Text 3227, 877 rader
Skriven 2006-09-13 23:31:16 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (0609133) for Wed, 2006 Sep 13
====================================================
===========================================================================
Press Briefing by Tony Snow
===========================================================================

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
September 13, 2006

Press Briefing by Tony Snow
White House Conference Center Briefing Room

Press Briefing view


2:17 P.M. EDT

MR. SNOW: Afternoon. Questions. Terry.

Q Kofi Annan, back from two weeks in the Middle East, says that most of the
leaders that he spoke to thought the invasion of Iraq had been a real
disaster for them and believe it's destabilized the region. Do you agree
with that?

MR. SNOW: No.

Q Do you think it -- why not? I mean, it certainly looks like there's
unrest.

MR. SNOW: Well, I'll tell you why. If you take a look at what's gone on in
the region, you have attempts to establish democracies in Lebanon, you have
an attempt to establish a democracy in the Palestinian areas. You have
democracies now up and gaining their footing in Afghanistan and Iraq. And
those are developments that are positive. Now, I'm not going to engage in a
further disputation with the Secretary General of the United Nations, but I
disagree with the characterization.

Steve.

Q You said earlier on one of the television networks that the U.S. goal in
Iraq is not to subdue every bad guy in Iraq. What does that mean exactly?

MR. SNOW: What it means is that it has always been the strategy of this
administration to work with the Iraqis so that their military and police
forces are able to provide safety and security within Iraq's borders. It is
not America's job to settle every dispute or to fight every insurgent.
Indeed, what we want to have happen is the United States supporting the
Iraqis in such a way -- you know the formulations, Steve -- stand up, stand
down. And that hasn't changed.

Q Is the U.S. goal also to defeat the insurgency?

MR. SNOW: The U.S. goal is to have the insurgency defeated. Let me repeat
what I said before. If the United States says it is our sole responsibility
to defeat each and every insurgent, then we will not have done what we set
out to do, which is to create a nation that's able to sustain, govern, and
defend itself. So I repeat, that's merely a statement of administration
policy and it really goes back to the beginning.

Helen.

Q Can you give me the administration's reason why 72 hours and 60 days
isn't enough, and you don't want to get a warrant to wiretap?

MR. SNOW: I'm not sure if I understand exactly --

Q You oppose getting any warrant for a wiretap.

MR. SNOW: No, we've been working -- what we're trying to do is we are
working with Congress to find ways to reform FISA so that you're able not
only to have a court proceeding that allows you to gain court warrants when
necessary, to do so in a quick and timely basis.

Q But why -- you think a warrant is not necessary?

MR. SNOW: No, I'm just -- look, call me later. I'll talk to the lawyers,
I'm getting over my head.

David.

Q One on Iraq, one on the debate over detainees and interrogation methods
over torture. First, about Iraq. Can you say specifically what, if
anything, Nouri al-Maliki has done in, say, the past two weeks to confront
the death squads that are aligned with his political party, that are
responsible for a lot of the sectarian violence?

MR. SNOW: Let me put it this way: Prime Minister Maliki has been working
with the United States and with the American authorities in Baghdad and
elsewhere, and he has made it clear from the very beginning, including
meeting with the President in Baghdad, you go after militias, you pursue
reconciliation. Do I know strategically from a block-to-block basis
precisely what they've done? No.

Q But isn't that a problem, given that the President said as recently as
one of the first speeches that addressed Iraq, that it's incumbent upon the
Maliki government to take on -- to make hard political judgments and to
confront these death squads and these militias? And, yet, nothing tangible?

MR. SNOW: No, I didn't say that. What I'm saying is Nouri al-Maliki is not
submitting progress reports to me. But he's working with General Casey.
What we have seen -- take a look at the metrics that are available to us,
and we have seen a decrease in violence, especially in the neighborhoods in
Baghdad, where they've been going in and directly targeting those. And that
continues to be a commitment.

It's absolutely -- you're absolutely right, you've got to go after
militias. They cannot operate independently in Iraq in the long run. You've
got to go after them. You have to go after death squads. You have to make
sure that the police are there to protect the citizens. And those have been
concerns from the very beginning. So I can tell you that our combatant
commanders on the ground, including General Casey, have regular -- and Zal
Khalilzad, our Ambassador have regular and honest conversations with the
Prime Minister and others, including the Minister of Interior, about how
best to pursue these aims.

