Let me give you an example: San Francisco, $103 million, as opposed to $650
million for New York; Los Angeles, $207 million, as opposed to $650 million
for New York. So cities all over the country are saying that they have
needs. Omaha, I know, was a particular sore spot, but what is this money
going to Omaha for? For doing the kind of communications work that was
necessary in New York right after 2001.

So the idea that somehow you're being unfair to New York by still giving it
more money than any city in the United States of America, that $124
million, giving it in this year's particular allotment more than San
Francisco has received since 2001, I think is to create a false issue and
maybe even a false area of friction, because the point of Homeland
Security, as I said before, is to provide security for the entire homeland.
And certainly, no disrespect meant to New York with $124 million for this
coming year.

Q -- say that New York's money is going to continue to taper down in the
future?

MR. SNOW: It's hard to say. Again, it's risk-based. Every year what happens
is cities and states present plans to the Department of Homeland Security,
proposals for how that money would be spent. They take a look at it. They
see, based on their assessment of the risk and also the proposals that have
been presented, where they think the money best can be spent, where can we
most effectively save American lives and protect American security. And
every year, they go back and review that.

If, suddenly, some grand and unforeseen need arises with regard to New York
City, then perhaps that would change in the future. This is not any
harbinger of things to come. It's a reflection of the expressed need of
cities and states all around the United States.

Q Another money question apropos to your statement about hurricane season.
Now, we all love New Orleans, but does the President think that New Orleans
should be fully rebuilt in all the dangerous areas, especially in light of
yesterday's report that New Orleans is sinking faster than people realize?

MR. SNOW: You got to keep in mind that the responsibility for all these
things, including for a response to any further potential disasters, lies
in the hands of local officials, including the Mayor of New Orleans and the
Governor of Louisiana. So I think that's a question better asked to them.

Q Tony, on immigration, the President spoke to the Chamber of Commerce
today, obviously. A couple of weeks ago, he spoke to a restaurant trade
group, as well, and these are people who already support him on the guest
worker program. When do you think he'll start talking to conservative
audiences that don't want a guest worker program? When will he talk to them
to try to convert them to his position?

MR. SNOW: I think the President -- when you speak to the entire nation, you
speak to liberals and conservatives, you speak to everybody. And
furthermore, even when you speak to the Chamber of Commerce, as you know,
Ed, thanks to your good offices and others, that message does get broadcast
around the country. What the President did today is something that you hear
from a lot of conservatives, which he said businesses also have to be held
to account if and when they knowingly hire illegals. And they have to do
their part to help with interior security.

The President also feels deeply about this issue. He has real-life
experience. He lived it as governor of Texas. He understands the problem.
And I expect him to be dealing vigorously, sometimes in front of cameras,
sometimes not, with people of all views. But I think as President of the
United States, the most important thing to do right now is, A, to educate
-- things -- is, A, to educate the American people about the plan, but also
try to explain how, in fact, it reflects the widely shared views and
attitudes of a lot of American people.

Q Tony, also on immigration, some Republicans argue it would be just as
well to wait until after Election Day to reconcile the House and Senate
bills. Is it a priority for the President to have a bill before the
elections?

MR. SNOW: It's a priority -- what the President would like is for the
political process to move forward as rapidly as possible. Members of
Congress, obviously, have much of this in their hands. But the President in
meetings with members of Congress wants to see it. But on the other hand,
you want to get the right bill and you want it done right. So there is no
simple answer to that because what the President wants is for Congress to
do its job and to do it with dispatch.

Q Also he said today that both sides will have to compromise. Is there
something in the Senate bill perhaps that he objects to or would --

MR. SNOW: Well, I'm not going to -- the one thing you don't do is negotiate
in public and you don't give away positions. But it's -- the one thing the
President said from the beginning is that he believes in and insists upon
comprehensive reform, and that is really the hallmark. And rather than
getting into the fine print of either the House or Senate bill, that to be
done behind closed doors for the most part, he will continue to make his
views known and to negotiate through members of this administration and
sometimes in one-on-one conversations with members of the House and Senate.

Victoria.

Q Yes, Tony, I've got a couple. On the time line, the President was briefed
by Steve Hadley on the 11th on March.

