Text 3548, 987 rader
Skriven 2006-10-31 23:31:12 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (0610318) for Tue, 2006 Oct 31
====================================================

===========================================================================
Press Briefing by Tony Snow
===========================================================================

For Immediate Release
October 31, 2006

Press Briefing by Tony Snow
White House Conference Center Briefing Room

Press Briefing view


10:43 A.M. EST

MR. SNOW: On today's schedule, the President had a phone call at 7:45 a.m.
this morning with President Lula da Silva of Brazil -- a brief
conversation, about five minutes, very friendly, the President
congratulating President Lula on his recent election victory. The two of
them also talked about issues of mutual interest, which include energy,
biofuels, and trade. And they both said that they'd like to get together
sometime soon. So, more on that when that is put together.

He's had his normal briefings, obviously the meeting with the envoy to the
Sudan, Andrew Natsios. At 11:05 a.m., he's going to be doing an interview
with regional television media: Alison Burns of Cox Broadcasting; Morris
Jones of Sinclair Broadcast Group; and Melissa Charbonneau of the Christian
Broadcasting Network.

He departs the White House to Perry, Georgia. At 5:00 p.m. Eastern time
he'll be making remarks at the Georgia Victory 2006 rally. Governor Sonny
Perdue will do the introductions. It's also going to be in support of
congressional candidate Mac Collins, and he'll return to the White House at
8:10 p.m.

In addition, to help with your planning, the President will travel to
Missouri and Iowa on Friday for campaign rallies. Details TBA. And I think
that -- questions.

Q Did the United States offer to roll back sanctions on North Korea for
money laundering and counterfeiting in order to get North Korea to come
back to these talks?

MR. SNOW: No. As Secretary Rice said, issues like that may be discuss-able
at some future time, but, no, there have been no offers. But let me also
say that the President -- what you've got here with the North Koreans
agreeing to return to the six-party talks is a vindication of the strategy
the President has adopted. You'll notice who made the announcement -- the
Chinese.

The President has said, against criticism from those who have said you just
need to engage on one-on-one talks with the North Koreans -- said, no, you
have to bring in the people who have the most leverage and influence over
the North Koreans and their behavior. The Chinese, having talks with the
North Koreans, have persuaded them to come back to the six-party talks. But
it would not have been possible for the additional unity and determination
supplied by the Japanese, the Russians, and the South Koreans.

I'm sorry, I just saw these. These are -- (laughter.) Here I am talking
matters of war and peace and I'm looking at these things.

Q That would be for staff.

MR. SNOW: I'll hand those out to you. Go ahead, I'm sorry.

Q What did we tell them about the sanctions?

MR. SNOW: We didn't tell them anything. We're not negotiating with them at
this point. What we're doing is -- now that you've got the process ready
for the six-party talks, the President has said, look, we're happy that the
six-party talks are going to resume; it's important to ensure that the
North Koreans abide by U.N. Security Council resolutions and treaty
obligations.

This is very good news. This is a real step forward. And also what it does,
one hopes, in the fullness of time, is that the North Koreans will renounce
all nuclear programs in a verifiable way; you'll avoid the threat of an
arms race in the region; you'll avoid the threat of having a destabilized
Korean Peninsula. You're going to have the opportunity for the North
Koreans to take advantage of economic, political, and cultural offerings
that have been made by the other parties to the talks. There's a way
forward now and we're going to continue to move --

Q That's been there for a long time.

MR. SNOW: It's been there for a long time, but --

Q So what's new?

MR. SNOW: What's new is that the North --

Q Is there a carrot that brought them back?

MR. SNOW: No, I think what the carrot is that the Chinese made it pretty
clear that they're very unhappy with the way the North Koreans have been
behaving. Now, I don't want to tell you what went on behind closed doors
because I don't know. The Chinese have been engaged in the negotiations.
The good news is that the North Koreans have agreed to what we've been
talking about all along, which is a return to the six-party talks. And
Secretary Rice has said that she hopes that that commences before the end
of the year.

Q But what are we going to make of the Japanese Prime Minister -- I guess
the quote is that Tokyo "does not intend to accept North Korea's return to
the talks on the premise that it possesses nuclear weapons." Is that an
accurate quote?

MR. SNOW: Well, I don't know if it's an accurate quote, and I'd just have
to refer that to diplomats. You raise that with State; I don't know.

Q But is it your sense, what you understand, that everyone is on board with
the six-party talks?

MR. SNOW: Well, that's the way it works, so --

Q Well, I mean, apparently, there's --

MR. SNOW: Well, again, that's why -- you've got a fractional news story
that I haven't seen, so I'd just be making it up, and I don't want to do
that. I'll try to find some direction for you. Or give Sean McCormack and
the guys at State a call, they may have better guidance.

Q One quick follow-up. Tomorrow the President has no public events at all?
There's not going to be any addition to the schedule?

MR. SNOW: Well, again, the President has got some ongoing meetings that are
obviously very important. And we'll read out any public events that may
occur later.

Q Sounds like something is cooking there.

MR. SNOW: No, not really.