So I don't know if there is something, David, that prompts the two-week
time line or whatever, but I can tell you it's a continued point of
emphasis. And it takes place not only at the level of trying to do the
combination of peacekeeping and law enforcement, but also reconciliation.
Note, for instance, that yesterday the speaker of the parliament said that
attempts to try to partition the country were legislatively -- they weren't
going to go anywhere. That's a positive development. What it does mean is
that there are a number of people of goodwill -- Shia, Sunni, Kurd, and
others -- within Iraq who are devoted to having a unified Iraq. That's what
voters chose, 12 million voters. And so we certainly don't want to ignore
the fact that you do have sectarian difficulties. Got to keep pursuing
them.

Q Let me ask you about this debate the President said is so important with
regard to interrogation techniques, because he wants now for Congress to
clarify what's permissible. The President said he did not authorize
torture.

MR. SNOW: That is correct.

Q What did he authorize?

MR. SNOW: Can't tell you.

Q Why can't you say that, given that the President wants a national debate
about what's permissible?

MR. SNOW: Because there are also classifications. I think if you listen to
what the President said last week, you have a conversation that's
permissible -- you have a conversation about what's permissible and a lot
of that is classified, and for a very good reason. You do not want to tell
the enemy what you do in terms of interrogation because they will adjust
and you won't get information. Indeed, some of the al Qaeda training
manuals went in great detail about ways to resist known interrogation
methods that have been used in the past. So, yes, it's important to consult
with Congress; no, it's not advisable to advertise it to the entire world.

Q One technique that's been widely reported on and widely debated is
water-boarding. Does the President consider water-boarding to be torture?

MR. SNOW: Again, I'm not going to go beyond what the President has said,
which is that we do not have torture, there have been orders not to
torture, and that everything that has been done -- and I'm not going to say
yes or no to water-boarding -- everything that has been done has been
deemed by the Department of Justice, which has been the arbiter of such
things, as consistent with U.S. law, international law, and our treaty
obligations. In the wake of the Hamdan decision, we're going to make sure
that that continues to be the case with each and every method used.

Wendell.

Q Does the President -- do others in the White House feel vindicated now
that Richard Armitage and Bob Novak have explained the circumstances
surrounding the outing of Valerie Plame?

MR. SNOW: That is always a tempting question to get involved in, but we
still have a Scooter Libby case ongoing and we simply can't comment on it
in any way, shape or form -- including the now public differences between
Bob Novak and Richard Armitage.

Q -- I'm asking about your actions there.

MR. SNOW: I understand that, but to talk about -- you also understand that
any number of people, including Richard Armitage, could be called to
testify in the case. And the best policy, keep my yap shut so that it
doesn't get involved in the legal proceedings.

Q Can I ask you about the term, Islamo-fascism, that the President has used
quite often in explaining the nature of the threats that we confront --

MR. SNOW: Right.

Q A little slow day, I was reading a dictionary -- (laughter) -- and I'm
looking at the term --

MR. SNOW: Big print, little print? (Laughter.)

Q Small words. The definition of fascism: "A philosophy or system of
government that's marked by stringent social and economic control; a strong
centralized government, usually headed by a dictator; and often a policy of
belligerent nationalism." It doesn't quite seem to fit what we're talking
about -- something that exalts the nation above the individual and
centralized government? How does that fit?

MR. SNOW: Well, it actually does fit. But let's draw some distinctions
here, too, because I want to be clear that the President is not taking
broad swipes at Islam. And I know there are sensitivities in the Muslim
community. The President quite often has taken pains to say Islam is a
religion of peace -- and we're not talking about Islam here. What we're
talking about is people who are trying to use the Koran as cover for
engaging in this.

Now, listen to what Osama bin Laden has said. He has said that his
envisions an "Islamic nation," to reestablish the caliphate -- I don't know
if it would still be headquartered in Baghdad, but if you want your
pristine historic analogy, that's where it would be, and it would extend
from Asia all the way back to Spain, because memories are still raw about
1492 when the Moors were expelled from Andalusia. That's what he's talking
about. So in that sense, what you end up having is strict centralized
government under repressive conditions, the likes of which we saw with the
Taliban. If you look at the interpretation of sharia law that has been
championed by bin Laden and others, it fits all of the descriptions you've
had. And if you talk about an unbroken government using those kinds of
regulations over an extended landmass, which is what he's talking about,
that it does fit the description.

