Text 3222, 1018 rader
Skriven 2006-09-12 23:31:12 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (0609122) for Tue, 2006 Sep 12
====================================================
===========================================================================
Press Briefing by Tony Snow
===========================================================================

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
September 12, 2006

Press Briefing by Tony Snow
White House Conference Center Briefing Room

Press Briefing view


1:20 P.M. EDT

MR. SNOW: All right, a couple of preliminary announcements and then we will
go to questions. President Bush will welcome President Nursultan Nazarbayev
of the Republic of Kazakhstan to the White House on September 29, 2006.
Kazakhstan is an important strategic partner in Central Asia. The President
and President Nazarbayev will discuss a range of issues, including
democracy promotion, the war on terror, energy diversification, expanding
prosperity and our common commitment to working together to advance freedom
and security.

The President also will welcome Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan
to the White House on October 2, 2006. This meeting will provide an
opportunity for the President and the Prime Minister to enhance further the
strategic partnership between the United States and Turkey, and discuss
increased cooperation in the war on terror, including countering the PKK,
and in advancing freedom in Lebanon, Iraq and the broader Middle East. The
President looks forward to discussing with the Prime Minister these and
other important issues, including Turkey's pursuit of political and
economic reforms and U.S. support for Turkey's accession to the European
Union.

And with that, I'll go to questions. Terry.

Q Last night, the President asked Democrats and Republicans to put aside
differences in the war on terrorism. And I wanted to see how you think
that's going, a day later, when Harry Reid accuses the President of playing
election year politics and House Majority Leader Boehner says of Democrats,
"I wonder if they're more interested in protecting the terrorists than
protecting the American people. They certainly don't want to take the
terrorists on and defeat them." So --

MR. SNOW: Apparently, there are differing points of view. (Laughter.)

Q Even at that, you don't think it's -- so did the President fail in his
mission?

MR. SNOW: No, I don't think so. It's interesting, we're going to have a lot
of political conflict this year. Perfectly understandable, acceptable,
predictable. That's the way it works. But yesterday gave the American
people a chance to reflect on September 11th and how it froze us in an
instant and made us understand that there was something out there we hadn't
seen before, hadn't even expected, didn't have any suspicion that it
existed. And that was a network of terrorists who would use any means
possible, including things that are -- at least for you and me --
unimaginable, which was to turn airliners into weapons of mass destruction.

It also revealed that there was an ideology abroad that said that freedom
is a terrible thing and that people were going to twist and pervert the
Koran in an attempt to create a holy war, when, in fact, theirs was an
ideology of despotism and terror, and that they were serious about it; that
they had plans; that they were organized and that they were trying to kill
Americans. We all realize that. Before that day, I daresay very few people
in this room were then focusing in any serious way on Osama bin Laden.

So we learned about that. And as a nation, we remain united to beat those
guys. And we remain united in our desire to remember the people who died --
the President yesterday having met with friends and family of many of them.

So, no, I think Americans are united on the important things, and they also
understand that in politics there will be a vigorous debate about how best
to pursue the goal. But I don't think there's any disagreement that,
ultimately, our freedoms are precious, and that this country is an
extraordinary place that remains not only the beacon of the world but the
envy of many, and that it is our responsibility to preserve that for this
and every future generation. And Americans also understand political
seasons.

Q But, Tony, wait --

Q Do you think that both sides -- Democrats and Republicans -- want to
defeat the terrorists?

MR. SNOW: Yes, I do. I mean, I think -- I don't think --

Q So you disagree with --

MR. SNOW: I'm not going to get in a debate over statements that I haven't
seen. I think that there are going to be plenty of debates about who is
going to be more effective in waging that battle. But I'll let John Boehner
and Harry Reid duke it out on their own. I'll speak for the President.

Let me get to David, and then I'll get to you, Martha. Go ahead, David.

Q As you well know, this is not a campaign season about whether America is
a great place or not, right? I mean, it's a lot more substantive than that,
and it has to do with the path that this President took the country after
9/11.

Now, when a Republican leader of Congress says, "I wonder if Democrats are
more interested in protecting terrorists than they are in protecting the
American people," as a spokesman for the President, do you think that it's
your duty to say that that's out of bounds or not?

MR. SNOW: Frankly, again, this is one of these things -- I haven't even
seen the Boehner statement. But let me make a larger point. When people
call the President a liar or a loser, that happens. There have been all
sorts of names and smears aimed at the President. And he understands and
he's a big enough boy to deal with that.

The other thing is that in this present political season, unfortunately
there will be a lot of -- there's going to be some name-calling. You know
what? I think you and I agree. Let's figure out what the substantive issues
are, let's get past the name-calling, and let's get down to it and let's
talk about it.

Q But this is important, because, as a matter of fact, the Vice President
said over the weekend to Tim Russert that the sort of debate we're having
in this country, about withdrawing troops from Iraq, emboldens the
terrorists. Now you have a Republican leader of Congress saying the
Democrats may be more interested in protecting terrorists than the American
people. Does the President agree with that?