Q Tony, on Iraq, can you wrap up Steve Hadley's trip, what was
accomplished, and address the continuing part of the story that there's a
possible rift between the President and Maliki?

MR. SNOW: I don't know. Let me start with the second half first. Let's see,
we've now had the Prime Minister saying there's no rift, the President
saying there's no rift, the National Security Advisor of Iraq saying
there's no rift, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq saying there's no rift, the
U.S. National Security Advisor saying there's no rift, and my telling you,
on the basis of my observation of the secure conference call the other day,
that there's no rift. So there's no rift. Now, I mean, I don't know how
many more people you can marshal, but it seems that all the people who've
been in the room and have been in critical positions are saying that.

What Steve is doing is paying a visit and assessing the situation, also
talking with the Prime Minister.

I think -- again, let me stress the thing that has been most impressive to
us, which is the assertiveness of the Prime Minister when it comes to
wanting to take over important security operations within Iraq. We could
not be happier that we've got a Prime Minister who is a man of action and
man who is making decisions. That is absolutely essential for the future of
Iraq.

And he's not simply doing it on the security side. He's been very
aggressive in recent weeks, as I've pointed out on the political side,
reaching out both to Shia and to Sunni. He's been very aggressive on the
economic front, and he was giving a readout of economic success in the
country. So he understands that to be a Prime Minister means more than
simply having to be a commander-in-chief. It means to be a unifying force
in a country where a lot of people are yearning to have a free and
democratic society. They expressed that with their votes last year.

So, far from having a rift between the two sides, what you have is
precisely what the President hoped he would see when he first met the Prime
Minister, which is somebody who is willing to make hard decisions, who is
willing to lead, who is assertive and also pretty clear-eyed about the
challenges that await him.

Q If I could follow up, on the campaign trail, Senator Kerry was in Los
Angeles and speaking to some students, saying if they were able to navigate
the education system, they could get comfortable jobs, but "if you don't,
you get stuck in Iraq." Can you react to that?

MR. SNOW: Yes, I'll actually give you a fuller quote. He said: "You know
education, if you make the most of it, you study hard and you do your
homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. And if you
don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

It sort of fits a pattern. You may recall that last year Senator Kerry --
on CBS's "Face the Nation" -- accused U.S. soldiers of terrorizing kids and
children in Iraq; and recently also described troop concentrations in
Baghdad as "having failed miserably."

What Senator Kerry ought to do first is apologize to the troops. The clear
implication here is if you flunk out, if you don't study hard, if you don't
do your homework, if you don't make an effort to be smart and you don't do
well, you "get stuck in Iraq." But an extraordinary thing has happened
since September 11th, which is a lot of people -- America's finest -- have
willingly agreed to volunteer their services in a mission that they know is
dangerous, but is also important. And Senator Kerry not only owes an
apology to those who are serving, but also to the families of those who
have given their lives in this.

This is an absolute insult. And I'm a little astonished that he didn't
figure it out already. I mean, you know, if I were Senator Kerry -- I mean,
you've seen me, I say something stupid, I apologize as quickly as possible.
And this is something for which he ought to apologize. Meanwhile, it's
probably reasonable to ask some of the Democrats -- ask a Jim Webb or a
Tammy Duckworth, both of whom are citing their military record -- okay,
what do you think about it, what do you think about this quote? Do you
agree with him? He was your presidential nominee. And as for the notion
that you can say this sort of thing about the troops and say you support
them, it's interesting.

Helen.

Q Does the President owe the Democrats an apology for saying that the
terrorists -- that they will appease the terrorists?

MR. SNOW: No. Let's take -- you know what's interesting, Helen, and I've
said this before --

Q How bellicose was he?

MR. SNOW: I don't think it's bellicose. Look, let's listen to what the
Democrats -- or let's think about what Democrats are doing in this election
campaign. When it comes to winning the war on terror, what is their plan?
They've not said. They have talked about withdrawal --

Q -- 101 in Iraq --

MR. SNOW: -- they've talked about a whole series of things, in terms of
complaining -- looking back over their shoulders and complaining about past
decisions. But when it comes to the key issue, how do you achieve victory
-- they say they want to achieve it, but they won't tell you how. They will
tell you what they oppose what the President is doing. They oppose the
Patriot Act; they have opposed the Terrorist Surveillance Program; they
oppose the program by which we detain, question and bring to justice the
worst of the terrorists. So they have opposed all of those things, so we
know what they oppose, but we don't know what they're going to do.

Q How does the President propose to win? How does the President -- 101 in
October dying --

MR. SNOW: The President understands that it is difficult. This is a man who
signs each and every condolence note. He is absolutely aware of the human
cost. And he grieves for every family and every person that we've lost. But
on the other hand, he also knows two things. First, as General Casey said
last week, there is not a single military engagement that we have not won,
and we don't give our soldiers credit for that.

Secondly, he also understands that if we were to walk away short of victory
it would give terrorists the opportunity to turn Iraq into a stronghold in
which they would have access to the world's second largest reserves of
petroleum; that they would be able to use oil as a political weapon against
the United States, Europe, Asia, could pit the industrialized nations
against one another; they could also work in concert with Iran and Syria,
which have been active supporters of terror; they no doubt would try to go
after Israel, after the Arabian peninsula, perhaps after Egypt.