Q Just so we understand this, when the President talks about Islamo-fascism
and confronting that, he's talking about stopping a movement before it
builds an entire nation, a terrorist nation?

MR. SNOW: There are a couple of things. Perhaps -- I don't know if you've
heard the references; they've been repeated. He's taking -- what he's doing
is saying, yes, you want to fight the efforts of bin Laden and others to
establish a caliphate. The history of the caliphate was that you had
centralized leadership at that time. It had control over the impressive
landmass that was controlled by Muslims during that period. And they want
to establish that sort of thing. So the President's notion is absolutely
right, you want to preempt that.

Speaking of Iraq, he has said that part of the strategy is to create failed
states so that you can go in, you can use their land for training, but also
you can make use of their resources. He's spoken a couple of times
recently, for instance, of the dangers of such a state that would have
access to oil and the ability to bring Western and industrialized nations
economically to their knees.

Martha.

Q I want to go back to interrogations for a moment. There was a story in
The New York Times this weekend that there was some debate about which
method of interrogation worked. Law enforcement interrogators were quoted
saying that their methods were working, and when the CIA interrogators came
in, that's when the interrogations started to fail and that the detainees
stopped talking. The President in his speech said that it was the CIA
interrogators who got the information. Is he absolutely certain that the
information that was important came from the CIA interrogators? Is there no
doubt in his mind?

MR. SNOW: The President -- look, what you're trying to do is to draw me
into a process dispute about who got when. The President said that the CIA
interrogation program yielded information that you would not have received
elsewhere and was absolutely vital in establishing some of these links. So,
read the text; he stands by his words.

Q So it was the CIA interrogators, not the law enforcement before that who
didn't use the alternative methods?

MR. SNOW: Under this program -- this was not something where there was sort
of a jousting. These people were under the jurisdiction of the CIA from the
beginning -- my understanding. We can go back and look at it, but it was my
understanding that they were immediately in the jurisdiction of the CIA,
and not within intermediate questioners. There may have been some other
instances; I just don't know.

Q Can we also go to Baghdad? You say there's a decrease in violence in
Baghdad --

MR. SNOW: I said in some sectors, yes.

Q And those sectors are where American troops have moved in, in great
numbers and effectively cordoned off an area. What does that say about the
effectiveness of the Iraqi troops, if the American troops had to come in
there? And what does that say about the potential for --

MR. SNOW: Well, as you know, the vast majority of troops still operating
within Baghdad are Iraqi troops. And they are operating in conjunction with
U.S. troops. And we've said -- look, Martha, as you know, part of the
business is training up, helping work up and professionalize a military
force so it's able to conduct those sorts of activities. I don't think you
want to suggest that there's been no success on the part of the Iraqis.
These have been joint operations. We're happy that they've succeeded. We
understand that Americans working in support is something that has been
necessary at this time, and we still look forward to the time where the
American troops have their jobs done and they can come home.

Q But, Tony, you say all the time, "stand up; stand down." There are now
270,000 Iraqi troops, and there's been no draw-down. There are 147,000
American troops over there now.

MR. SNOW: That's right.

Q Which is equal to how many there were a year ago when you sent them up
for elections. What does that say about the ability for the American troops
to stand down when the Iraqi troops are now numbering 270,000 --

MR. SNOW: Well, what it says is, you continue -- a couple of things have
happened, which is, especially in a lot of key areas, you have seen Iraqi
forces moving into the fore, where American forces have been before;
American troops being moved into support missions. A lot of times, the
numbers can be deceptive. You also have to look at the mix of forces,
whether you've got people doing combat or support roles or logistics or
whatever. Ultimately, again, all I can do is repeat -- what it says is, you
still have people who are determined to have this Iraqi government fail,
and we're not going to let it.

Q Just one more. Back to something from yesterday, you said that the
President never said there was an operational relationship between Saddam
Hussein and Zarqawi. Are you saying he didn't suggest there was a
relationship --

MR. SNOW: He said there was a relationship --

Q What does that mean?