MR. SNOW: What you've done is you've taken two things. Let's focus on what
the Vice President said, which is that withdrawal from Iraq would embolden
the terrorists. I think it's true. Osama bin Laden has made it clear. And
one of the things he says is if the United States is pushed from Iraq, it
will be to the eternal humiliation of the United States.

So it is clear from the standpoint of bin Laden, who, in the past -- and
you quite kindly corrected me on a misstatement back in August, when I got
it wrong -- bin Laden drew the conclusion when we left Somalia that the
Americans didn't have what it took to stick it out. See, that's the way
that the enemy is looking at this. So as an objective statement about the
way in which bin Laden views the United States, that is a true statement.
I'm not going to get into trying to characterize what John Boehner said.

Q Because you certainly would get into it if somebody accused the President
of being a liar. I mean, do you want to let a statement like this stand
from a Republican leader of Congress?

MR. SNOW: Like I said, you're presenting me with a statement I haven't
seen. I'll tell you what, I'll get back to you on it.

Q It's been out there for a couple of hours. I think you had ample time to
see it.

MR. SNOW: Well, actually, no --

Q Let me ask you this final point. Can you describe how it's possible to
oppose the President on the war on Iraq without emboldening the terrorists?

MR. SNOW: Yes. Yes, absolutely. There are ways to do it. But also, if you
say we need to leave right now, without preconditions -- and I'm not sure
anybody says that, but I'll give you a hypothetical -- that would embolden
the terrorists. If the end result was that we left Iraq and we did not have
an Iraq that was able to sustain itself, govern itself and defend itself,
that would embolden the terrorists.

If the terrorists have the ability, if the terrorists draw the conclusion
that they can use political means -- because they can't defeat us
militarily, so it has to be a political battle -- if they can use political
means to drive us from Iraq and make Iraq a place from which -- like
Afghanistan before -- that could mount terrorist attacks and set up their
own headquarters, and this time have, in addition, oil as a weapon -- then
that, in fact, is the kind of situation that we can't let stand.

But there are ways of -- you can disagree over a lot of things. If you
share the objective of having an Iraq -- and this is what's kind of
interesting about the debate last night, because if you look at the
President's speech, he talks about an Iraq that's going to be able to be
democratic -- I don't know that that's controversial with anybody -- an
Iraq where Iraqi forces are going to be able to defend Iraqi ground. I
don't know that that's controversial. I think those are the things -- to
answer your question, and I'll let you get back to this, to answer your
question, it is possible to disagree. But on the other hand, if you are
proposing a position that says to bin Laden, in effect, Iraq is yours, then
that is not the kind of thing that I think is going to lead to victory.

Q Do Democrats want to protect terrorists more than the American people?
What do you think?

MR. SNOW: Again, I know you think that in the last hour -- I had an hour to
prepare, because we had long meetings --

Q I'm asking you that question -- forget about what John Boehner said, I'm
putting the proposition to you. Do you have an opinion on that topic?

MR. SNOW: Do I think -- no, I think --

Q That Democrats are more interested in protecting terrorists than the
American people?

MR. SNOW: No.

Q Tony, your own commanders have said the biggest threat in Iraq is
sectarian violence, the threat of civil war. And, yet, the President keeps
talking about the threat of terror. You're again saying the biggest threat
there is Osama bin Laden. The President last night said the safety of
America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad. Why
do your commanders say the biggest threat is civil war? The President keeps
saying it's terror.

MR. SNOW: I think they say sectarian violence. I think we're leading to the
same place, Martha, which is if you have --

Q Which is the threat of civil war, sectarian violence.

MR. SNOW: -- if you have an anarchic society that collapses, and therefore
you end up having a rudderless, weak, divided society -- as you had in
Afghanistan, which paved the way for the Taliban to take over -- then
you've got a situation that is ripe for the kind of terrorist breakthrough
that we're talking about in Iraq. I think that the disagreement you're
looking for is more apparent than real here. The President is aware, and he
talks regularly -- he's got a conversation later this week with General
Casey. We keep constant watch on this stuff, and we do care about it and we
do know the sectarian violence is a key factor. And the end result of
sectarian violence -- civil war, if you want to put it that way -- I think
the formulation is, if trends continue, then we could move towards civil
war, that was what General Abizaid told Congress.

So it's several -- I don't think anybody is projecting imminent civil war,
but if you have instability --

Q But they're also saying the threat of terrorism is small,
percentage-wise.

MR. SNOW: You're mixing two different things.

Q No, I'm not.

MR. SNOW: Yes, you are, and I'll explain why. I'll explain why. If you end
up having the government of Iraq collapse, then you'll have a situation
that is ripe for creating terrorism. That's what we're talking about, the
end result is a terrorist state.

Q Okay, then let's go to the area where terrorism is a very serious problem
-- al Anbar province -- where your commanders say terrorism is a very
serious problem. And you had a senior Marine intelligence officer say if
you did not get more troops there, the situation would continue to
deteriorate.

MR. SNOW: Well, there a couple of things --

Q Are they going to get more troops there? How are you going to stop it?

