Text 3034, 1039 rader
Skriven 2006-07-18 23:33:58 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (060718) for Tue, 2006 Jul 18
===================================================
===========================================================================
Press Briefing by Tony Snow
===========================================================================

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 18, 2006

Press Briefing by Tony Snow
James S. Brady Briefing Room

Press Briefing view


12:35 P.M. EDT

Q The mike is on, Tony. (Laughter.)

Q Not unless you've never used it, Tony.

MR. SNOW: Aw, shucks, Lester. Welcome back to those of you on the road.
Good to see a lot of you here. And for all the others, it's good to be
back. Let me just run through the remaining schedule for the day.

At 3:00 p.m., there will be a meeting with the bipartisan bicameral members
of Congress talking about the G8 summit. There will be pool coverage at the
bottom. At 6:50 p.m., there's a photo opportunity with Theodore Cardinal
McCarrick, Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl, and Papal Nuncio Pietro Sambi. At
7:25 p.m., a social dinner in honor of outgoing Archbishop of Washington
Theodore McCarrick, and the other two.

Also, at 2:45 p.m. today at the State Department, there will be a joint
briefing from State Department and DOD on evacuation procedures and efforts
ongoing in Lebanon.

As many of you have speculated, midmorning Thursday the President will be
making remarks to the National Convention of the NAACP.

And with that, I think we're covered -- let's go to questions.

Q If the President is truly concerned about Israel restraining themselves,
why hasn't he talked to Olmert on the phone? And it appears that the United
States is giving Israel some breathing room so they can take out and weaken
Hezbollah as much as possible.

MR. SNOW: How does it seem that the United States is giving breathing room?
You and I have talked -- I'm just curious about the characterization. How
would you draw that conclusion?

Q Well, I don't think that he's even had a conversation with Olmert.

MR. SNOW: Okay, so you're assuming because the President hasn't called
Olmert that that creates breathing room? I'm trying to get the context for
the question. Let me proceed, and if it doesn't do well enough, you can
follow up.

The State Department, the Department of Defense, and the White House have
been in contact with key leaders in the Israeli government, including the
Prime Minister, on a daily basis. It is not as if we're not having active
and ongoing discussions. And one should not read too much or too little
into the fact that the President hasn't had a direct conversation.

As I pointed out on the road, the people he has talked to are those who
have more direct influence over Lebanon -- I mean, over Syria and Iran.
He's talked to the Saudis, he's talked to the Jordanians, he's talked with
the Egyptians. But at this point, again, I would caution against -- I know
a lot of people want to hear about this -- would caution against reading
too much into the fact that the President hasn't talked to Olmert, Prime
Minister Olmert. Secretary Rice has talked to him I think now on multiple
occasions. Steve Hadley has been speaking to his opposite number. I know
that there have been conversations with the Department of Defense, as well.

Q They don't want this fighting stopped.

Q So the idea that the United States is holding back in doing any more
criticizing of Israel to give them a chance to take out as many targets as
they want?

MR. SNOW: No, because, Deb, the insinuation there is that there is either
active military planning, collusion or collaboration between the United
States and Israel, and there just isn't. Israel is proceeding in the manner
it sees fit to defend itself and its territory. The United States actually
has been in the lead of the diplomatic efforts, issuing repeated calls for
restraint, but at the same time, putting together an international
consensus that -- we've got to remember who is responsible for this:
Hezbollah. Hezbollah started this. And Iran and Syria, its backers, ought
to be using their influence to get Hezbollah to stop firing rockets and to
return the soldiers. So that has been the consistent position. It is shared
not only by our colleagues in the G8, but the aforementioned governments of
Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt. So I think it would be misleading to say
that the United States hasn't been engaged. We've been deeply engaged and
actively engaged, and really from the start. And one of the key
achievements of the G8 summit was putting everybody there on record as
being with the U.S. on it.

David.

Q Let me just follow because the G8 summit was what it was, a G8 summit
statement.

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q What specifically would the President like to see other key players do?
And what is he and his administration prepared to do in the sort of
critical next steps?

MR. SNOW: The critical next steps really right now are up to Iran, Syria
and Hezbollah. What has happened now as a result of the diplomacy I
mentioned before is that the region is divided into two factions. On the
one side, you've got Hezbollah and its backers -- and that would be Iran
and Syria. And on the other side you have everybody else. So what the
United States has done is built this consensus.

What we would like to see happen is the soldiers returned, the rocket
firing stopped, and at that point, try to go back to U.N. Security Council
Resolutions 1559 and 1680; 1559 calls for the withdrawal of all foreign
forces from Lebanon, for disbanding of all militias, and for the effective
control by the elected government of Lebanon over all its territory. That
clearly is not the case right now in portions of southern Lebanon. So part
of what the next step would include is providing security within Lebanon to
ensure that the government has effective control. And as the President has
said on a number of cases, also making sure that the government of Prime
Minister Siniora remains secure and is able to go ahead and strengthen
itself to provide the requisite security and also build stability within
the country.

