Text 3771, 885 rader
Skriven 2006-12-08 23:31:04 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (0612085) for Fri, 2006 Dec 8
===================================================

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

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
December 8, 2006

Press Briefing by Tony Snow
White House Conference Center Briefing Room

Press Briefing view


12:15 P.M. EST

MR. SNOW: Hello, everybody. I want to begin with two statements by the
President, and then I will take your questions.

First, on the passing of former U.N. Ambassador Jean Kirkpatrick. From the
President. "Laura and I are deeply saddened by the death of Jean
Kirkpatrick. As a professor, author, ambassador and advisor to Presidents,
she influenced the thinking of generations of Americans on the importance
of American leadership and advancing the cause of freedom and democracy
around the globe. She defended the cause of freedom at a pivotal time in
world history, and her courageous service as our United Nations Ambassador
inspired her fellow Americans and lovers of liberty around the world.

"Jean's powerful intellect helped America win the Cold War. Her insights
and teachings will continue to illuminate the path ahead for the United
States in the world. We send our condolences to Jean's family and friends,
and on behalf of all Americans, we give thanks for her extraordinary life."

And on today's jobs report: "Today we received a new report that confirms
the continued strength of the American economy. The November jobs reports
showed that 132,000 more Americans found work than last month, and that job
creation in previous months was stronger than first estimated, adding
42,000 jobs to the numbers released last month. The unemployment rate
remained low, at 4.5 percent. This is good news for American workers, and
they are also seeing good news in their paychecks. As we look forward, our
goal is to maintain the pro-growth policies that have strengthened our
economy and will stimulate the creation of good jobs and higher wages."

Also a quick readout on the President's meeting with bipartisan
congressional leadership this morning. Following on the trend that really
began with the Baker-Hamilton commission in its presentation of a report,
there was once again a pretty good and interesting spirit of bipartisanship
in the room, in the Cabinet Room today. The President began by suggesting
that they regularize such meetings in the weeks and months to come, and
that it not be simply confined to Iraq, which, obviously, was an important
area of interest and concern, but also other domestic issues that the
United States faces.

And as he went around the room, those sentiments were echoed by one and
all. There, I think, was a general understanding that there is a time for
campaigning, there's also a time for governing. And Democrats and
Republicans around the table expressed a desire now to move into a
governing mode, understanding that whether it be the war in Iraq or other
key and pressing domestic issues, Americans really would like to see people
getting along and working well together. And you saw that echoed by Speaker
Hastert and incoming Speaker Pelosi, Senator Reid, Senator Durbin, Senator
Frist, who is leaving, of course, and the President. So it was a very good
meeting.

And with that, questions. Terry.

Q Senator Durbin said that the President told him that he was open to
changing tactics in Iraq, but the Senator said that he questioned -- the
Senator, himself, questioned whether or not the President was ever going to
support the conclusions of the Iraq Study Group, particularly when it came
to pulling out, starting to bring American troops home.

MR. SNOW: I believe what the -- which conclusion did he have in mind?

Q He says, starting to bring American troops home, redeploying them to
safer places, holding Iraq to new standards of responsibility --

MR. SNOW: Okay, well, there are a couple of things --

Q -- and opening up a new line of diplomacy.

MR. SNOW: Okay, well let's walk through -- I mean, what we've said, and
will continue to say, is that we're taking a close look. Senator Durbin, I
believe also said that he thought that there would be some disagreement on
Capitol Hill with a number of the recommendations, and in his view, that
they would not all be taken.

Having said that, when it comes to troop movements, it's always been the
case that we think that you're going to have to have it dependent upon the
facts on the ground. But the Baker-Hamilton commission, itself, echoed
recommendations from General Casey. For instance, "We should seek to
complete the training and equipping mission by the first quarter of 2008,
as stated by General George Casey on October 24, 2006." So I'm not sure
that there's a big disconnect there.

What the Baker-Hamilton commission did reject is what it referred to as
"precipitous withdrawal" from Iraq, and it also rejected partitioning of
the country, and even dividing up into semi-autonomous units.

What the President is going to do is what you would expect a
Commander-in-Chief to do, which is to take a careful and thoughtful look at
the report. And as you know, there are other recommendations and
suggestions and analyses coming his way in the very near future. And it's
his job -- and people around the table understand this -- to try to come up
with the best complex of policies.

I think maybe the most important take-away, or one of the most important
take-aways from the Baker-Hamilton commission report is the spirit of
bipartisanship I've been talking about, but also, at the very beginning of
the section on the way forward, there's a sentence -- and I'll read it
again, I've read it here from the podium before, but it's worth noting. It
says, "We agree with the goal of U.S. policy in Iraq, as stated by the
President: an Iraq that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend
itself."

So having accepted the goal, you now have the practical responsibility on
the part of the President -- and we certainly hope, with the bipartisan
support of Democrats and Republicans -- to find out the most sensible way
of achieving that goal.

Q So if the goal is the same, should Americans expect that there's going to
be a dramatic difference?

MR. SNOW: I'm not going to characterize anything before the President
announces it. I think what the President has been very straightforward
about is that we need better ways of addressing the issue of sectarian
violence. We need to be working with the government of Iraq to increase its
capabilities, not only militarily, but also in terms of its domestic
policing efforts, to help them build a stronger economy, to help them move
toward political reconciliation, to be reaching out and working
diplomatically with neighbors, and to get everybody within the region, and
a position of supporting the Iraqi democracy. So all of those are really
key parts of what he is going to be talking about.

But I am loathe to characterize it because, frankly, the final
recommendations have not been delivered, nor has the President determined
what he will recommend as the way forward. But as you know, he will let you
know.