MR. SNOW: What it means is -- again, had you been in Iraq before the war?
You may have. And I had, too. And you understand --

Q Before the war? No, no --

MR. SNOW: Okay, well, let me tell you about the old days, when you went in
before the war, strangers didn't just sort of wander into Baghdad when
Saddam was there. They knew who was there. And Zarqawi was in Baghdad. And
he, in fact -- as we've said, they organized the murder of a U.S. diplomat
in Amman, Jordan. We also know that there were other members of al Qaeda
operating within Iraq. But what we've taken pains to say is -- being a
little colloquial about it -- but they didn't have a corner office, the
Mukhabarat. They were not line-items in the Iraqi budget. They were people
who were there, but they were also not officially part of the Iraqi
government and there was no official or functional coordination, at least
as far as we can tell. And this was what the CIA has told us, that there
was no operational relationship -- no direct, demonstrable operational tie
between the two --

Q They said there was no relationship.

MR. SNOW: They weren't -- a relationship means that they were there. We
knew they were there.

Q So all of your comments about the relationship between Saddam Hussein and
Zarqawi -- we just knew they were there. Did we know what they were up to?
I mean, how far does that go?

MR. SNOW: I don't know. We'll have to look at the documents --

Q No, but that's important, Tony.

MR. SNOW: How so?

Q You don't know -- I mean, there was a lot of rhetoric coming out of the
White House in the build-up to the war, and since, that there was this
relationship between Saddam Hussein and Zarqawi, and thus linking them to
al Qaeda.

MR. SNOW: No, the argument has been that Saddam Hussein was a supporter and
sponsor of terror. And we talked more often about, for instance, the fact
that people who went in and committed suicide bombings against Israelis
were getting paid bounties, and that Saddam was working as best he could to
try to support and foment terror.

Q -- no relationship with al Qaeda, no relationship with Zarqawi.

MR. SNOW: That's right, no operational relationship, as far as we can tell.
But they were there. And Zarqawi was committing acts of terror while he was
in Baghdad, but we don't -- look, if we had the goods, we'd share them, but
we don't have the goods to demonstrate --

Q But Saddam Hussein didn't know about that?

MR. SNOW: I don't know. I don't know if he knew about it. What we have been
unable to demonstrate or discover is whether they're sitting around in the
map room, spreading out the map, saying, okay, you bomb there. We just
don't have that kind of granularity in terms of the relationship, and
therefore, we're not going to go -- we're going to -- not going to out-run
the facts.

Q Tony, in Afghanistan, there's been a spike in Taliban activity recently,
some 2,000 people killed this year, increasing efforts to destabilize the
democratic government. Is the White House, then, concerned about the fact
that recently, when a significant number of Taliban leaders were attending
a funeral and they were in the sights of a U.S. drone, that our rules of
engagement there prohibiting attacking anyone in a cemetery came into play
and they were allowed to walk free?

MR. SNOW: Well, I'm aware of the story. I don't have -- I have not received
any guidance on it, but I think it's safe to say, on matters like rules of
engagement, it's best to kick that over to the Pentagon. If you need help,
Martha can get you in touch with the right people. (Laughter.)

Q I know who to get in touch with over there.

Q Maybe not the right -- (laughter.)

Q Seriously, though, I mean, if Osama bin Laden is still believed to be
hiding somewhere in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, wouldn't the White
House -- if this, indeed, is -- if these are our rules of engagement, would
it not be a prudent time to reexamine them, considering that they would, I
assume, apply to him, as well, if he were in a cemetery, that he could not
be attacked?

MR. SNOW: I'll repeat what I said: Ask the Pentagon about this one.

Q No concern, whatsoever, then?

MR. SNOW: I'm not saying that. I'm saying I have not -- it's been a very
busy day, it continues to be a busy day, and I'm not sure anybody has had
an opportunity to study fully the report and, therefore, to provide the
proper emotional or factual response.

Q How about an emotional or factual response to the Rhode Island primary
yesterday?

MR. SNOW: The Republican incumbent won. Woo-hoo. (Laughter.)

Q Is there any irony in the fact that the administration campaigned hard
for someone who opposed the President on Iraq, on the environment, on
abortion and a bunch of other things?

MR. SNOW: No. It means, unlike in Connecticut, we support our incumbents.