MR. SNOW: Well, two things. First, his combatant commander is briefing the
press even as we speak; he started just a couple of minutes ago. Earlier
today, General Zellmer, who outranks the Colonel, but is aware of the
report, said that, "Recent media reports fail to accurately capture the
entirety and complexity of the current situation in the al Anbar province.
The classified assessment which has been referred to in these reports was
intended to focus on the causes of the insurgency. It was not intended to
address the positive effects coalition and Iraqi forces have."

He goes on to say that it is clear that there's violence in al Anbar
province. The answer is, if the President gets a recommendation from the
combatant commanders to send more troops to al Anbar province, they will
get them.

Q So what the intelligence officer said, who has been there seven, eight
months and seen conditions on the ground every single day -- I believe
General Zellmer is not there every single day -- what he says is what?

MR. SNOW: What he says is something to take seriously. I suspect that there
are many other data points to be gathered from people in al Anbar. And as
you know, what the job of a commander is, is to go and sort through that
very intelligence and figure out the best way to proceed.

The idea that somehow, somebody has a vested interest in failing in Al
Anbar is preposterous and you know it. Everybody, including the colonel who
writes the report, wants to succeed there. And so --

Q But I also know what those reports are, and how meaningful they are if
someone has been on the ground for eight months?

MR. SNOW: I understand that. And there have also been a lot of other --
you're assuming that there's only one person who's entitled to speak on it.
It is conceivable that other people have differing assessments. And I do
think that the person who has direct operational responsibility will do
more than simply sort of pull his chin and try to come to a conclusion. It
is his job to assess the intelligence he gets, not merely from that
colonel, but from many others, and to come up with an assessment.

Let me reiterate: The President has made it clear -- he doesn't want
anybody BS'ing him, he doesn't want anybody lying to him, he doesn't want
anybody shading the truth to him. He has made it absolutely clear to
generals that the job is to win. And the first think you have to do is, to
the best of your ability, cut through that fog of war and tell him what the
situation is and what they need to get the job done, and that continues to
be the case.

Q Well, one more, Tony, just one more. Do you believe -- does the President
still believe that Saddam Hussein was connected to Zarqawi or al Qaeda
before the invasion?

MR. SNOW: The President has never said that there was a direct, operational
relationship between the two, and this is important. Zarqawi was in Iraq.

Q There was a link --

MR. SNOW: Well, and there was a relationship -- there was a relationship in
this sense: Zarqawi was in Iraq; al Qaeda members were in Iraq; they were
operating, and in some cases, operating freely from Iraq. Zarqawi, for
instance, directed the assassination of an American diplomat in Amman,
Jordan. But they did they have a corner office at the Mukhabarat? No. Were
they getting a line item in Saddam's budget? No. There was no direct
operational relationship, but there was a relationship. They were in the
country, and I think you understand that the Iraqis knew they were there.
That's the relationship.

Q Saddam Hussein knew they were there; that's it for the relationship?

MR. SNOW: That's pretty much it.

Q The Senate report said they didn't turn a blind eye.

MR. SNOW: The Senate report -- rather than get -- you know what, I don't
want to get into the vagaries of the Senate report, but it is pretty clear,
among other things, again, that there were al Qaeda operators inside Iraq,
and they included Zarqawi, they included a cleric who had been described as
the best friend of bin Laden who was delivering sermons on TV. But we are
simply not going to go to the point that the President is -- the President
has never made the statement that there was an operational relationship,
and that's the important thing, because I think there's a tendency to say,
aha, he said that they were in cahoots and they were planning and doing
stuff; there's no evidence of that.

Jim.

Q Was the President's speech last night political?

MR. SNOW: No.

Q How can you say that?

MR. SNOW: Because, I'll tell you -- how can I not?

Q Because -- Tony, you were here Friday.

MR. SNOW: What was the political statement? Tell me what the political
sentence was. Give me the sentence.

Q I'll tell you exactly what it was. It was a crystallized greatest hits of
the eight-day period in which he made four speeches where he laid out his
philosophical underpinnings about the war on terror heading into the
election. And he boiled it down, crystallized it and laid it out last night
on network TV for 17 minutes. And it was in direct contrast to what you
came in here and told us Friday.

MR. SNOW: No, that's not in direct contrast.

Q Yes, it was. You said Friday that there would be no drawing of lines,
distinctions between Democrats and Republicans --

MR. SNOW: And there wasn't.

Q -- it would focus on unity.

MR. SNOW: There wasn't.

Q Was it a speech about unity, or was it a speech about a proposal about
Iraq?

MR. SNOW: It was speech about -- let me -- out of the entire speech --
well, let's take a look at the Iraq section.

Q Let's do that.

MR. SNOW: Let's have some fun. (Laughter.) If you look at the Iraq
statement -- let's back up. We're in a war on terror right now -- I'm going
to start at the back and move forward, because the back end is something
very important, which is Osama bin Laden, mastermind of September 11th, the
person that many people talk about and still have concerns about, calls
this fight, the fight in Iraq, "the third world war." And he says that,
"Victory for the terrorists in Iraq will mean America's defeat and disgrace
forever."