I also think -- sorry, just to finish up -- there's also a mention I think
-- there's a recognition that, at some point, you're going to have
humanitarian reconstruction efforts. And there was also talk at the G8
about that. So if you're looking at it, you're going to have a series of
steps. Number one is, you've got to try to get past the original causes --
address the root causes, which is the Hezbollah incitements, the kidnapping
and the rocket firings; second, create the basis for a secure government in
Lebanon; and third, get engagement from the international community in also
helping rebuild.

Q Those immediate conditions, which are exactly the conditions that Israel
has put forth, if those are not met, will the U.S. support any
international stabilization force?

MR. SNOW: Well, what's going to happen is -- as you know, Kofi Annan now
has a delegation in the region. They're going to come back Thursday night.
We're waiting to hear on that. There are a series of active and ongoing
conversations about precisely how you provide the kind of stability.
Somehow you're going to have to provide stability in southern Lebanon.
Whether it's an international stabilization force, whether it's the
Lebanese armed forces, all those things are under discussion and I don't
think at this point anybody has come up with a solution on it. But it is --
you're absolutely right, it's something everybody is trying now to figure
out in a practical manner, how do you pull it off. And there really is no
clear answer. That's one of the topics of continuing discussion between the
G8 members and their governments.

Q But you won't go so far as to say that if those conditions are not met,
the U.S. will not support this force?

MR. SNOW: No, I'm not going to say that.

Q Tony, what would Secretary Rice's -- the goal of a trip from the
Secretary of State be, then? She's not going to meet with anybody from
Syria, Iran or Hezbollah, so what would a trip to the region do, in terms
of getting it closer to the end of a crisis?

MR. SNOW: Well, we're going to have to wait. Look, the Secretary's going to
go, but she's not even sure when. I think -- I'm going to kick the can down
the road a little bit, Jim, because I think at this point, we do know, but
-- it is a legitimate question to ask precisely what she wants to do and
accomplish, and I think it's probably better left to when they figure out
when they're going to do it, we'll be in a better position to announce
precisely what it is she wants to do.

Q Then let me follow about the evacuations of Americans. Are you
comfortable with the pace at which they've proceeded? And we're starting to
hear from some Americans in Lebanon that they have not been getting
adequate help, and this idea of their paying for their evacuation, all that
is -- they have some problems with. What's your sense of it?

MR. SNOW: Okay, well, a couple of things. We understand the anxieties of
people in Lebanon. There are practical considerations. It is difficult --
our government has made the determination that it's not safe to travel by
road. The bombings at the airport have made it impractical to use large
aircraft to get in and out. That leaves you helicopters and naval vessels.
It takes time to get naval vessels there.

The Department of Defense -- and for a lot of these practical details I
will point you to the 2:45 p.m. briefing at State because they're going to
be able to give you a lot more detail, but I'll tell you what I do
understand.

There are practical difficulties in getting the vessels there. But we are
working on foreign contract vessels to get people out, as well as getting
naval assets in place. These would be assets that are able to provide
transport for American citizens. Also putting out the word, register, let
us know who you are.

There are a number of other considerations that you have to take into
account. In order to provide stability and security in the transportation
and to try and make it as timely as possible, you don't simply say,
everybody show up at a certain time, because you're going to have a flood
at the docks, and what you don't want to have is that. What you want to be
able to do is to move in an orderly fashion. Once they get there you're
going to have to be able to do practical things like checking Ids, making
sure everybody is secure before they go on, and so forth.

In addition, at the other end, you also have to be able to have the
facilities to receive people and to figure out which individuals are going
to be transported back to the United States or elsewhere. There are going
to be some cases where people have joint citizenship, but they really
regard Lebanon as home, so to go to a place like Cyprus would mean that
you're going to have to figure out how you're going to handle them if they
don't have a place in the United States to go. So you see there are a lot
of moving parts here.

As for the complaint -- and I understand it -- about having to pay actually
the same rate you get charged, which is commercial rate plus a dollar --
that is a result of congressional law. It is actually part of the 2003
Foreign Relations Authorization Act. Interestingly, the Department of State
had actually asked for some fairly lax guidelines in terms of trying to do
this. This is a provision that provides for the evacuation while lives are
endanger by war, civil unrest, or natural disaster, and this includes
American citizens, employees, dependents and so on. The State Department
wanted something like -- they wanted, on a reimbursable basis to the extent
feasible. Congress said, no, no, no, we want to get our money out of them
-- I'm paraphrasing -- and they strengthened the language to the maximum
extent practicable. It's the law. I daresay it's something that is causing
heartburn for a number of people, but it is the law, and the State
Department has to abide by it.

Q Are you going to push for any kind of supplemental to get some more money
out there to --

MR. SNOW: Don't know about that, it's too early to find out.

Q And you're comfortable with the pace at which all the planning has
proceeded at, it reflects the urgency?

MR. SNOW: Well, I'll tell you what's happened, is that people have been
moving as rapidly as possible, but on the other hand, it takes time to move
ships into port as rapidly as possible.

What you can say is, they've doubled the number of helos that are -- this
is an unusual circumstance, because two of the three most likely ways to
get people out, by road and by air, really are largely unavailable. So now
you have naval transport, and they are moving as rapidly as they can, and
again, also addressing all the ancillary security concerns. The other thing
is, we are talking about being prepared, whether it is necessary or not --
right now the embassy is making rough estimates, but they don't know for
sure how many people are really going to want to get out. But they are
trying to prepare so that they can move large numbers if necessary.