Q Tony, in the Senate today, the Judiciary Committee seemed a little
schizophrenic on the NSA legislation. They passed the bill that the White
House backed, but they also passed a bill that Democrats backed that would
effectively make the NSA wiretapping program illegal.

MR. SNOW: I don't think that's quite what happened. What you had was you
had Senator Specter's bill and you had another bill and people are going to
get to vote.

Q But my question to you is, you have talked about making progress and
feeling confident that you could get legislation through on both this
matter and the detainee. Given this vote, and given the push-back from
Republicans on the detainee bill, what accounts for that confidence?

MR. SNOW: You call it push-back, we call it consultation. We're still
working. Look, the view of the President has never changed. When he gave
the speech last Wednesday, he talked about the fact that we had a detainee
policy and a questioning policy that had achieved results and saved lives.
Also we know that the American people want, and the President wants, the
ability to listen in on terrorists who want to kill Americans. We think
that's information we ought to have.

And, therefore, it is now up to members of Congress to go ahead and work
through the issue. That's what they're doing. We don't expect measures to
go through, undebated, or given scant consideration. These are very
important, momentous issues, and the fact that you're getting multiple
bills reported on, people are going to be able to choose is a good thing.
But we remain confident that people of goodwill are going to work together
so that we get these things right.

Q As a follow-up, the President will be speaking to House Republicans
tomorrow --

MR. SNOW: That's right.

Q -- what is his message to them on this particular issue?

MR. SNOW: Actually, it's interesting -- House Republicans have already
passed out a bill, and at this particular point -- I guess it's made its
way out of committee, as well. We want to make sure that the House and
Senate ultimately work together to give the President the legislation that
is going to make it possible for the CIA to continue its program and to
enable those who are operating detention facilities to detain properly
those who have been collected off of battlefields, and also to make sure
that we're able to listen in on the bad guys. I mean, those are sort of the
basics.

The President has made an offer some time ago to Republicans, when you want
me down on the Hill, let me know. They said, come down. And I'm not sure
that there's an agenda. Typically what happens is, he may talk for a couple
of minutes, but there's a lot of back-and-forth. And my guess is this is a
chance for members to express their -- ask their questions and express
their concerns.

Peter.

Q Will the President or any of his surrogates campaign for Randy Graf in
Arizona?

MR. SNOW: A little too early to tell. We don't really have, at this point
--

Q -- Republican candidate for Congress?

MR. SNOW: No, and we hope he wins. But on the other hand, we'll get back to
you on the schedule. It's going to be a very busy schedule, and a lot of
surrogates out going to a lot of different places. You've got somebody who
won yesterday, you've got a number of primaries. And at this point, I don't
think there are plans afoot in a number of cases to figure out who you're
going to support and when.

Q How does the President feel, though, about his views on immigration? I
mean, he was an architect of proposition 200 in Arizona --

MR. SNOW: The President's position on immigration is real clear. And again,
this is an issue on which there's some disagreement within Republican
ranks, which is he wants a comprehensive immigration reform bill that not
only addresses border security, but also interior enforcement, temporary
worker program, path to citizenship. You've got to put all the pieces
together. Otherwise, you're not going to have the full ability to control
your borders, relieve pressure on the borders, and also deal with 11
million people who arrived here illegally, and come up with a sensible way
to have disposition of their cases.

That's the President's position, remains his position. But it's also the
President's position that he's better off with a Republican Congress than
the alternative. And there are going to be times when the President
disagrees with members on a particular issue. But, generally, you look for
broad support from the party, and he's the party leader.

Q Even though that makes it more unlikely that an immigration bill the
President likes would actually ever have a chance of winning?

MR. SNOW: I'm not sure that's the case. Got 435 members in the House.

Q On the meeting with President Roh tomorrow, does the President --

MR. SNOW: You mean Roh.

Q "No."

Q "No."

Q -- has the President got any new ideas for jump-starting the talks with
North Korea?

MR. SNOW: Well the administration position has always been pretty
consistent, which is that the North Koreans need to come back to the table.
Really, the impetus is on the North Koreans. But at this point, let me not
prejudge or get too far ahead of the meetings. We'll give you a readout
when they're done.