In other words, the consequences of walking out and leaving a failed state
are absolutely catastrophic, and the President understands that. But he
also understands the promise of a democratic Iraq. And if you take a look
at what's happened -- the Prime Minister, being assertive about what he
wants to achieve -- and there has been progress, economically and
politically, throughout much of Iraq, not ignoring the difficulties
especially around Baghdad and the fierce fighting -- you take a look at
that, the promise is if you have a democracy, and when you have a democracy
that stands up in Iraq, that sends a powerful message.

Helen, you and I have been students of the region long enough to know that
everybody is watching -- everybody is watching. And the way they see it in
the region is either terrorists win or democracy wins. And the President is
absolutely determined that democracy wins.

Q How would you judge the Maliki government's decision to remove the
checkpoints in the al Sadr neighborhood in Baghdad, which, as you know, is
a very troubled place where the militia of Muqtada al Sadr is viewed as
having more strength than perhaps the U.S. forces and the Iraqi forces? Is
that not a setback today?

MR. SNOW: No, because, again, checkpoints -- to deal with checkpoints does
not necessarily change the situation in terms of how you deal with Sadr
City. The Prime Minister has also said on a number of occasions, if you
look at Sadr City, in his opinion, 90 to 95 percent are people who support
the mission and they're opposed to terrorism. And so he has also said that
the Iraqis, themselves, are going to be most capable of gathering
intelligence going after them.

There are a number of things going on in Sadr City. What he did not say is,
let's not continue going after terrorist organizations. As a matter of
fact, the other day, when he was walking through and describing his own
view of his responsibilities as commander-and-chief -- and I want to quote
it correctly -- he made it clear that a fundamental part of that is
fighting terror, including militias and including separatist terror groups.
He said that "joint efforts continue to pursue terrorists and outlaws who
expose the lives of citizens to killings, abductions, and explosions."
Abductions also would include a U.S. serviceman.

So the Prime Minister, now on -- I don't know -- three or four occasions at
least in the last week, in talking about security, has made it clear that
sectarian violence, whether it be through militias or whether it be through
Saddam loyalists or others, is not something he's going to accept. As a
matter of fact, what he said in a conference call the other day is that he
wants the ability to respond more swiftly and more precisely to things as
they come.

Q Tony, more on this non-rift with Maliki.

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q How can you say there's not a rift at all? I mean, that's the impression
you're leaving -- when, as Kelly points out, he has one opinion about how
to conduct operations in Sadr City, U.S. commanders have another opinion
about how to conduct operations in Sadr City -- why is that not a rift?

MR. SNOW: Because -- is every time somebody has a discussion about how best
to proceed, is that a rift, or is that a -- actually, a discussion about
how best to proceed? I mean, I think what you're trying to do --

Q Well, it's words, not actions. I mean, are his actions what you want?

MR. SNOW: Yes, his actions -- again, the Prime Minister, if you take a look
at what he's been doing, he's been very assertive and aggressive. For
instance, I've already mentioned a number of times the demobilization of a
Shia police battalion --

Q I understand that, but I'm going to go back to a question I've had in the
past -- are you completely satisfied with what Mr. Maliki is doing as far
as actions in Iraq?

MR. SNOW: Look, what do you mean by completely satisfied? Every single act
at every single time --

Q Well, you say there's no rift --

MR. SNOW: I'm not going to get into the rift creation business. As you
understand and the President said, and President Maliki understands, there
may be times when, on small details -- this is the Prime Minister's words
-- on details they may disagree. But on the overall plan for proceeding and
how they do it, they do agree. Now, there are going to be times when they
disagree on particular actions. For instance, last week, when you had the
strike in Sadr City, which he had approved of, which he had known about,
but he was not informed at the time that the action took place -- he was
unhappy, and he should have been. It wasn't a rift, but it was one of those
things where you work together and you try to fix it.

Q Well, are you in this difficult position where you do want to make sure
that Maliki doesn't, as the President said, dawdle, and yet you don't want
to hit him too hard? I mean, can you explain sort of what position you are?

MR. SNOW: The position is we're actually gratified that you've got an Iraqi
Prime Minister who is being very assertive about this stuff. I mean, I
really think -- look, for instance, over the weekend, or maybe it was
yesterday, there were a whole series of stories that were citing somebody
"close to the Prime Minister" who, in fact, wasn't part of any of the
discussions about how we're proceeding. And he was painting a dire picture
of how the Prime Minister was standing up to the Americans. It's not true.
The fact is, if you talk to General Casey -- I've listed all the people
who've talked about this -- they're working closely together and they get
more closely knitted together with each and every day because they've got
the shared mission and they also understand the importance of winning in
Baghdad and eventually creating that Iraq that can sustain, defend, and
govern itself.

Q So he gets final word? I know it's a sovereign nation. If the military
decides they want to put checkpoints up in Sadr City to make things better
for the people of Sadr City, but Maliki says, no, no, no -- it's his final
decision?