We are in Iraq. It is now seen as the central focal point of the war on
terror by the very people who mounted September 11th. If the President of
the United States, in talking about September 11th, did not make reference
to the plans and the strategy and the beliefs of the very people who
mounted September 11th on the anniversary of that date, it would have seen
as dereliction. And you guys would have been out here just clubbing me like
a baby seal, saying, why didn't --

Q No, I think it would have --

MR. SNOW: -- let me finish and then you can come back -- saying, why on
earth did you -- why didn't you talk about Iraq; I know why it is, because
the President is being political and he understands that Iraq is unpopular.

Last week the question was: Isn't it true that he wants to talk about the
war on terror instead of Iraq. If this is supposed to be political,
according to the calculus that is constantly presented to me, it's kind of
a weird way to do it.

Instead, what the President was making reference to after September 11th --
the war on terror didn't end on September 11th, it began. It lifted the
veil to us on a world that we didn't know existed, that we have to respond
to. And it is also a real fact that the war in Iraq is clearly part of that
war on terror, and where we proceed with it.

Q You've got to stop right there, because that --

MR. SNOW: Why do I have to stop right there?

Q Because that is the central point that will be debated in the next eight
weeks between Democrats and Republicans. That will be in large part what
the midterm elections are decided on.

MR. SNOW: I agree.

Q Okay, So if the President takes time in a speech that was advertised by
you at this podium on Friday as being non-political and no drawing of
distinctions --

MR. SNOW: I said it was no drawing of partisan lines.

Q -- and he gets up last night and lays out his case, and essentially it is
an advertisement for the next eight weeks --

MR. SNOW: What you're saying is he shouldn't have talked about Iraq. Is
that what you're saying?

Q I'm saying that it wasn't consistent with what it was billed.

MR. SNOW: No, I disagree, and I'll tell you why. Throughout the day, by the
way, you're getting an interesting contrast.

You had Congressman Moran going at a memorial service in Arlington and
bashing the President. The President never once talked about a Democrat by
name yesterday, never once said, my policy is this, their policy is that,
they're wrong, I'm right.

What I told you was there would be no drawing of partisan distinctions, and
there wasn't. And furthermore, if you look at the section, what part of
this -- this controversy -- "Al Qaeda and other extremists from across the
world have come to Iraq to stop the rise of a free society in the heart of
the Middle East." That's not offensive. How about, "We're training Iraqi
troops so that they can defend their nation." Both parties support that.
"We will not leave until this work is done." Quick show of hands for
everybody who wants to leave until the work is done.

The point is that the use of the term "partisan" I think is being now
tossed around as a way to fend off the debate or say, how dare the
President talk about it. I guarantee --

Q No, because it was. This was supposed to a pause in all that, for 24
hours.

MR. SNOW: And it was. But if you look at it, what the President is
explaining -- and everybody in vast majorities of both Houses of Congress
agree, it was important to go ahead and address the issue of Saddam
Hussein. And you have wide support in both Houses of Congress. Both Houses
of Congress agreed to going into this war. We're there. We have to deal
with it. For the President to ignore it -- let me -- I'll give you
anecdotal evidence. Yesterday morning, we're in a firehouse in New York,
talking with a lot of people who lost friends and buddies. Later in the day
we went to Shanksville, and the President worked a long semi-circle of
grieving family members. At the Pentagon there is -- as you saw, it was a
very emotional meeting with family members. Not one said, don't fight, give
up, quit, get out.

But the President did not want to try to turn this into a Democrats versus
the Republicans thing, but you cannot talk about the war on terror without
talking about Iraq. And furthermore, you can't talk about September 11th,
especially when Osama bin Laden, himself, says, Iraq is at the center of
all this -- without mentioning it.

What he tried to do was to lay it out in as neutral a way as possible and
explain why he did it. And furthermore the question was, why are you there?
This was the question that he answered.

This was not an attempt to stir the hornet's nest. Meanwhile, Senator
Levin, before the speech, on Lou Dobbs hammering the President. You had
people, as you all know, had their talking points out, accusing the
President of being partisan the instant the speech was over. There was no
talk out of the White House yesterday of Democrat versus Republican.

And, furthermore, a good 90 percent of the speech has to deal with the
things that draw us together, including many of the sections -- many of the
sentences on Iraq were expressions of things that are utterly
uncontroversial with both political parties.

Q But, Tony, when the President said yesterday that the worst mistake --
talking about Iraq, that the worst mistake would be to think that if we
pulled out, the terrorist would leave us alone. Who is he referring to,
though? Isn't he suggesting implicitly that --

MR. SNOW: No, he's not --

Q -- that's what his critics believe?

MR. SNOW: No, he's making a statement. Look, here's the question that
people will ask, should we leave right now or not? Under what conditions
should we leave? The President says he wants to get out, everybody wants to
get out. The question is, under what conditions?

No, what he was actually doing was summarizing testimony that General
Abizaid had given, and what General Abizaid has told him directly, which
is, if we leave they will follow us. That's what he was trying to do. He
was repeating what he's heard from the key General in the war.