Q Can I follow up on Martha's question? She mentioned that 270,000 troops
are said by the Pentagon to be trained in Iraq. They say that they're on
track to make their goal of, I think, 320,000 by the end of the year. If
they do that, does that mean, then, the Iraqis are "stood up"? And if not,
what is the definition of "stand up" at that point?

MR. SNOW: The definition of "stand up" is when the Iraqis have the
independent capability of providing security throughout the country. And
it's going to take time.

Q What would -- how would we define that --

MR. SNOW: Well, we've already started to see it. We've had one province
transferred directly into full control of the Iraqis. I suspect there are
going to be some others sooner rather than later, that are going to be
handed over to full Iraqi control. And what you're going to see is the
transition of the controlling military authority in various sectors going
from coalition forces, U.S. forces, British forces, whatever, to Iraqi
forces. You do allow time for the training to conclude and the transitions
to occur.

Q Tomorrow, the House is going to vote on a stand-alone border security or
border defense bill, 700 miles. Does the administration want to see that
bill pass?

MR. SNOW: What the administration wants is comprehensive reform. The
President has talked a lot of times about trying to make sure we secure our
borders, and we continue to do so, looking for the most appropriate way to
provide security along the borders. But his position remains unchanged,
which is you need comprehensive reform.

Q You're not going to work to help that pass, then?

MR. SNOW: Again, we are urging the House of Representatives and the United
States Senate to work together to come up with comprehensive reform.

Q Thank you, Tony. A follow-up question on Mark's question. In that race in
Rhode Island, the National Republican Senatorial Committee spent, by its
own statements, $1 million in attack media on Mayor Laffey, questioning his
record as mayor and in private business. And he, himself, described the ads
as despicable, although he did endorse Senator Chafee in the end. Is this
the kind of campaign that the President would countenance or support
against people who back him on most issues?

MR. SNOW: The President understands that there is zesty ads in any
political campaign. He's been the object of --

Q Of what?

MR. SNOW: Zesty. He's been the object of a fair amount in his past.

Q Zesty?

MR. SNOW: Zesty, z-e-s-t-y. Axelrod has a dictionary. (Laughter.)

Q Was he aware of the commercials?

MR. SNOW: I don't know. I honestly don't know if he was aware. This was
something that was not operated out of the White House, as you know, and
the President is not -- the President, again, has been devoting himself to
large matters. I sincerely doubt, but I will find out for you whether he
was passing judgment on ads being used in particular campaigns.

Q Would you also kindly find out if he was aware of what many say was an
egregious stand by the Senatorial Committee -- that's spelled
e-g-re-g-i-o-u-s -- that if Mr. Laffey was the nominee, they wouldn't
support him?

MR. SNOW: Egregious, though, often -- does not often modify an inanimate
object like a stand, but I get your drift here. In other words, what you
want to say is, is the President really unhappy that Linc Chafee won -- is
that the question?

Q No. My question is, was he aware the Senatorial Committee said they
wouldn't give any money if Mayor Laffey defeated Senator Chafee?

MR. SNOW: Okay. I will -- we'll get to it.

Q Is Jim Baker currently serving as a key advisor to the White House on
Iraq, including making a trip to Baghdad?

MR. SNOW: I don't know. I mean, as you know, he's been part of the
commission that's been taking a look at these things. I don't know how you
would -- are you asking, has he been doing some surrogate work for us in
Baghdad?

Q Yes.

MR. SNOW: I don't know. I'll find out. If you can give me a more precise
question, that would give me something to go on.

Q Has he been advising the President on how to proceed in Iraq?

MR. SNOW: Well, what you've had are discussions that have been co-chaired
by Jim Baker and Lee Hamilton, a bipartisan group that's been in a number
of times to talk with the President about developments in Iraq. In that
sense, yes, he has been providing some advice. But whether there is some
sort of official -- some unofficial cover where he's passing -- I don't
know. I'm not aware of any.

Q But that's all in the context of the Iraq Study Group, what you're
talking about?

MR. SNOW: Yes. Yes.

Q Nothing beyond that, as far as you know?

MR. SNOW: I'm not aware of any. But if you've got something specific you
want to toss at me, I'll ask a direct question. I just don't know.

Q Has Baker traveled to Iraq?

MR. SNOW: I think he has. I think --

Q Recently?