MR. SNOW: No, you operate cooperatively. As you know, under the U.N.
agreement right now, the multinational forces in Iraq make military
decisions. But they're certainly going to do those in concert with Prime
Minister Maliki.

Q That's not a military decision, is it?

MR. SNOW: That's a military decision, but I'm not aware that people have
dug in their heels on it.

Q Back on North Korea for a second.

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q You've been portraying this announcement today as a big step forward, a
big move. But why should anybody believe that this time around North Korea
will be any more serious about doing something about its nuclear program?

MR. SNOW: Well, the President --

Q Have you received any indication of what they said about why they're
coming back to the talks?

MR. SNOW: No. Look, it's pretty clear -- when your number-one trading
partner and your number-one supplier of energy comes to you and has a frank
discussion, the contents of which I don't know, and out of that comes an
agreement to engage in the six-party talks, you'll have to draw your own
conclusions.

Here's what the President said. I think it's reasonable to say trust, but
verify, because he has said that he wanted to thank the Chinese for
encouraging the meeting that got the agreement to the six-party talks -- to
get the six-party talks restarted. But he also says, we'll be sending teams
to the region to work with our partners to make sure that the current
United Nations Security Council Resolution is enforced, but also to make
sure that the talks are effective, that we achieve the results we want,
which is a North Korea that abandons nuclear weapons programs.

So, look, this is a step forward. Is it an absolute, lock-dead guarantee?
We'll find out if the North Koreans are going to make good on their word.
What you're doing, of course, is expressing the very kind of skepticism
we've had in the past, which is why we've talked about the importance of
having verifiable activities on the part of the North Korean government.
That has always been one of the preconditions for six-party talks. And
again, this is -- this I think is a very important reaffirmation of the way
the President went about it.

Q There were also, a couple of weeks ago, reports that people were seeing
some movements over in North Korea that might indicate that they were going
to do another nuclear test. Have you heard anything more lately about that,
whether they've stopped?

MR. SNOW: That would be certainly inconsistent with an agreement to return
to the six-party talks.

Q Have you heard anything, though, in terms of whether that activity has
stopped?

MR. SNOW: Even if I had -- look, we don't talk intelligence. Come on, you
know that, Toby.

Q Tony, since you reacted to Senator Kerry's comments, I wonder -- Charlie
Rangel, another powerful Democrat, this morning in The New York Post, is
calling the Vice President an SOB, says he is misrepresenting his position
on tax cuts or tax increases. I wonder if you will react to that. But, more
broadly, since most people are predicting either Democrats take back
Congress, or the Republicans keep it with very thin margins, with this kind
of rhetoric flying around, what kind of hope does the President have that
he's really going to accomplish very much in his final two years when all
the dust has settled?

MR. SNOW: Well, I think what's going to happen is when you get a Republican
Congress in defiance of all predictions, Democrats are going to have to ask
themselves the question, which is, do you want to play a constructive role?
In many ways, the strategy has been to create a failed government by
obstructing everything the President wants to do, with a couple of noble
exceptions like the ports bill, which was important. But there has been a
deliberate obstructionist approach on the part of Democratic leaders in
both Houses.

As far as Charlie calling names of the President --

Q The Vice President.

MR. SNOW: -- the Vice President -- I'm sorry -- in a year in which, again,
on these key issues, the Democrats don't have a plan, it does appear that
they have an anger management problem. But on the other hand, I asked the
Vice President about it today and he had a big hearty laugh. He knows
Charlie.

Q You said earlier in response to Bret's question that you thought Senator
Kerry should apologize to troops.

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q I wondered, do you have the same feeling about -- in Illinois, when Pete
Roscam told Tammy Duckworth, who, as you know, had lost her legs in Iraq,
that she would cut and run from Iraq, and then apologized when he realized
that she physically couldn't run? Should he apologize to her? And should --
in Pennsylvania, when Sherwood told Chris Carney, who had worked, as you
know, in the Pentagon pre-war, that he had helped make a false case for
war, directly criticizing his military service -- should Sherwood and
should Roscam also apologize?

MR. SNOW: What you're trying to do on the Tammy Duckworth case -- and
first, the President thanks everybody who served, and that would include
Tammy Duckworth. What you're doing is you're trying to take a common figure
of speech and twist it into a personal insult, and I don't think it fits in
that case. And I don't know about the Sherwood thing. I mean I just can't
help you with that.

Go ahead.

Q What happened -- to what extent will what happens next Tuesday be a
referendum on the President and specifically the war?

MR. SNOW: I think you're going to find out it will be interesting, Peter.
Look, what you've got -- in any congressional election you have 435
referenda on House seats, and you've got 33 referenda or 34 on given years
on Senate seats. We're going to find out. I think -- I'll tell you -- let
me put it this way: The President has made clear and will continue to make
clear his determination to win the war on terror of which Iraq is the
central front. And I think people are -- again, they're going to ask
themselves, what are you going to do? You ask Democrats a simple question:
What's your plan? Okay, you complain. What's your plan? What are you going
to do to win?