I think at this point I will punt it over, because I know there's a lot of
stuff going on. I've talked to State and I've talked to DOD today, but I
think I'd be more comfortable letting the people who have the hands-on
responsibility for that go ahead and characterize what they're trying to
do.

Helen.

Q The United States is not that helpless. It could have stopped the
bombardment of Lebanon. We have that much control with the Israelis.

MR. SNOW: I don't think so, Helen.

Q We have gone for collective punishment against all of Lebanon and
Palestine.

MR. SNOW: What's interesting, Helen --

Q And this is what's happening, and that's the perception of the United
States.

MR. SNOW: Well, thank you for the Hezbollah view, but I would encourage you
--

Q Nobody is accepting your explanation. What is restraint, a call for
restraint?

MR. SNOW: Well, I'll tell you, what's interesting, Helen, is people have.
The G8 was completely united on this. And as you know, when it comes to
issues of --

Q And we stopped a cease-fire -- why?

MR. SNOW: We didn't stop a cease-fire. I'll tell you what --

Q We vetoed --

MR. SNOW: We didn't even veto. Please get your facts right. What happened
was that the G8 countries made a pretty clear determination that the guilty
party here was Hezbollah. You cannot have a cease-fire when you've got the
leader of Hezbollah going on his television saying that he perceives total
war -- he's declaring total war. When they are firing rockets
indiscriminately --

Q We had the United Nations --

MR. SNOW: Please let me finish. I know this is great entertainment, but I
want to finish the answer. The point here is they're firing rockets
indiscriminately into civilian areas. The Israelis are responding as they
see fit. You will note the countries that disagree with the --

Q -- bombardment of a whole country --

MR. SNOW: -- that disagree with the government of Israel in terms of its
general approach on Palestine, many of our European allies agree that
Israel has the right to defend itself, that the government of Lebanon has
the right to control all its territory, that Hezbollah is responsible and
that those who support it also bear responsibility. There is no daylight
between the United States and all the allies on this. They all agreed on
it. This was not difficult --

Q At that point, why did we veto a cease-fire?

MR. SNOW: We didn't veto a cease-fire.

Q Yes, we did.

MR. SNOW: No, we didn't. There was -- there was no cease-fire. I'm sorry --

Q Wasn't there a resolution?

MR. SNOW: No.

Q At the U.N.?

MR. SNOW: No -- no. You know what you've -- I see what you -- what happened
was that there was conversation about "a cease-fire" that was picked up by
some of the microphones when some colorful language made its way into the
airwaves yesterday. And the President was continuing a conversation he'd
had earlier with Prime Minister Tony Blair about staging. Would we like a
cease-fire? You bet, absolutely. We would love to see a cease-fire. But the
way you stage is that you make sure that the people who started this fight
-- Hezbollah -- take their responsibility --

Q There was no veto at the U.N.?

MR. SNOW: No, there hasn't been a resolution at the VN -- U.N., whatever it
is. (Laughter.) There hasn't been -- I was in Germany too long. There's
been no resolution at the U.N.

Q Why aren't we proposing a truce, no matter who is to blame? At least stop
the killing.

MR. SNOW: Because it wouldn't stop the killing. What it would do is it
would say to the killers, you win.

Q Might save lives.

MR. SNOW: No, I don't think so. And I'm glad you raised this. You do not
want to engage in a cease-fire that has a practical -- when you say to the
Israelis, you guys just stop firing, when you have Hezbollah saying, we're
going to wage total war, because Hezbollah would read that as vindication
of its tactics, and the idea that if you get the right sort of videos on
television, and you get the right things going on, you can allow them to
behave with impunity. Even though they are weakening the sovereign
government of Lebanon, they are acting independently; even though they have
--

Q And bombarding Lebanon --

MR. SNOW: Even though they have received --

Q -- wipes out infrastructure.

MR. SNOW: All right, this is hectoring now.

Go ahead.

Q Tony, one of the things the President did sign on to was calling for
restraint --

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q -- by the Israelis and watching out for civilian targeting.

MR. SNOW: Correct.

Q Does the President thus far have any problem with what the Israelis have
been targeting, given the fact they have hit a lot of civilians?

MR. SNOW: They have hit civilians. And one of the things we've pointed out
is that it has been the deliberate tactic of Hezbollah to place assets in
civilian areas, including sometimes in the homes of its own members, as
part of the tactics so that they would not get hit. And we lament the death
of innocents whether they be in Israel, or in Lebanon, or in Gaza, or
anywhere else. So it is something of which we are keenly aware. And it is
also a reflection of tactics that would have been unthinkable in other
conflicts at other times, but there is a deliberate attempt on the part of
Hezbollah to place civilians in harm's way. And, unfortunately, they are.

Q You have no problems with the targeting that Israel --

MR. SNOW: I'm not going to get in -- I'm not going --

Q But the President called for restraint. You have no problem with what's
already been targeted?