MR. SNOW: Yes, ma'am.

Q So on what date, then, did the Time Magazine reporter contact the White
House?

MR. SNOW: As I understand it, the inquiry -- the Time Magazine reporter
contacted authorities in Baghdad back on the 10th of February. I do not
have a time line for a White House contact.

Q Because yesterday I understood that contact had been made at the White
House and it was subsequent to that.

MR. SNOW: Well, that would have been a misstatement on my part, which I now
correct and retract.

Q Can you confirm that you're having a ceremony of some kind in the Rose
Garden with regard to gay marriage?

MR. SNOW: I'm not going to give away any events that have not been
announced on the public schedule.

Q One question on the time line. The President was briefed the 11th of
March, Time Magazine published the 19th of March -- why did it take until
yesterday for the President to say he was troubled by this?

MR. SNOW: Because I'm not aware that any of you asked him about it before.
Here's the problem -- it's a very fine line, and actually very good
question.

Q He could have issued a written statement, though, Tony.

MR. SNOW: No, he couldn't have, and I'll tell you why. You've got ongoing
criminal inquiries on two tracks: facts on the ground, and the reporting.
The President is Commander-in-Chief. If the Commander-in-Chief says
anything that might be regarded as prejudicial to the proceedings, those
who are conducting the inquiries and those who might be called upon to
conduct trials are, therefore, going to be hamstrung. And so it's very
important -- and he's done this -- he's been very specific about it --
staying out of the chain of command. What you don't want is something that,
should these alleged incidents rise to the level of a criminal proceeding,
somebody saying, well, here's what the President had to say -- because that
suddenly -- here's the President, all these people answer to him, you've
got to be very careful.

Q Isn't that also an issue today, though?

MR. SNOW: It remains an issue. The President said he was troubled by the
allegations. I'm not sure that it helps to issue statements every time
there's an allegation to say you're troubled by it.

Q Was he disturbed by the misinformation?

MR. SNOW: Again, Helen, what you're asking me to do is to leap to
conclusions --

Q No, I'm not.

MR. SNOW: Yes, you are.

Q I'm asking you if he's disturbed by the different stories.

MR. SNOW: The President is disturbed, as he said, by the allegations. And I
will leave it at that. You can draw the conclusions.

Q Tony, the AP today reported there's another six or so people that have
joined the hunger strike in Guantanamo Bay, it's now up to 89, I believe it
was. Are you all following that here, or have any reaction --

MR. SNOW: That is more properly directed to the Department of Defense,
which has day-to-day responsibility for that.

Q Thank you, Tony. On immigration, the Senate immigration bill contains a
provision calling for the United States to consult with Mexico before
building additional fences along the border. How does the President feel
about that? And if it survives the conference committee, will he accept it?

MR. SNOW: Well, again, I think I made the point earlier that I am not going
to go through and take a look at specific provisions of the House and
Senate bills and try to engage in negotiations from here. The President
wants a comprehensive bill, and he has also made it clear in public
comments in the past on some of the benchmarks. But I don't think it's
useful to open a can of worms and to try to get me to respond to this
provision in the Senate bill, or this provision in the House bill, because,
in the process of democracy a lot of those things have to be worked out.

Q I noticed in the speech today he stressed work force enforcement and in
recent weeks he's talked a lot about his law enforcement activities. Does
he feel like he's persuading enough conservatives that he's solid enough on
enforcement to where they can meet him halfway on guest worker?

MR. SNOW: I think -- as I said before, the most important thing is to let
people know what his proposal is. There are many characterizations of the
President's views on immigration and on comprehensive reform that were
being knocked around on blogs and talk radio and opinion pieces and
elsewhere before he had announced his proposal. I think at this point we're
still in the process, and the President is still in the process of letting
people know where he stands.