It's an important contrast to make. But on the other hand the President
also has the positive message on the other side because he says, here's the
plan to win, and here's what's going to happen when we do win. And it
creates an entirely changed nature of the region, because democracy will,
in fact, catch on in the region and you will have closer relations.
Democracies, by their natures, not only are not warlike, but are more
inclined to work together on cooperative efforts like free trade and so on.
So I think it's -- I'll tell you what, let's ask the question on Wednesday,
and we'll try to do the after-action reports. But I --

Q Well, you've been --

MR. SNOW: Yes, and you know what's interesting is -- of course, look, I'm
dealing with self-selected audiences. I've talked to Republican faithful,
so these are obviously people who support the President. But I will tell
you that their enthusiasm for finishing the job in Iraq -- people
understand that it's tough; they understand that it calls upon a nation's
patience and its willingness to sacrifice in a faraway place. It has always
been hard business, and in every war in American history, the public has
recoiled, understandably, at the cost of engagement, especially far away.
But they understand also the importance of finishing the job.

And on other issues -- I mean, when it comes to taxes, going back to the
Charlie Rangel question -- I mean, Charlie, a month ago, had given the
impression that continuing the tax cuts was off the table, and apparently
took a different position over the weekend. But those are legitimate
issues. Ask yourself, do you really think -- are Democrats going to extend
-- are they going to put a permanent end to the marriage penalty? Are they
going to get rid of the death tax? Are they going to deal with a number of
taxes that have been trimmed under this presidency? Or are they going to
let them just sort of pop up again in the dead of night with no vote from
Congress?

Those are important issues, and the President is certainly willing not only
to take his position on it, but to clarify the differences between the
parties.

Q When the President makes a comment on Iraq like the one he made last
night in Texas, doesn't he, in effect, make it a referendum on the war?
Despite those 435 --

MR. SNOW: Well, I don't know. Look, it's interesting because it may be it
will also -- Democrats have obviously made it a key issue for them. And
having made it a key issue, you would think that they would tell you what
they plan to do. And they haven't. And that also is an issue. So it may be
a referendum on the Democrats approach to the most important issue in terms
of our strategic interests.

Q Yesterday, Prime Minister Tony Blair said that basically if there's not
an international collaboration on changing global warming, there will not
only be irreversible environmental damage, there will also be economic
damage to the extent -- I think he called it devastating -- to the scale of
-- or what happens in world wars. So my question is, does the
administration still maintain that its climate change policy is based on
not only sound science, but sound economics?

MR. SNOW: Yes, and as a matter of fact, also aggressive activity on the
environment. Let me recite a little bit. In 2002, in February, the
President committed to cutting greenhouse gas intensity, how much we emit
per unit of economy activity by 18 percent. Well, guess what. The intensity
declined 2 percent in 2003, and another 2.5 percent in 2004. They're ahead
of goals. We're cutting back.

One of the things the President has been talking about, and you've heard a
lot of times, Paula, is getting rid of America's "addiction to oil." Well,
how do you do that? Well, you innovate your way out by finding energy
sources that, in fact, do not contribute to climate change, that cannot be
construed as contributing to global warming. He's talked about ethanol,
he's talked about nuclear, he's talked about biodiesel, and he's talked
about the importance of being aggressive in terms of innovating our way out
of it.

You've had the Energy Policy Act of 2005; $5 billion in tax incentives for
clean energy systems and highly efficient vehicles. You've had the Advanced
Energy Initiative -- that's a 22 percent increase in Department of Energy
research funding. You increase CAFE standards for SUVs. There is $25
billion on climate change programs, by far the most in the world, that
include: Climate Science Program, $2 billion a year; Climate Technology
Program, $3 billion a year; Climate Vision, 15 industry sectors cutting
emissions; you have climate leaders -- more than 70 companies cutting
emissions. And what's interesting is we've also been working with our
allies on ways to do the same sort of thing.

So the President has, in fact, contrary to stereotype, been actively
engaged in trying to fight climate change and will continue to do so.

Q One area that is notably absent and that even Shell Oil and other major
players are calling for is global mandatory emissions -- trade program,
that unless you do this on an international basis, it's not in the
long-term economic interest of the United States, which seems to be one of
your arguments, that somehow it benefits the United States in the
long-term.

MR. SNOW: Well, actually, what the United States has done is we've actually
taken the lead on those kinds of innovations, such as the Asia Pacific
Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, which involves working
together with China, India, Korea -- South Korea -- Japan and Australia.
You've got a methane program, 17 countries working to capture 50 million
tons of methane emissions. You've got an international partnership for
hydrogen energy. You've got Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum, which
deals directly with what you're talking about. And there's also a global
nuclear energy partnership.

So, look, the President is eager to find any ways and obviously believes in
market-based solutions, because what they end up doing is making use of
people's natural incentives for doing well by doing the right things.

Q One last follow-up. With respect to oil and the addiction you say the
United States has for oil, in the months leading up to the war and
afterwards, when asked if this war was all about oil, the administration
always denied that was the case, but now, inserting into a lot of these
speeches, the President is emphasizing the need to preserve the oil
reserves over there and that not to do so would be a very devastating
impact on Iraq. But wouldn't it also be a devastating impact on the United
States, which relies on oil?