MR. SNOW: I think members of the Iraq Study Group have been over. I don't
know -- I honestly don't know, Bill, what the itinerary is. Why don't you
guys -- obviously, you're hearing something. If you can collect some stuff
that you want me to take a look at and try to confirm or deny, I'd be happy
to do it.

Mark.

Q Tony, any response to John Murtha today not only calling for Rumsfeld to
step down again, but saying that the military has been stretched so thin it
has put the nation dangerously at risk?

MR. SNOW: We've heard it before. We disagree.

Q Tony, may I follow, on immigration --

MR. SNOW: Goyal, go ahead, yes.

Q Thank you. One on immigration going back. Are you saying that immigration
issue is not yet dead as far as before the election --

MR. SNOW: I'm saying the President is maintaining a consistent position on
it. You're going to have to ask the judgment of where -- the disposition of
immigration, especially

comprehensive reform. That's really for members of the House and Senate.
You know, we've got a very limited amount of time. You draw your own
conclusions.

Q Second question: So much has been written on or about Osama bin Laden.
This past week -- 9/11 five years ago and now, very little. Why so much
focus on Osama now in the last one week or 10 days? And second, there was
some demonstrations at the Capitol by -- and what they are saying is really
a message for the President that President is supporting the wrong man who
is misleading the U.S. in the name of Osama bin Laden and --

MR. SNOW: Who are you talking about? Which person are you talking about?
Who is doing the misleading?

Q General Musharraf.

MR. SNOW: Oh, General Musharraf.

Q Right, in the name of -- and bin Laden. What they are saying is really to
get the highest level of al Qaeda have been arrested by him. And what my
question is, for the money we have spent, so much money in the name of al
Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, are we getting, or U.S. is getting help as far
as hunting for Osama bin Laden is concerned?

MR. SNOW: Yes. Now that I've given you the one-word answer, let me give you
a wordier answer. We understand that the hunt for -- Osama bin Laden and
others, as you know, Goyal, have been filtering across borders. And we
understand the obligations of sovereign governments, and we're working with
General Musharraf -- President Musharraf -- to do what he can. He's been
very helpful in the war on terror, and he's taking considerable political
risks to do so. We appreciate that. He is an extremely valuable ally in the
war on terror, and we consider him such.

As far as mentions of bin Laden, we've been mentioning the guy -- it's
interesting, you mention him a couple of times, you mention it too much. If
you don't mention him often enough, people say, why don't you talk about
him? The fact is, there are a lot of players in the war on terror. Osama
bin Laden, for many, has been kind of the titular head by virtue of what he
now freely admits, which is that he helped organize and arrange and serve
as the organizing mode of force behind the September 11th attacks. So it's
important to remember not only that he did that, but what he and his
colleagues now intend for the United States of America, which is harm and
bloodshed. And it's why we've got to take it seriously. When we didn't take
it seriously before, people died. We need to make sure we don't repeat the
mistake.

Q So we will get him during this presidency?

MR. SNOW: I don't know. I mean, that's kind of crystal-ball gazing. In a
time of war, you can never make facile predictions about who you're going
to get or when.

Q Thank you. Does the President have any comment on the non-aligned
conference going on Havana, a conference blaming the United States and
Israel for international terrorism?

MR. SNOW: No.

Les.

Q Yes, Tony, two questions. WorldNet Daily notes that the official --

MR. SNOW: What notes?

Q WorldNet Daily -- eight million --

MR. SNOW: What's that?

Q Eight million viewers. The official transcript, they note that the
official transcript of the March 13, 2002, presidential press conference
has the President responding, "I truly am not concerned about him," when he
was asked about Osama bin Laden. Is it possible the President is still not
so concerned about bin Laden?

MR. SNOW: I think -- you know what, here's the deal. What you're seeing is
that the operational capabilities of al Qaeda have been significantly
degraded. But bin Laden still remains somebody who, from time to time, can
smuggle out an audiotape, and Ayman al Zawahiri continues to do the video
tapes, and therefore, they remain targets of interest. But there are also
many other players in the war on terror, and the idea that you focus solely
on him would be a mistake, which is why what you do is that you target the
broader terror network through all the means we laid out last week in the
strategy paper.

Number two.