Q But he said the worst mistake would be to think that if we pulled out the
terrorists would leave us alone. Has someone suggested that they feel the
terrorists would leave us alone if we left Iraq?

MR. SNOW: No, what he's trying to do is to repeat to you exactly what the
terrorists think. That sentence is not an attempt -- look, I have a feeling
that some people may feel pain because they think it's pointing to them.
It's not pointing to them, it's pointing at the terrorists. It's pointing
at the terrorists who, again, want to engage in the fantasy -- they've
learned the hard way once, and let's pray they don't learn the hard way
twice -- they don't realize that we love our liberty and we love our
country. And if they strike, we're going to strike back. That's what that's
all about. That's as much a warning to terrorists as anything else. It's
not a desire to start pointing fingers at members of Congress.

Q Tony, when he says, let's put aside our differences, what is he referring
to? Is he referring to Iraq or something else?

MR. SNOW: Look, I think it is perfectly possible and laudable -- getting
back to David's question -- people can disagree about Iraq, they can
disagree. But let's do it in a way where we keep our eye on the ball, which
is to win the war on terror and do it in a constructive way to figure out
how best to get the job done. If somebody wants to do it, that's fine, but
don't start finger-pointing and all that kind of thing. I think the most
important challenge facing the American people right now is to realize that
it's a long war. And one of the key calculations of bin Laden and others is
we'll run out of patience -- we won't, but that's their calculation.

And what the President -- look, it would be great if both political parties
right now would start realizing that the national interest is to win the
war on terror and to present a united front. It's not likely to happen in a
political year. There are going to be disagreements. It's been that way in
every war and in every administration, but we'll get through it.

Jim.

Q I didn't have my hand up, but I do have a question. So it works out well
this time.

MR. SNOW: Well, you'd had your hand up before, and you looked so eager,
that I just --

Q I'm always eager.

MR. SNOW: Do you want to me wait and call on somebody else, and then you
can figure out what your question is?

Q No, no, no.

Q I had my hand up.

MR. SNOW: I didn't see it, Helen. I'll get back to Helen next.

Q Anyway, on the unity question, the President, I'm sure, would tell the
Democrats that calling him a liar is not constructive, but he's not the
head of the Democratic Party, he is the titular head of the Republican
Party. Assuming what you've heard Boehner being quoted as saying, would the
President say that that sort of rhetoric is likewise not providing a sense
of unity?

MR. SNOW: Look, I'm just -- I'm not going to get drawn into something I
haven't seen. Let me put it this way -- take a look at what the President
has done. With all the names that have been -- all the names -- with all
the stuff that's been thrown at him, look for one time that he's responded
in kind. Look for one time. I mean, that's the example. And I'm just not
going to play on the Boehner question.

Q But I'm not --

MR. SNOW: I'll tell you what, ask Boehner, all right?

Q But I'm just saying in terms of setting a tone of the dialogue --

MR. SNOW: We'll set the tone. We'll do our best to set the tone.

Q Tony, just to come back to one more question in the speech last night.
The central Democratic argument today is that the inclusion of a defense of
an unpopular war in a political year was inappropriate to a day of
mourning. I gather you disagree?

MR. SNOW: Absolutely, because that's not what the speech was. Did you
listen to the speech? I mean, the fact is

Q I've got the whole --

MR. SNOW: I know. What's interesting is that you had a lot of people who
were ready to punch the "send" button the moment the speech was over. Fine.
They decided they'd engage in partisanship. And there's going to be a
debate about it. I mean, we're going to rumble on all those issues, I
suppose. But to tell the President, who spent extra time with family
members, walking person to person to person in New York and in Pennsylvania
and in Washington, D.C., that somehow he didn't get the proper tone to
strike, while other people were making partisan points during the day, it's
just wrong.

I mean, again, if you want to take a look at the speech, there was -- we
took great pains not to say "Democrat versus Republican." The President did
have an obligation as Commander-in-Chief in a time of war to let people
know what he was thinking. But it's fair game for people to criticize him
on it, and we're sure it's going to happen.

Helen.

Q Have the generals asked for more troops, or have they been told not to
ask?

MR. SNOW: No, they pointedly have not been told not -- there have been no
orders to the generals about not asking for more troops. As a matter of
fact, the President is constantly going at them, "What do you need?" And so
I think that there's going to be continuing close questioning of, "Do you
need more? What do you do if you got a battalion or two more?"

Q If they needed more and asked for more, they would be sent?

MR. SNOW: Yes, ma'am.

Q Tony, about Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki's trip to Tehran, after
all the President and Defense Secretary have said about Iran's interference
in Iraq, what's the White House response? In this joint press conference
today, Prime Minister Maliki was asked specifically about that, and said,
basically there's no problem, there are no obstacles; went on to say the
relation with Iran remained excellent. What's the response there?