MR. SNOW: not necessarily, because Iraq is not a significant source of oil
production for the United States right now. The reason the President talks
about the importance of maintaining the Iraqi oil fields is that it offers
an opportunity for literally a common pool of wealth that will be used --
he encourages it being distributed among all Iraqis so that they're all
going to have a shared economic and financial interest in the success of
the country. He looks upon this as a common resource for the Iraqi people.
And he makes the very reasonable point that you want the Iraqis to be fully
invested, again, literally and figuratively, in making sure that democracy
works. And that's a very powerful way to do it.

April.

Q Two things, one on North Korea and the other on Sudan. When did the
President decide to pull apart the issue of nuclear weapons and
counterfeiting? Because from that podium, he said they were issues that
went together. And now you're saying that he's going to deal with the issue
of money laundering later.

MR. SNOW: No, I said if it comes up -- Secretary Rice said it could come up
at a future date in a forum at the six-party talks. It has not been
severed. What's your second question?

Q So if they go into these talks, these upcoming talks that you're looking
at, they will deal with both issues at the same time?

MR. SNOW: I don't know how they're going to stage it. That's a question,
really, that you need to ask State. They're going to be able to answer that
technical question; I can't.

Q And on the Sudan, Muslim peacekeeping forces, did the President and
Natsios talk about that at all?

MR. SNOW: You know what, I wasn't in the meeting and I didn't get a more
detailed readout. I'll find out for you. Do me a favor and just ping me on
it, so I do remember. Actually, can we take a note here?

Q But, also, some of the critics have said that if there is, indeed, an
all-Muslim peacekeeping force, that it would be biased towards Khartoum.
What is your thought about that?

MR. SNOW: Well, the one thing that the President made clear -- and let me
just pull up some of the comments he made when he was speaking with
Ambassador Natsios -- is that the government in Khartoum needs to
understand how serious we are about getting peace for the people in Darfur.
He said, "The people who have suffered in Darfur need to know the United
States will work with others to help solve the problem." And, "The
government of Sudan must understand that we're serious -- when you deliver
a message to them on behalf of our government" -- he was saying to Andrew
Natsios -- "that we're earnest and serious about their necessity to step up
and work with the international community." This talks about, the President
also had mentioned a credible international peacekeeping force. As you
know, he just got back and what he said is that Andrew Natsios has been
there for 10 days. And unfortunately, but to nobody's surprise, there is a
grim report about the human condition there. And the President is outraged
about it and he believes the international community needs to step up, and
he believes that the government of Sudan needs to do it, as well.

Q Tony, you mentioned that the President will go to Missouri on Friday.
Will he do anything with Senator Talent?

MR. SNOW: I don't know. He's certainly going to be campaigning for him.
I'll find out.

Q But it's intended to be for his Senate campaign?

MR. SNOW: Yes. Obviously, for all candidates, but a close and highly
watched race down there is Jim Talent. I was campaigning for him there
yesterday.

Q Does the President have a feeling about the Michael J. Fox ad, which has
been so much in the news in that race and in others?

MR. SNOW: No, I have not heard him talk about it. But it's interesting,
let's make a couple of important points when it comes to stem cell
research. Any stem cell research that takes place in the United States
today is a result of a decision the President made in 2001, to be the first
to make available 60 then-existing stem cell lines involving embryonic stem
cells. He said at the time also that he believed that those stem cells, the
collection of such cells involved the taking of a human life. He did not
think it would be appropriate for the federal government to engage in
something morally controversial, but he would not outlaw it, and in fact,
would permit private investment, which is going on in some places.

Meanwhile, the United States has the most robust program in investigating
the promise of adult and blood cord stem cells, which so far have
demonstrated far more promise in dealing with real conditions than
embryonic stem cells, which to date at least have not yielded the results
that many people would like to see them produce. So when it comes to the
issue of stem cell research, there has been no party and no President who
has stepped up and made possible more research and encouraged more research
than George W. Bush.

Q But beyond that, does he feel that the Fox ads are inappropriate?

MR. SNOW: Again, he just -- I haven't heard him talk about it, don't expect
to hear him talk about it.

Q Will he talk about stem cell research if he campaigns with Jim Talent?

MR. SNOW: Well, we'll find out. It's -- look, it's an issue, and I've just
given you the position. And also the question is, will you talk about the
record of the administration in trying to assess the truth or the veracity
of charges that are leveled against members of the Senate --

Q -- going to talk about the record, I would say that those 60 lines didn't
materialize.

MR. SNOW: Well, no, at least 21 of them are involved in active research
right now, and you know it.

Q Tony, what's the decision-making process on where the President is going
to go, leading to Election Day? Why is he going where he's going? And
second, have we seen the stump speech, or is it going to continue to evolve
and perhaps become even more aggressive?

MR. SNOW: We don't believe in staying in the same place, so the President
will continue to sharpen his message. He's going to places where he can
make a difference. You know, for all the, "President Bush is not going to
go to contested districts" -- well, let's see, he's in Mike Sodrel's
district, which is a very close district. He's going down to Mac Collins's
district, a close race, today. He was in Texas yesterday, close district.
He's going to be in Missouri, you've got a close Senate race.