Q In reference to the homeland security, you said something like, once
you've done your core responsibilities you can start to look at other
localities. Does the White House believe that New York City essentially has
enough money at this point --

MR. SNOW: No, again, I think it's --

Q -- some baseline level --

Q No, again, you would expect when you have large capital expenditures for
there to be a higher price tag. New York has been the top priority. I mean,
there's absolutely no doubt; even in this budget it is the top priority. So
the idea -- what they're doing is they're working through each and every --
they put in proposals. You look at the proposals; you see which seem most
capable and most responsive to the need of protecting American lives. So,
as I mentioned before, if there suddenly arise needs that New York had not
identified before that merit federal support, okay. But what they've been
doing is taking a look at the specific proposals placed before them this
year and using a risk-based analysis to try to make the most for every
dollar, so people everywhere, from New York all across the United States,
and from Alaska to Hawaii, as well, are protected.

Q The President today referenced sending the 6,000 National Guard to the
border, and said that final agreements are being worked out with the border
governors. Do you have a status report, since we're now at June 1st, as to
when those agreements should be reached and when --

MR. SNOW: No, that's ongoing. But as soon as they're done, I'll put it at
the top of the briefing.

Q To come back to Iran. When you say you want Iran to suspend enrichment,
is there any margin of -- so you mean that every single centrifuge has to
be --

MR. SNOW: We're going to leave that, again -- we will leave that for the
ongoing conversations. We have said that they must suspend
enrichment-related and reprocessing activities. I'm going to leave it with
the stock language we're using and not go any further.

Q And you say there is no clear time line when the Iranians are supposed to
respond. The President is going to be in Vienna in three weeks time to talk
with the Europeans. Would you expect then to have already a response from
Iran?

MR. SNOW: We certainly hope so. As I said yesterday, there's a sense of
urgency. The Iranians are saying that by the end of the year they plan to
have 3,000 centrifuges. And that is unacceptable. That much is clear. And
so it is the clear determination of the President and this administration
to try to do whatever possible to resolve this peacefully through
negotiations.

Q The President, two years ago when he announced his support for a
constitutional amendment protecting marriage, there was a sense of urgency
to his remarks that day -- I think it was March of 2004. He was talking
about the need for decisive action in deciding judicial -- or judges,
activist judges. Does he still sense -- share that sense of urgency? And
what is he doing to try to win approval?

MR. SNOW: The President still believes it. And I will leave it to you just
to keep your eyes and ears open in coming days to see what he'll be doing
along those lines. Also, keep in mind, since the Supreme Judicial Court of
Massachusetts' initial verdict, a number of states have also enacted
legislation that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
There's been considerable activity, the sense of urgency already being
reflected in the acts of various states to tackle the issue themselves.

Q Do you have any information or comments about the report on North Korea's
invitation to the --

MR. SNOW: Yes. The United States sticks by its position, which is North
Korea has to return to the six-party talks. It also has to go ahead and
fulfill the obligations in the September agreement. The United States is
not going to engage in bilateral negotiations with the government of North
Korea. We're going to continue to do it through the appropriate forum.

Q Just on the Haditha time line, you said that on March 10th, Rumsfeld and
Pace were informed. And then on March 11th, Hadley told the President. When
was the White House first informed?

MR. SNOW: I think it would be safe to say it would be one of those two
days. I mean, the news did not get to Washington until the 10th of March.

Q You don't know if they waited a day before telling the White House?

MR. SNOW: I don't think they waited a day, but I don't know the time of day
in which they learned. They may have called Steve. I don't know. I'll try
to get an answer.

Q Thank you.

MR. SNOW: Thank you.

Q Happy birthday.

MR. SNOW: Thank you.

(The press all sing "Happy Birthday" to Tony.)

END 1:10 P.M. EDT

* In a statement released yesterday, State Department spokesman Sean
McCormack said: "By extending Aung San Suu Kyi's detention, the Burmese
regime has demonstrated its continued unwillingness to engage in a credible
and inclusive political process. The economic, political and public health
situation in Burma has deteriorated to the point where the regime's
activities and repression of political rights now poses a threat to the
stability, peace and security of the region.

"The international community must continue pressing the Burmese regime to
change its policies. To this end, the United States intends to pursue a UN
Security Council resolution that will underscore the international
community's concerns about the situation in Burma, including the
unjustifiable detention of a great champion of democracy, Aung San Suu Kyi,
and our common position that the regime must ensure an inclusive and
democratic political process."

===========================================================================
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/06/20060601-5.html

 * Origin: (1:3634/12)