MR. SNOW: The President has called for restraint. And, frankly, Martha,
unless you or I have been in on the meetings that talk about targeting, it
is beyond our competence to judge precisely the methods by which they've
done it because neither you nor I know the intelligence that went into it
or the precautions that have been made. So it's a good argumentative
question, and I really don't have an answer for it.

Q Israel's deputy army chief today said that for the current offensive to
reach its goal, it's going to take weeks. Is the White House comfortable
with that kind of time frame?

MR. SNOW: Again, a statement by generals is one thing. Rather than trying
to talk about what we're comfortable with or not, we are uncomfortable with
the situation as it is. What we want is the proper -- the cessation of
violence in a manner that is consistent with stability, peace, democracy in
Lebanon, and also an end to terror.

A cease-fire that would leave the status quo ante intact is absolutely
unacceptable. A cease-fire that would leave intact a terrorist
infrastructure is unacceptable. So what we're trying to do is work as best
we can toward a cease-fire that is going to create not only the conditions,
but the institutions for peace and democracy in the region.

Q How do you respond to -- there's been some criticism that failure to calm
this fight on the part of the United States thus far may be a suggestion
that U.S. policies in the Middle East have failed because you have isolated
countries like Iran and Syria, which might actually be able to help in this
situation?

MR. SNOW: I don't think so. I think that you have found in the past that
kind gestures have not changed their behavior. What you have, in fact, I
think is just the opposite. You've got a success in policy to the extent
that you now have Arab states making statements of unprecedented candor
when it comes to some of their fellow Arab states. I would direct you to
the comments made the other day by the government of Saudi Arabia. I mean,
this is -- this marks a different era, because it does mean that Arab
nations and Muslim nations have stood up and said, Hezbollah is to blame,
and its sponsors are to blame.

So, far from being a failure of U.S. diplomacy, I think what we've done --
and we've talked about this with regard to North Korea and Iran -- is
create, once again, a coalition of people in the neighborhood, in the
region, who have a vested interest in seeing peace, and have a vested
interest in ensuring the stability of the democratically-elected government
of Lebanon, they're working together. That has not always been the case, as
you all know.

So I think this does, in fact -- look, success ultimately is going to be to
resolve this in a way that achieves the goals that we're talking about.
But, diplomatically, I think the United States has helped to move quite a
ways in terms of developing the kind of coalition that did not previously
exist.

John.

Q Do you have any sense right now of how many nations would be willing to
participate in some kind of security force?

MR. SNOW: No, and that's why I really -- the readout I'm getting is that
people are trying to figure out what is the proper way to go forward at the
appropriate juncture to provide stability within southern Lebanon, and I
honestly don't think anybody has got that all worked out. I'm sure there
are plenty of things on the drawing boards involving the government of
Lebanon itself, possibly the United Nations. But it's premature to
speculate about that sort of thing.

Q The trip by Rice, yesterday -- that was a snippet of a conversation we
heard about the --

MR. SNOW: Right.

Q Is there anything more that we could have heard then that would have put
it in perspective for us? Because --

MR. SNOW: No. Secretary Rice is contemplating a visit, but at this point,
it's just that. I mean --

Q Did you hear the comments from the Ambassador to the U.S. from Israel;
there are people out there saying, this is not the right time -- and is
that why it doesn't seem as imminent anymore?

MR. SNOW: Well, again, I think what the President said is, "I think Condi
is going to the region sometime." I believe that was the quote, which would
be accurate.

Q "Soon."

MR. SNOW: "Soon," okay, "soon." I think that's probably also accurate, but
whether that means one day, two days or five days, I'll redirect over to
State. She'll be able to provide the due clarity.

Q Tony, Arab and Muslim nations never condemn any kind of terrorism against
India, Israel or the West, and they have never condemned Osama bin Laden so
far. Now, as far as the bombings in India and Mumbai and Kashmir is
concerned, they took place right up before G8 summit in Russia, and Prime
Minister of India was also there. I understand he met with President Bush
and other leaders there.

MR. SNOW: Yes, he did.

Q My question is that the G8 did condemn the bombings, but what is the
outcome of these bombings? India is being hit every day, and Kashmir and
elsewhere, because some do not like India's booming economy and the
friendship with the United States. And don't you think India has also right
to defend its sovereignty, and they have right to hit the terrorists across
the border?

MR. SNOW: Goyal, I'm not sure that there was any large debate about that. I
can tell you, because I was in the meeting with Prime Minister Singh, the
first thing the President did was extend his condolences. And the bulk of
the meeting was spent on talking about ways to work together to fight the
war on terror in India and elsewhere, and in addition, to work together
also on things like energy independence. So it did arise.

Q Tony, when it comes to Secretary Rice's visit to the region, I know you
can't give us a time frame, but can you talk to us about what's at stake
here, as far her going and achieving some measure of success?

MR. SNOW: I really can't --

Q -- just simply because, as Tony Blair pointed out yesterday, he said, "If
she goes out, she's got to succeed, as it were, whereas I can just go and
talk."