The President knows that when he gets there -- and some of you have been
there. I think there were a lot of people maybe astonished by the
boisterousness of the responses that he's seen in Statesboro and in Indiana
and elsewhere. Where people see the President, his passion, his commitment,
and his determination, it does make a difference, and it sends a powerful
message not merely to Republican partisans, but also independent voters.
And more people are going into the undecided category these days because
they're scratching their heads and asking the question, who is going to be
serious about the future?

So these are going to be events that will be important for those
candidates, but it also sends a message nationwide about a President who
has a very aggressive view not merely of the next seven days, but the next
two years.

Q Is his schedule going to be heavy on contested districts and states?

MR. SNOW: I think so. I mean, I can't give you a full readout of the
districts, but so far, yes.

Q There are reports out of Colorado that he'll be there over the weekend.
Can you confirm that?

MR. SNOW: No, I can't. Again, I'm still -- look, a number of these things
are still in process and we're nailing down final details on a number of
them. When I'm in a position to do it --

Q Tell us a little more about that process.

MR. SNOW: You're going to have to call the political office. They're the
guys who are working a lot of that out.

Q Has any candidate told him to stay away?

MR. SNOW: Not that I'm aware of.

Q In his campaign speech, he's being very clear about kind of linking a
vote for the Democrats to the insurgents and how important it is,
therefore, to vote for the Republicans. And in a TV interview in the last
couple of days, Vice President Cheney was even more blunt about this. Is it
the position of the President that, in fact, the Democratic Party is the
party of the insurgents and the party of al Qaeda?

MR. SNOW: No, it's the position of the President that the Democratic
policies -- he doesn't think for a minute the Democrats are sitting around
saying, "go, bin Laden." People understand -- but what he does think is
that the policies are simply flat wrong. And if you think through them, you
come to the conclusion that the idea, for instance, of withdrawal without
any recognition of conditions on the ground, withdrawal without an
assurance of victory in Iraq is a recipe for the kind of disaster I
outlined before. That's an important distinction to make.

In that sense, yes, it would be good for terrorists because they would have
safe haven in Iraq. On the other hand, what he's not saying -- and I'm glad
you asked the question -- he's certainly not going to accuse people of
running around with "I love bin Laden" t-shirts. It's important to know
that people -- you can be patriotic, but you can also be wrong on something
very important. And the President hasn't questioned the patriotism of
Democrats, and he's certainly not going to accuse them of climbing in bed
with bin Laden. But he will be clear that if you follow these policies, or,
as I've been saying, really the lack of a policy to its logical conclusion,
it could get you in real trouble.

Q Tony, when the President and Vice President talk about how insurgents and
volatile forces are watching this election, is there an inference there
that they would hope Democrats prevail?

MR. SNOW: Well, I don't -- you know, I'll let you draw your own conclusions
on that. He's not trying to --

Q Are you guys polling in the Tora Bora Mountains or -- seriously.

MR. SNOW: That's a good line. That's cute. That's why I didn't answer the
question. I don't have a clue. I mean, I've said many times I'm not going
to know the thoughts of them, which is why I didn't take that extra leap,
Dick.

Q But if you assert they're influencing -- influencing to what end?

MR. SNOW: Influencing?

Q The election process. You've said it. The President and the Vice
President have said it.

MR. SNOW: Now you're getting into a separate issue here, which is
terrorists who have committed certain acts of terror may try to influence
elections by, among other things, shaping media coverage, so that we have a
concentration not on what American men and women have been achieving in
Iraq, but instead, acts of violence that give the appearance of defeat at a
time when, again, to repeat what General Casey said, they have not lost a
single engagement, and there has been -- at least according to the Prime
Minister, considerable progress within Iraq, which is why the war is more
popular in Iraq than it is in the United States. So to that -- in terms of
a -- but that's as much a discussion of propaganda as a tool in a time of
war is anything else. Go ahead.

Q A tool to what end, though? Are you suggesting by discussing this now
over a period of days that that influence is intended to unseat
Republicans?

MR. SNOW: No, I'm suggesting that that influence is designed to try to
weaken American will to finish the job. It's a separate and unrelated item
in that sense. But what is -- what I'm also saying is, don't you think
Democrats -- and a number of you have written stories about this -- don't
you think, on this issue that they consider of such paramount importance,
that they ought to be able to get their act together long enough to come up
with a plan? If it's that important, you got to figure out what you're
going to do?

Q -- the President have a plan?

Q Tony, let me just ask your plan about this idea of -- I believe it was
called withdrawal without assurance of victory in Iraq, which I think was
the summary of the Democrats' position. And it gets back to this notion of
this being a referendum, because isn't what the President putting forward
-- is to stay without an assurance of victory in Iraq?

MR. SNOW: No, it's to stay with a determination of victory.

Q There's no assurance of victory in Iraq.

MR. SNOW: Well, Jim, are you saying that you don't think our troops are
going to be able to complete the job?

Q I'm not saying -- it doesn't matter what I'm saying. It only matters what
you folks are saying.