Q The Washington Times on page one reported that the Congressional Black
Caucus will remain exclusively black. Does the President support or oppose
this racial segregation, which excluded California Congressman Pete Stark,
who risked his life for civil rights in Mississippi, because Stark was born
white? Now, wait a minute, are you going to just evade that question?

MR. SNOW: No, I'm going to laugh at it. (Laughter.)

Q You're going to laugh at it?

MR. SNOW: Olivier.

Q All right, okay, you think it's funny?

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q I couldn't hear Roger's question very well about the Korean meeting
tomorrow. What do you hope to get out of it? Is it time to consider
alternative diplomatic arrangements for engaging the North Koreans in
denuclearizing the peninsula?

MR. SNOW: At this point, look, the United States has worked with its allies
and made it clear to the North Koreans that they have obligations. We have
said, you need to get back to the table. There are incentives awaiting the
government if it behaves well. That remains the proper approach. And it
also remains the proper approach to say to those in the neighborhood,
you're closest, you have the most influence, you need to step up, as well.
And so those continue to be parts of a cooperative arrangement. But nobody
wants a nuclearized peninsula. That's well recognized. And people are still
trying to figure out the proper way to proceed on it.

Q Thank you, Tony. The other day, Defense Secretary of Rumsfeld had
officially notified South Korea on their transfer of -- (inaudible) -- he
mentioned in 2009. At the summit meeting between President Bush and
President Roh of South Korea tomorrow, can some kind of final agreement be
reached?

MR. SNOW: Well, we'll have to find out. We'll find out tomorrow.

Q A clarification, Tony, back on the Murtha question --you were asked about
Don Rumsfeld and whether the military was stretched thin -- you said, we've
heard it before, we disagree. You don't believe the military is stretched
thin?

MR. SNOW: Look, the commanders have asked us for what they believe they
need. I'll let people debate on the meaning of "stretched too thin." We
know that the forces we have deployed in the field are capable of the
missions they've been assigned. And if that means -- so I'll stick with my
answer, without getting further in the murk.

Connie.

Q Thank you. Two questions, one on Gulf War Syndrome, one on Syria. First
of all, anything new on the Syrian situation, any contact from the Syrian
government?

MR. SNOW: I believe it was Iman Mustafa, the Ambassador, had a few things
to say yesterday. But our position is that the law enforcement officials
who helped interrupt an attempted terrorist attack did their job
professionally. And now we look forward and we urge the Syrian government
to step up and start fighting the war on terror in a more significant way,
by shuttering the offices of terrorist organizations who are headquartered
or who have facilities in Damascus, and stop being a part in the war on
terror and instead be an ally in fighting terror.

Q Yesterday there was a report on Gulf War Syndrome, and they found that it
didn't really exist -- it's not just one syndrome. A lot of the veterans
are very upset. They say this is another stalling tactic. Can the
administration give any more disability aid to those suffering?

MR. SNOW: I have no idea. It's a good question. If we can compile a bit of
a bupkis list, because I know we've got a number of questions here that I
don't have answers for and I want to try to get to them.

Okay, thanks.

Q Tony, quickly, how concerned is the White House, though, about the
re-emergence of the Taliban in Afghanistan, about the spike in activity,
about the threat it poses to the democratically elected government there?

MR. SNOW: Well, what's happened is there has also been a spike in dead
members of the Taliban. The Taliban has been suffering a series of
significant battlefield defeats. They have been trying to stand up and
they've been losing. As I've said before, it's understandable that at a
time when the Afghanistan government is trying to extend its sphere of
authority, that the Taliban is going to test it, and it's going to test
forces also as you make a transition from U.S. to NATO. But so far, each
time they've been doing the testing, they've also been doing the losing.

Q Are there any methods justified to take them out, considering the danger
they pose?

MR. SNOW: I'm sorry, what?

Q I said do you believe that any methods are justified in taking them out?

MR. SNOW: In any time of war you have rules of engagement, and our troops
are instructed to follow them. And that remains the same whether you're
fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan -- and you must keep in mind, most of
the engagements we're talking about here do not involve U.S. troops, but,
in fact, NATO troops that have been deployed as U.S. troops have moved
elsewhere.

Q Thank you, Tony.

MR. SNOW: Thank you.

END 2:55 P.M. EDT

˙
===========================================================================
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060913-3.html

 * Origin: (1:3634/12)