MR. SNOW: Well, you don't go there with an empty satchel, you go there if
you have business that you think you can go ahead and transact. And the
United States is busy working on multiple fronts. I think the first thing
you've got to look at is the report back on Thursday from General --
Secretary Annan's delegation to the region, and then you move from there.
We're all waiting, basically, for that to take place. That's the next
benchmark in terms of trying to measure where you go in terms of
international cooperation.

Again, I would stress that our allies -- and that would include every
member of the G8, especially those who have relations with Iran and Syria
-- they have certainly been active. They have been engaged in
conversations, and there has been very robust diplomacy on all fronts to
try to work toward moving toward peace in the region on this, or at least
peace in southern Lebanon.

But in terms of trying to lay out any sort of specifics for Secretary Rice,
again, I will punt that to the State Department, that's their job. But I
think you don't simply go there for frequent flier miles. You go there when
you've got business to conduct.

Q Tony, one other question on another subject, what you announced at the
beginning of the briefing. Why did the President -- why is he deciding to
speak to the NAACP in person this year for the first time in his
presidency?

MR. SNOW: Because he wants to. (Laughter.) No, I'm serious, he wants to
because I think there's a moment of opportunity here. I think the President
wants to make the argument that he has had a career that reflects a strong
commitment to civil rights. And I think the other thing he wants to do is
to talk about some of the commonalities he has with members of the NAACP.
Yes, they have political disagreements. Also, Bruce Gordon, the new head of
the NAACP, he and the President have good relations. And I think it marks
an opportunity to have a conversation, and beyond that, I'd say just listen
to the remarks.

Q What was it such a hard decision --

MR. SNOW: It wasn't necessarily a hard decision. It was just hard for us to
tell you. (Laughter.)

Q Why is it such a precedent now, after all of these years? Why now?

MR. SNOW: I just told you, April, because he wants to.

Q No, but the President -- the President in 2004 said there was a lot of
bad blood between --

MR. SNOW: Well, at some point, you say -- I think the President really does
see a moment of opportunity. And he sees a moment of opportunity -- you and
I had this conversation the other day in this room. It is clear that in
this nation, racism and discrimination are legally unacceptable, but there
are also residues of the past that we have to address. We have to find ways
to make sure that the road to opportunity is clear for one and all.

And I think the President wants to make his voice heard. He has an
important role to play not only in making the case for civil rights, but
maybe more importantly, the case for unity. Because as long as we have a
nation that, in any way, is divided along racial lines, or where politics
become a source of division rather than one of simple debate and trying to
perfect the democracy, that's a problem. And the President really believes
strongly in trying to foster a sense of true unity that takes you back to
the roots of the civil rights movement, to the speech Martin Luther King,
Jr. made on August 28th, 1963, to the sacrifices of men and women who
paraded not for separatism, but for unity. And they paid a toll in blood
and toil, and set an example, and in many ways, reminded people who had
forgotten what was really meant by extending the blessings of liberty to
all, that all people were endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable
rights, and the Creator didn't discriminate on the basis on race.

Q Tony, a follow-up on that, is this somewhat the President's ways of
"atoning" after the slow response for Hurricane Katrina last year?

MR. SNOW: No, this is -- in fact, one of the things that is interesting is
that he and Bruce Gordon have worked together on this and he feels -- what
is it?

Q No, you said -- I didn't understand.

MR. SNOW: No, he and the head of the NAACP have worked on this and they --
so it's an important thing.

Q Will the President address in his speech the opposition within the
Republican Party to certain parts of the Voting Rights Act, to the Section
5?

MR. SNOW: You'll have to wait and see. I'll let the President give his
speech.

Q -- that some in his party have resisted Section 5?

MR. SNOW: You know what the President has done is he's made it very clear
where he stands on this. He wanted it renewed as written and that's what he
got. So the President's position on it is clear, and you can read into the
rest of it what you will.

Same topic, or same topics? Okay.

Q Thank you and welcome back.

MR. SNOW: Thank you.

Q Will the President order U.S. troops to be part of any stabilization
force sent to be a buffer between Israel and the Hezbollah?

MR. SNOW: Okay, before you go any further on that, again, I'm not going to
answer particular questions or details because we're just not there yet.
All right?

Q I actually have two questions. First, getting back to what you just said
about a moment of opportunity.

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q Can you tell us, what are the conditions in 2006 that create that moment
of opportunity that did not exist in 2004?

MR. SNOW: I don't know, but I think what the President has is -- the
President wants to go speak to the NAACP now.

Q Follow-up? Does he regret his earlier decision not to speak to them?

MR. SNOW: I don't know. I don't think so.

Q And then on an unrelated topic, we were told all last week that when you
returned from the G8, the administration would be presenting some kind of
legislative package to deal with the issue the Supreme Court raised in the
Hamdan case --

MR. SNOW: Yes, and it's still being worked on. It's still -- look, there
are a lot of people working on it, as you well know, and we're continuing
to work on it. There have been plenty of press reports and there were press
reports when we were on the road. We are working toward -- it is inevitable
that there will be legislative package worked out with members of Congress
to try to figure out the proper way forward consistent with the Hamdan
decision to bring to justice those at Guantanamo and those who have been
detained who are not members of a regular standing army. And those efforts
continue. And I think if you continue to consult colleagues on the Hill
that you all know that they are putting their best efforts forward and they
are working very hard, and the White House is working hard on it, as well.
I can't give you a tick-tock or a deadline. It's a devilishly complicated
question and they're working to do it, because we do want to proceed.