MR. SNOW: The response is we are still concerned about Iran's trying to
support sectarian elements, but also we understand that Prime Minister
Maliki is doing what he needs to as a head of state visiting a neighbor
that has some power and certainly some influence, there being a lot of Shia
Muslims, including Prime Minister Maliki. And we will do everything we can
not only to support the Prime Minister, but also to say to the Iranians,
play a constructive role.

Q This administration clearly still believes Iran is interfering in Iraq.

MR. SNOW: We want to make sure they don't.

Q I also have a question about troops, the troops in Afghanistan, Tony. How
does the administration feel about the NATO debate about sending more
troops in? The President, of course, last night said that administration
efforts have chased the Taliban from power, but they're threatening in the
south.

MR. SNOW: Well, they're threatening in the -- there are several things
going on, Peter. And this actually -- some of this answer is going to apply
to Iraq, as well, so I'm going to broaden it beyond your original question.
The strategy both in Iran and Iraq is to get more troops on the ground.

Q You mean Afghanistan.

MR. SNOW: What did I say? Yes, I'm sorry, Afghanistan. Thank you.

Q I thought we had news there. (Laughter.)

MR. SNOW: Thank you. Oh, man, everybody was going to be pounding there --
in Afghanistan and Iraq is to get more troops on the ground -- more Afghan
troops and more Iraqi troops. And that continues to be a focal point in
both theaters of war.

Furthermore, as we've talked about before, what's going on now is that the
Afghan government is beginning to extend its sphere of influence. For a
very long time, as you know, it was confined around the area of Kabul, and
now it is spreading. And, not surprisingly, you are not only seeing a push
back from the Taliban, but you're also seeing an attempt to try to figure
out what NATO troops are made of, because there's also been a transfer from
U.S. forces in some places and NATO forces. And guess what? The NATO forces
are also winning significant and lopsided victories on the battleground.

These are things that are somewhat predictable, and I think our planners
have expected them. When you're getting both the attempt to expand and
extend the effective authority of the government, and also the transfers of
military authority -- because they're going to try to test it out and
they're finding out that they're losing.

Q Does your characterization of significant and lopsided victories extend
to what's happening in southern Afghanistan right now?

MR. SNOW: Yes, I mean, if you take a look at what's been going on, there
have been a number of operations where there have been heavy Afghan
casualties. Now, it's certainly not bloodless, because you have people on
the Afghan side who are committed, they're committed terrorists, they're
committed members of the Taliban. But you're also seeing significant
military action against them.

John.

Q Can you give any kind of look ahead for the rest of this series of
speeches, how many there are going to be, and particularly if there is one
at the U.N. I think coming up?

MR. SNOW: David and I talked about this before. Obviously, the war on
terror and all the parameters of the war on terror are going to be very
important, and we're going to talk about it. I'm not going to give you an
itemized list of how many addresses, but it is clear that we will talk
about the international community's role in fighting the war on terror when
we get to the UNGA. But beyond that, I really don't want to try to get too
far into it. We'll give you more details as we get closer. And we'll also,
on Friday, give you a full schedule of all the proposed meetings -- all the
meetings and other activities scheduled when we get to New York next week.

Q Is there just going be that one in New York, or is there going to be
additional --

MR. SNOW: As I said, I'm going to tell you about New York, and I'll tell
you others as they -- when I'm ready to.

Q Tony, in retrospect, do you think you had any obligation to tell the
networks that the speech was going to be kind of a step beyond a
commemoration speech, so that if they chose to, they could have given --

MR. SNOW: Let me tell you what I told the networks. I told the networks
that the President was not going to be calling out Democrats, that he was
not going to be making specific legislative proposals, that he was going to
take a look backward and forward in the war on terror. I told them what
kind of speech he was going to give. And so, no. You're accusing me of
false advertising without having been in on the conversation.

Q Did you tell them that he was going to offer a defense of the war in
Iraq?

MR. SNOW: Again, if I had come up here after the President delivered a war
[sic] on September 11th without mentioning a conflict that right now there
is 147,000 American troops on the ground, you guys would have crushed me.
This was not an attempt -- the President, again -- total text is 20 percent
of the text, and total percent that talks about more strategic matters far
smaller than that. The bulk of the speech is talking about the war on
terror, the people who are arrayed against us, what they intend to do, how
we need to move forward. And I make no apology for my characterization, I
think it was accurate, and I think -- it's what I told the news chiefs.

But on the other hand, as you know, we don't sit around and say, by the
way, this is exactly what the President is going to say. That just doesn't
happen.

Q But you chose to leave it out of the excerpts that were released early.
And I'm wondering how far in advance this Iraq language was written?

MR. SNOW: It had been locked down -- as I told some of you yesterday, the
full speech had been pretty much locked down 24 hours in advance. This was
not a response to certain, "political developments," it was a natural
element in trying to explain where we are in the war on terror.

One of the things -- it might be interesting, since -- because there's been
a lot of pressure about -- is it a political. You might want to flip it
around, too. I don't want to give you editorial advice, but go ahead and go
through the sentences, and say to Democrats, do you disagree with, "We will
not leave until this war is done," or do you disagree with, "We're going to
train Iraqi troops so they can defend their nation." Are you going to ask
them -- even to disagree with the fact that, "Congress and the United
Nations saw the threat, and after 9/11 Saddam Hussein's regime posed a risk
the world could not afford to take." Ask them about their own record on
this. It's worth doing.