MR. SNOW: Okay, here's -- let me put it this way. If you'd asked the same
question in World War II, people would have looked at you like you were
crazy, because even when times looked toughest, there was a national
determination to win. And there is a national determination to win in Iraq.
And so the assurance I'm giving you is based on the quality and
determination not only of U.S. forces, but also the Iraqis who are fighting
with them. And the question is not if, but when.

Q But why isn't it a fair reading of this, if the President is going to
throw the idea out that what Democrats are doing is advocating leaving
without an assurance of victory, why isn't it a fair reading of the
situation to say, on one hand, you have leaving without assurance, and on
the other hand, you have staying without an assurance?

MR. SNOW: Because to leave is to create a vacuum and there is really not
much doubt of what the result is going to be. To stay, with victory as your
determination, ensures that you're going to have the ability over time to
do what you want to achieve. It seems to me that you're trying to draw --
let me get to the back rows a little bit first, and then we'll get back up
here.

Q Thank you, Tony. Several members of Congress I spoke to on the Republican
side say whether or not they retain the majority in the House, Speaker
Hastert will not remain in his position. And they said the Speaker has
talked about being the next ambassador to Japan. Has the White House had
any discussions with him about that?

MR. SNOW: Not that I'm aware of. That's the first I've heard about it. Yes,
I'm speechless. That's a new one on me, John.

Go ahead.

Q Tony, two questions. On Sunday, Tim Russert asked Maryland's Republican
U.S. Senate nominee Michael Steele, are you running as a proud Bush
Republican? Steele replied, and this is a quote, "I'm running as a proud
Republican." My question: What is the reaction of the head of the
Republican Party to this deletion of him by nominee Steele, who had no such
deletion regarding his endorsements by Don King and Mike Tyson?

MR. SNOW: What you -- you forgot Russell Simmons. (Laughter.) You got to
finish your endorsement. Look, I'll tell you what -- a couple of things.
Number one, the President understands politics and he also wants Michael
Steele to be the next senator from Maryland and he's confident he's going
to be it. I'm campaigning for Michael tomorrow. So it's not like we're
doing anything we can to hide our support for him.

Q The Chairman of the Senate Democratic Campaign said he is confident of a
Democratic takeover of the Senate on November the 7th, and the election is
a referendum on George Bush. How does the President react to this
chairman's predictions?

MR. SNOW: With anticipation of November 8th.

Q On North Korea, you also noted that the President said today he'll be
sending teams to the region.

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q What are the role of those teams and how early could they be sent?

MR. SNOW: We'll be making appropriate announcements at the appropriate
time.

Q There are reports that it may be in a month.

MR. SNOW: Well, it's -- look, the Secretary of State has said that she'd
like to see talks commence before the end of the year. That's two months.
So, I mean, we're working quickly to try to get the process back up and
going.

One in the back and then we'll go ahead and --

Q Is the President concerned about the close ties between Prime Minister
Maliki and Muqtada al Sadr might hinder a tough stance against the
militias, especially the Mahdi Army?

MR. SNOW: No, the President understands, first, that Muqtada al Sadr is
part of the government; secondly, that the Prime Minister has made clear
the necessity of dealing with key players on both sides. As you know, he
met with Muqtada al Sadr and Ali al Sistani a little more than a week ago;
they had a reconciliation conference with Sunnis in Saudi Arabia. And
furthermore, the Prime Minister has also met with a hundred Sunni leaders,
tribal leaders, working on the issue.

If you're going to be the leader of Iraq, and you're going to deal with
sectarian issues, and you're going to deal with militias, you're going to
have to do the sort of things that Prime Minister Maliki has been doing. I
think it shows that you've got a politician who's realistic about how to
proceed.

Martha.

Q Tony, some of Senator Kerry's people are saying that Senator Kerry was
not talking about the soldiers when he made that comment, but, in fact, was
talking about the President.

MR. SNOW: We're deporting high school students to get stuck in Iraq?

Q I'm just telling you what Senator Kerry's people are saying, that he was
talking about the President, not the soldiers -- that if he had done his
homework, we wouldn't be stuck in Iraq.

MR. SNOW: Okay. A, he -- I'm sorry. Tell them to try version 2.0.

Q When you were talking to Jim about assurance, the Democrats don't have
assurance of victory, that implies you can assure victor in Iraq.

MR. SNOW: Let me put it this way. The President is confident of victory.
Look, in a time of war -- I love this. Would you have asked, would somebody
have said, Lincoln, will you assure victory; Roosevelt, will you assure
victory?

Q You just said the Democrats can't assure victory.

MR. SNOW: No, what I'm saying is the Democrats -- by saying that their
primary mission is to withdraw from Iraq without an assurance of victory
means that you set in place conditions that could create absolute chaos in
the region and around the world. The President is determined, knowing the
quality and the courage and the ingenuity and the ability of American
forces working with the Iraqis, who become more capable with each passing
day, that they're going to get the job done. He knows it's going to be
tough. But on the other hand, the way you win is you stay determined and
steadfast to the goal. And at the same time, as we've been through many
times in recent weeks, you remain nimble about the changing conditions on
the battlefield.

Q W