Q Do you understand that that package will be built around a commission
structure that works off the UCMJ and tweaks it slightly --

MR. SNOW: The answer is, I don't know. Some people will say --

Q That's three "I don't knows" to my question.

MR. SNOW: I know. (Laughter.) Well, that's because they're unanswerable.
For instance, when you talk about the UCMJ commission structure, some
people are going to use some pieces of the UCMJ in a commission and call it
UCMJ; some people are going to use some things in a commission under the
context of the UCMJ and call it a commission. A lot of this is labeling. It
is clear that people are going to try to figure out acceptable procedures
that are going to allow military authorities to proceed, and I think the
labeling is less important than getting the result right.

Q I have one more question.

MR. SNOW: Let me give some of the others a chance, and then we'll get back
to it.

Q I've got to ask, has the President been taking elocution lessons from the
Vice President, judging from his comments?

MR. SNOW: I think he's been taking them from you guys.

Q A follow-up. You also mentioned that there was unity in the G8 meeting.
Now, obviously, at the end of every meeting there's a communique and
they're all in agreement on the communique. But if you really look at the
sequence of events, at the statements made by the various world leaders
after each of the discussions, you will see a distinct difference in tone
and orientation, especially on the issue of the Middle East. Everybody
would seem to be in agreement --

MR. SNOW: Actually, let me -- here's the thing. I was in a considerable
number of the bilats and got a chance to see what was going on. There was
far more unity than you may have guessed. And sometimes people -- this was
not hard. There was not a lot of arm wrestling over this G8 statement. The
people were generally agreed, and most of the discussions had to do with
fairly minor details within the final statement. So you're just wrong on
the characterization of that.

Q I'll give you a couple of examples, not only of the President's
off-color, but not off-camera comments expressed the frustration --

MR. SNOW: I thought you said before -- no, no, no. He expressed -- wait,
wait, wait. Number one, you're committing the sin of getting your timing
wrong. You just talked about a statement. When the President made his
comment, the statement had long been out. He was expressing his frustration
at the fact that he was tired of terrorists lobbing rockets into civilian
areas. That's what he was talking about. He wasn't talking about
resolutions, he wasn't talking about diplomacy, he was talking about
terror. Go back and read it. Continue, yes.

Q Well, about the same time when he was -- when he was speaking, he was
there, there was a press conference by Kofi Annan and Prime Minister Blair
calling for a cease-fire, calling for U.N. troops. The U.S., obviously, was
balking on that. The Israelis were saying no. And the U.S. was backing them
--

MR. SNOW: Well, once again --

Q Isn't that a distinction between where everybody else is moving, and
where the U.S. is kind of standing --

MR. SNOW: No, nice try. No, you got it wrong. The sin of anachronism once
more, because, as you recall, he was speaking to Prime Minister Blair when
the so-called faux pas took place.

The second thing is that, if you look at it, there was a debate about
staging. There is no question that the United States wants a cease-fire,
but you also have to have the staging. And I will take you back to the G8
resolution, because it's clear on that very topic, as well. It says, "the
return of the Israeli soldiers in Gaza and Lebanon unharmed;" then, "an end
to the shelling of Israeli territory;" then you have an end to Israeli
occupation and the early withdrawal of forces. So the staging is actually
in the statement. And what the President was talking about in his comments
is the proper staging.

Furthermore, the United States was in on talks with Secretary General Annan
even before the delegation was announced. Secretary Rice has already
discussed her prior conversations with him, and we are perfectly supportive
of that mission.

So I think what you're trying to do is create the narrative that the United
States was isolated on what was an incredibly successful diplomatic visit.
During our time at the G8, the United Nations Security Council passed
unanimously a resolution on North Korea; the G8 not only passed a statement
on the Middle East, it reflected the prior statements and approach of the
President of the United States throughout. In addition, there was
considerable progress on a unified front toward Iran. Now, the fact that
people sometimes may have different points of emphasis is the way diplomacy
works. But results count, and the results do speak for themselves.

Q On the same note, without preempting this meeting, the bicameral,
bipartisan that you're going to post today, can you sum up the overall
impressions of the President from the G8, how satisfied he is with the
results, what are the results that are most important to you --

MR. SNOW: Well, I think he is very satisfied. Again, I just mentioned three
breakthroughs. Also, if you look at the communiqu items, whether they be
with regard to energy and energy innovation and dealing with pandemics and
a number of those things, there's considerable progress.

I mean, unlike most G8s, you had a lot of things in active motion. You had
deliberations going on in North Korea and the U.N. Security Council. You
had ongoing efforts to try to figure out how diplomatically to deal with
Iran. You had the necessity of responding to ongoing situations in the
Middle East. And people responded pretty nimbly. So I think the President
was very happy with the results.

Q And how well did Russia do its job as chair?

MR. SNOW: I think Russia did fine. Got to work on the microphones, but
other than that -- (laughter.)