How about the question, "The world is safer because Saddam Hussein is no
longer in power." The President has been saying it for a long time; go
ahead and flip it back, and ask people what they think about it.

These were not designed to be sort of punch you, I'm-going-to-pick-a-fight
things. They were designed to remind the American people in a time of war
why we're there, and, furthermore, what the people who started this war in
the first place think of it, which is, they think it's front and center,
and they think if they win there, we're dead.

Q Tony, two quick questions. One on Osama bin Laden. I have been saying
here in the White House for the last 10 years that Osama bin Laden was the
biggest threat and for the last five years, I have been supporting --

Q The question?

MR. SNOW: Goyal, question?

Q -- war on terrorism.

MR. SNOW: Thank you for the --

Q My question is that your own CNN and WTOP is disagreeing on all that.
U.S. military officials and CIA were (inaudible) and they're saying that
they have no access. My question, why Pakistan is not giving access to the
United States CIA and military (inaudible) -- Osama bin Laden from there?

MR. SNOW: A couple of things. First, the United -- Pakistan has been a
valuable ally in the war on terror. And Pakistan also is able to operate
within its own sovereign territory. And the government of President
Musharraf has been working aggressively and cooperatively in the war on
terror.

Q And, secondly, a final follow, yesterday, thousands of people marched in
Washington against terrorism and for interfaith, and people from Muslim
faith, Hindus and -- all faiths around the globe. My question is here that
when we have spiritual leaders from India, they are talking here in the
temples of unity and peace and love and freedom, but when we have from
other sides they are talking hatred in the mosques here, how can we defeat
the ideology from the other side, when they preach hatred against Americans
in the mosques (inaudible)?

MR. SNOW: I'm not going to get into characterization. You've just
characterized every mosque in the country, and I don't feel at liberty -- I
don't feel at liberty to --

Q All the Muslims (inaudible) --

MR. SNOW: That's right. And the point is that, for instance, we had the
service at St. Paul's in New York the other night. And we had Imam Siddiqi
with us. And he talked about how terrorism is not something that Islam
supports. We want more Muslims standing up and saying, sorry, this not our
religion, this isn't right. And we're perfectly happy when that happens.

April.

Q Tony, going back to the speech again, on a day that many said that this
speech center on just with 9/11 alone, it was a day of mourning and
remembrance, how can you explain that this was not political as the
President dealt with controversial debates that's been debated back and
forth in this town? Not only was it about Iraq, but he went into the issues
of the Mideast peace. How can that not --

MR. SNOW: How is peace controversial?

Q But when it could have stood alone, 9/11, the mourning, the sorrow, the
remembrance --

MR. SNOW: I'll tell you why, April. People who lost loved ones on September
11th don't want us simply to think about September 11th. They want to think
about September 12, 2006, they want to think about September 11, 2007. They
want to make sure that we are committed to making sure that other families
don't have to go through the same grief.

And so when you're giving a speech, you absolutely remember those who died.
But I'll tell you what, the people who remain behind don't want any deaths
to be in vain, and they don't simply want these to be people who are frozen
in time. Look, you know what I'm wearing right here? I got this -- no, I
got this wristband yesterday from the family of Captain Dahl, who was one
of the copilots of Flight 93. They've named an elementary school after him.
They are looking for ways to make sure that there is an active engagement
in the enemy that killed the people they love, and they want the President
to be talking about it. For them, one of the key areas of solace is to know
that people give a damn enough to continue to try to fight back against the
people who killed the ones they love.

Q But two things, are these people that the President is meeting with --
the families, the loved ones of 9/11 -- saying, yes, we are hurting, now go
out and fight in Iraq? And, also, how can it not be political when the
President knowingly knows that people are not for this? His poll numbers
are way down, and then he's going to say, let's put aside our differences
and unite. How is that not political?

MR. SNOW: Simple. Your question contradicts itself. What you've said is,
it's politically suicidal to talk about it, and yet -- yes, you did. You
just said it's an unpopular war, people don't like it. Well, if he's trying
to score political points he'll skip it, but you see, the point of this --

Q Some say it's arrogance; he's going to stick to what he wants to do.

MR. SNOW: You know what, arrogance in what sense? Who is, "some say"? Some
say --

Q Democrats, your critics.

MR. SNOW: Which Democrats?

Q There are a lot of them -- John Kerry --

MR. SNOW: Well, I know. We've been through John Boehner here.

Q Do you want me to list them? You want me to list the number?

MR. SNOW: You know what I'd like to do is, when you get back to the tonal
issue, ask yourself, is it arrogance or is it maintaining fidelity to
principle; is it being stubborn or is it being steadfast? You've got a
President whose principle is the same. And April, neither you, nor I, or
anybody else in this room will ever go through what the President had to do
after September 11th, which is to know that Americans died, and that as
President everybody is going to be looking at how you handle it and how you
step up to the plate. The President has been absolutely steadfast from the
beginning, I'm not going to let them win.

And he has tried in many ways -- and part of what we did last week was to
lay out various ways -- it is extremely broad. It is not simply a
battlefield. As a matter of fact, that's one small portion of an overall
battle. Ultimately, it involves a battle of hearts and minds, a philosophy
where you allow freedom to take root so people know that hope is not only
something -- is a faint wish, but it is an option that they have if they
are free.

And the President, far from trying to -- I know that everybody is -- the
construct that's been laid out is the President was trying to make
political points. No, he's trying to explain what we're doing to fight
back. And understanding -- I mean it was understandable, and in some ways
predictable that people were going to punch back. And now we're going to
have a political season where we debate all these things, which is good.
It's good that we're going to have a debate about this.

But the idea that some say, "he was being arrogant," you cannot be arrogant
when you're looking into the face of mothers, as he was saying last night,
holding children who are never going to know their father. You can't be
arrogant in a situation like that. There is nothing more humbling than
being the President in a time of war. And you can ask any President who did
it. And George W. Bush is no different than his predecessors, Democratic or
Republican, who lies awake nights asking himself the question, how can I
get this done and get our people home?

It is the natural inclination -- you've seen how the President reacts and
responds when he gets before the military. He gets choked up because he
knows how tough it is. He knows what the atmosphere sometimes is
politically. He knows that these people are committed to it. You've got an
all-volunteer army; first war in which we've had an all-volunteer army
because people are committed. And he wants to make sure that he can get as
many of them -- he would love to get each and every one of them home safe.
It is simply not possible to be arrogant as a Commander-in-Chief in a time
of war.

Les.

Q Tony, two questions. Joanne Drake, who is the Chief of Staff of the
Reagan Library, she's faxed Virginia's Democrat U.S. Senate candidate James
Webb the following two sentences: "Using the President's name, image or
likeness implies endorsement, which is neither fair nor respectful of any
candidate, certainly after President Reagan's death. At the direction of
Mrs. Reagan, please refrain." Question, does the President support Mrs.
Reagan's request of candidate Webb?

MR. SNOW: The President is aware of it.

Q Does he support it? Are you suggesting he doesn't support this --

MR. SNOW: Are you suggesting that the President sits around and reviews
each and every campaign commercial and tries to decide -- I'm not sure we
might have a McCain-Feingold violation if I even comment on this.
(Laughter.)

Q -- that he wants to avoid this?

MR. SNOW: No, I just think -- I hate to say it, Les, but you've done it
again -- (laughter) -- asked me a completely inappropriate and irrelevant
question.

Go ahead. (Laughter.)

Q University of New Hampshire Professor William Woodward has announced that
the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington were orchestrated by the United
States. Since New Hampshire's Democrat Governor John Lynch described
Professor Woodward as "completely crazy and offensive," the President would
not disagree with this governor, would he?

MR. SNOW: Again, you've asked a question about matters that -- the
President has more important stuff to do than talk about professors whose
own governors consider them wackos. So I will leave it at that.

Thank you.

Q How about Syria?

MR. SNOW: Syria, okay, yes, that's a -- go ahead.

Q -- the President's reaction to the attack --

MR. SNOW: The Syrian -- a couple of things. The Syrian police forces did
their job. And they were professional about it. Now the next step is for
Syria to play a constructive role in the war on terror, stop harboring
terrorist groups, stop being an agent in fomenting terror, and work with us
to fight against terror as Libya has done. That's the next step for Syria.

Q Any more information on who --

MR. SNOW: No, we really don't, and this is -- it's always difficult to
figure out who is responsible and claims of responsibility and so on. I
know it's under some discussion.

Q I'm (inaudible) from Turkey.

MR. SNOW: Okay.

Q And you talked about the visit of Turkish Prime Minister Erdo an, coming
to visit the White House.

MR. SNOW: I even said Erdo an. I didn't say Erdo an. (Laughter.)

Q Yes, the pronunciation is Erdo an, since you don't have the "g" in
English with the symbol on it, Erdo an.

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q So my question is about the PKK terrorist organization. As you know,
Turkey has been fighting with the PKK terrorist organization for long
years, and has been asking support from the United States. The United
States has been giving some support to Turkey in some sense, but we are
still losing a lot of soldiers in Turkey, in the eastern part of Turkey.

MR. SNOW: Okay, are we getting close to the question? Are we getting closer
to the question?

Q What other concrete steps is the United States planning to take against
the PKK terrorist organization? The Turkish people --

MR. SNOW: Well, as I announced, the Prime Minister and the President will
be talking about PKK on October 2nd. Far be it from me to jump whatever
announcements they may have to make. I believe that that's theirs.

Q Do you think that Turkey will be able to get better (inaudible) support
from the United States that it's looking for --

MR. SNOW: I repeat myself. I'm not going to -- I will let heads of state
announce the agreements that have been reached by heads of state.

Thanks.

END 2:04 P.M. EDT
===========================================================================
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060912-2.html

 * Origin: (1:3634/12)