Lester, unless it's on topic, I'll save it for a couple of minutes. Or is
this on topic?

Q You mean what he just asked? I have a two-part question, Tony. At almost
the same time the President declared that "Israel has a right to defend
itself," the President's Secretary of State said, "It is extremely
important that Israel exercise her restraint in its activities of
self-defense." And the first part: How does the President believe that it
is possible for Israel to be "restrained" in fighting a two-front war
against terrorists?

MR. SNOW: I think Martha pointed to one of the key things earlier, which is
in a situation like this you do not want to create undue carnage with
civilians. It has been part and parcel of U.S. doctrine in Iraq where you
use highly targeted munitions and you try to be as precise as possible. And
it is one of the horrible side-effects that civilians do get injured and
killed, and that is one of the lamentable things. But when you talk about
restraint what you're talking about is to try to hit to the greatest extent
practical only military targets.

Q And does he believe that the United States was "restrained" in killing al
Qaeda's master terrorist, al Zarqawi?

MR. SNOW: I think he thought it was appropriate.

Q Tony, was there a level of disappointment that the G8 didn't have --
didn't name Iran and Syria --

MR. SNOW: No. No, and I know a lot of people --

Q -- as sponsors of Hezbollah and Hamas?

MR. SNOW: No, and I'll tell you why. It's an open secret -- the language
was, I think, "those who support them" -- everybody knows who they are.

Q President Putin seemed to say that there's not enough evidence to support
the fact that Iran and Syria --

MR. SNOW: Well, again, I think if you take a look at the statements of
people in the neighborhood and the statements of people at the conference
-- and I think President Putin understands what the situation is, as well
-- we're perfectly comfortable with it. That really was no big deal.

Q Okay, and just last thing. Does the President believe that Syrian
President Assad wants instability in the region, as he seemed to indicate
to Prime Minister Blair?

MR. SNOW: I think that the President believes that, at this point,
President Assad is not doing what he can to create the conditions for
stability, which would be to stop housing terrorist organizations and
providing safe haven for them, and permitting people to conduct terrorist
operations or at least planning on his soil.

Q Can I ask you a question on stem cell?

MR. SNOW: Sure. Okay, let me wrap up -- we'll wrap up Iran because I'm
sure, Richard, there will also be some others.

Q Why did the President turn down Prime Minister Tony Blair's offer to go
to the Middle East?

MR. SNOW: It wasn't an offer. I think you heard as part of a conversation,
President -- I mean, Prime Minister Blair said, well, I could go. He's
perfectly free to go. But Condoleezza Rice is also going to go at the
appropriate time. But you will also note that in that recorded conversation
there is not any statement on the part of the President or anybody else,
no, Tony, you just stay where you are. The Prime Minister has control over
his schedule and his activities. He's perfectly free to do what he sees
fit.

Q There wasn't any encouragement either.

MR. SNOW: I don't think that that was a terribly long conversation. It was
just -- it was kind of an aside in a conversation. This was not a
full-scale diplomatic proffer. And I can tell you it was not something that
was offered during the bilateral conversation with the two.

Q I have one on another subject --

MR. SNOW: Okay, we'll come back to do other subjects, too. But we want to
make sure that everybody --

Q Tony, you've got some interesting developments this week. You've got a
large Christian convention this week supporting Israel. You've got a lot of
pro-Israeli rallies all throughout the country this week. Does the
President think the majority of Americans do support Israel? And will the
President be giving any addresses or any messages to these groups?

MR. SNOW: To the latter, I'm aware of none. To the former, as the President
has often said, you don't conduct foreign policy on the basis of opinion
polls. You do it on the basis of national interest and your responsibility
to enhance the security of the American people. So neither of those are
germane.

Q On this question of stem cell, what's the timing for the veto? If the
Senate passes a bill today, how quickly will you --

MR. SNOW: The understanding is it may take until tomorrow to get enrolled.
It will be pretty swift once you have a duly passed bill.

Q Will there be a ceremony?

Q I have one on Iran.

MR. SNOW: I'm sorry, wait -- let me -- okay.

Q With Iran supporting the Hezbollah, is it now time for direct
negotiations between the U.S. and Iran?

MR. SNOW: No.

Q The fighting -- let me finish. (Laughter.)

MR. SNOW: No, I'll tell you what, because this is kind of wasting time by
reading out a question. If there's anything else you have -- but the answer
to that is, no. And I do want to make sure that I get an opportunity,
Sarah, to call on everybody. Is there anything further you want on that,
because the answer is, no.

Q Okay.

MR. SNOW: Okay.

Q On stem cell, will there be a ceremony for the veto, for the signing of
the veto statement?

MR. SNOW: No, but there may be a ceremony for the signing of bills. You
guys -- everybody seems to think that there's one bill. There are three
bills that are going to be considered, and two of them await a presidential
signature. You seldom have veto-signing ceremonies.

Q -- several, for partial-birth abortion and for --

MR. SNOW: The President has made clear what his views are on this. I'm not
aware that we are going to have a ceremony for a veto. We are going to have
the exercise of veto. It's going to be a picture of a veto.

Q -- a picture of him not signing? (Laughter.)

MR. SNOW: No, they're not going to hand out ceremonial pens, they're not
going to --

Q -- sign a statement in public and called it a veto ceremony. And the
question was, do you anticipate something like that for this?

MR. SNOW: No, but I appreciate the history of veto statements.

Q Can you remind us why the President believes that it is not appropriate
to use -- that it is more appropriate for stem cells to be thrown away than
to be used, in this case, for medical research?

MR. SNOW: The President -- I don't think that's the choice that the
President has presented. What the President has said is that he doesn't
want human life destroyed. Now, you may consider that insignificant, but
the President has said -- and you have had in a number of cases the
Snowflake babies, where some of those fetuses have, in fact, been brought
to term and have become human beings. The President believes strongly that
for the purpose of research it's inappropriate for the federal government
to finance something that many people consider murder; he's one of them.

Furthermore, it is worth pointing out that this government did make
available already existing lines -- to sort of get back to your question,
there were existing lines. And the most recent figures we have are 2004,
but 85 percent of all the embryonic stem cell research on Earth was
conducted using those lines. There is nothing that makes embryonic stem
cell research illegal; it simply says that the federal government will not
finance it. As you know, there are ongoing efforts in some states,
including, I think, California and Massachusetts, to use state money for
it, and I daresay if people think that there's a market for it, they're
going to support it handsomely. The simple answer is he thinks murder is
wrong, and he has said.

Q The legislation is going to be -- that deals with thousands and thousands
of embryos that will be thrown out, destroyed.

MR. SNOW: That is a tragedy, but the President is not going to get on the
slippery slope of taking something that is living and making it dead for
the purpose of research.

Q Tony, how far on the back burner has the situation between Israel and
Hezbollah pushed international efforts in regards to imposing sanctions on
Iran over their nuclear policy?

MR. SNOW: I'll get back to the Nick Burns -- you guys seem to think that if
one thing is going on or one thing is leading the news, that everybody is
not dealing with the other. As I just said, I believe, that there have been
ongoing and active diplomatic efforts regarding Iran, and I expect that
you're going to see before too long some results of that. So the answer is
it hasn't pushed it off, at all; people have been busily engaged also in
working that issue.

Q Do you think it might have been part of -- a factor in Hezbollah's
activities was to divert attention?

MR. SNOW: I'm not going to try to read the mind of a terrorist
organization. I think it's fruitless in this case.

Q Can you say what message the President is hoping to send to the public by
making the stem cell bill the first veto of his administration? And can you
also explain why, after five years not vetoing any legislation, he's about
to change that strategy?

MR. SNOW: He hasn't changed the strategy. There have been 141 veto threats
during the course of this administration, quite often on fairly complex
bills. You saw it with the supplemental appropriation recently, where he
said, you spend over this amount of money and we're simply not going to go
there, I'll veto it. In the vast majority of cases, Congress has come back
and given him what he's wanted.

This is a freestanding bill and it's a freestanding bill that goes a place
that the President has always said that he would not go. He is fulfilling a
promise that he has long made and he is keeping it.

So I think it's tempting to say, ah-ha, he's picking this out for his first
veto. There has not been, at least as far as I know, a comparable period
within this administration where there has been an issue on which the
President has made it absolutely clear he's going to veto a bill. Also, let
me reiterate: There will be two other bill signings with regard to stem
cell research. There is an enormous amount of progress being made in adult
stem cells.

I'll give you a personal example. My hair is darker than it was a year ago.
After I had chemo my hair fell out and it grew back -- you know why? Adult
stem cells. No lie. I was told by the guy who runs the operation at
Georgetown. The fact is they're studying to try to figure out how it is
that adult stem cells, blood cord and other cells are capable of helping
and healing. The President is not opposed to stem cell research, he's all
for it. But there is one kind of research, and that is that which involves
the destruction of human life, that he does not think is appropriate for
the federal government to finance. He's been absolutely clear about it;
there is no shading in it. Congress has passed a bill that does that and he
feels honor-bound to veto it.

Q Tony, just to clarify something on immigration. The President of Mexico
in his great chat with the President of the U.S. after -- (inaudible) --
President Bush told him that there's no way to approve immigration before
elections in November. But then today, in Spain, the President of Mexico
says there is a document by the White House saying there is a chance to
approve the bill before elections. So we just want to clarify what --

MR. SNOW: Okay, I want to clarify, because I asked the President about
this. He did not tell the President of Mexico that there was no chance that
this was going to be passed before the elections. The President of Mexico
may have mis-heard. He said that there may be some timing issues before
Labor Day, because you've got three weeks before Congress leaves, but the
President is still committed to comprehensive immigration reform and
getting it done as quickly as possible. And he's working with Congress on
that and members of the administration are doing the same.

So I want to make it clear, again, this is like the stem cell veto -- there
was -- he was absolutely clear about it. He did not make the comment to the
President of Mexico. So the President may have misunderstood what President
Bush had to say.

Q I don't want to split hairs on this, but wasn't the report that he said
it was unlikely that there would be --

MR. SNOW: Either way, it's a miss