Q Tony, Senator Reid said that he didn't feel by the President's actions or
his demeanor that the President is going to do anything different. He said
that after the meeting. He also said that he didn't hold out much hope for
consultation. After these reports -- the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the State
Department, the National Security Council --

MR. SNOW: Well, can you -- when he said, "not much hope of consultation,"
with whom?

Q With Congress.

MR. SNOW: Well, I will tell you what the President said --

Q No, no, here's the question. After the reports come out -- the internal
reports -- how much consultation will there be with Capitol Hill before the
President lays out his way forward in this national speech?

MR. SNOW: What the President said clearly was that he intends to consult
with Congress, and that he -- the door is open. And what also -- there's a
flip side to that question, Bret, which is whether those who say, "Mr.
President, as Commander-in-Chief, we listen to you," bend to support him.
And whether they, in fact, accept the goal of an Iraq that can govern
itself, sustain itself, and defend itself. That also is an important part
of the dialogue.

But let me say, with all due respect, that the President made it clear that
he did intend to consult and that it would be in a spirit of bipartisanship
where he would welcome all views and hope to get honest views. But he is
Commander-in-Chief, and that's something that the people in the room also
realized.

Q Senator Durbin said that in the meeting the President compared himself to
Harry Truman, when talking about Iraq, saying that President Truman dealt
with a war that many were against, but eventually had proved right. And the
sense that Senator Durbin said he got was that he's trying to position
himself in history. Can you address that?

MR. SNOW: No, that's -- you know, it's interesting, because Senator Durbin
did try to engage on that a little bit. No, I think what the President was
pointing out is that Harry Truman had a difficult choice, because coming
out of World War II, we began to face something that we had never faced
before, which was an ideological enemy with a global ambition and global
reach, that had capabilities, and that we were going to have to figure out
how to face over an extended period of time. And it required commitments
that were unprecedented in American history, and it took 60 years, but we
did win the Cold War.

And so I think it's important to note that the President was really not
trying to compare himself to Harry Truman so much as to talk about the
duration and nature of the struggle. It's international, it has an enemy
that's absolutely dedicated to killing Americans. So what the President was
very clear about is that it may require different types of tactics than we
used in the Cold War. It's a different kind of war, but it does have the
ideological and international dimensions.

And he also pointed out that the freedom agenda remains an important
centerpiece, as it was in the Cold War. It really was a fight between
totalitarianism and forces of freedom, and that also is one of the central
underpinnings. But he says -- he said during that is that, A, it's an
ideological struggle, and B, it's important to send proper messages rather
than mixed messages. And that really is an invitation to Congress here. If
you want to think back, because I believe Senator Durbin is somebody who
does support the kind of approach the United States -- I don't want to put
words in his mouth, but he seemed to be saying that he supported what Harry
Truman did.

At that time, you had Senator Vandenberg, of the opposing political party,
saying that partisanship ought to end at the water's edge, and that it was
very important that we send unified signals, and that's where the
President, once again, was saying, to send -- to send a proper message,
rather than a mixed message.

And so it really is an opportunity for both sides to work together, and I
understand there are going to be times where there will be disagreements,
and I do -- but I do also know that people in that room understand that the
President is Commander-in-Chief. But this is a Commander-in-Chief who
today, at the very outset, without ambiguity, without pulling punches,
without pulling wool, said that he would like to have regular
consultations, and he will.

Q Just a quick piece of housekeeping on these internal reviews. Because my
impression was, after the gaggle, they were -- all of those -- State,
Defense, NSC -- were still, sort of, to come. I thought Secretary Rumsfeld
said this morning that the Pentagon review, well-scrubbed, had been
delivered already.

MR. SNOW: No, I don't think so. I'll have to double check on that, but I'm
not aware of it. There is a Pentagon review ongoing and Pete Pace, as the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, is doing the report. But the others, I mean,
there are meetings as recently as today on some of the topics, so people
are still taking a very careful look at a lot of the issues.

Q As far as the reception that the President gave to the Baker commission
report, a number of press accounts from a variety of papers said that after
the Blair-President news availability yesterday that the President was sort
of chilly.

MR. SNOW: That was Hunt. (Laughter.)

Q No, no, it was not just Hunt.

MR. SNOW: It was Hunt. I called him about it.

Q Well, do you disagree --

Q No, I called you.

MR. SNOW: That's right, you called, and then I complained. That's right, I
guess I got the order wrong.

Q Do you disagree with the characterization?

MR. SNOW: Yes, I do. I mean, I don't think it was a chilly reception. If
you take a look -- go back, look at the tape -- it didn't look like the
President was being chilly. And, furthermore, having been in the meeting
with the Baker commission -- Baker-Hamilton commission, and having been in
meetings with the President, he understands that it's a serious document
and you give it a serious look. It's also worth taking a hard look -- I
mean, frankly, I have a feeling that if you want to apply any sort of
climatological metaphors, you might want to think about some of the
conversations on Capitol Hill yesterday, because there were critiques on
the Democratic and Republican sides, as you would expect.

Q But I guess my question is, because especially in these two specific
areas, engaging Iran and Syria, and troop withdrawals, the President seemed
to address both of those with, essentially, long-held views, nothing fresh.

MR. SNOW: Wait a minute, I'm not sure -- I mean, I just read to you the
section on so-called troop withdrawals that cites General Casey, to whom
the President says he defers on these --

Q I'm talking about when he says, "Yes, I'd love to have them out if
conditions on the ground warrant."

MR. SNOW: Right, which is what they say in this report.

Q But he seems to be setting -- not exactly.

MR. SNOW: Yes, it is.

Q And he seems to be setting up ways in which he doesn't have to engage
exactly along the lines of the Baker commission is recommending --

MR. SNOW: Let me put it this --

Q -- especially when it comes to Iran and Syria.

MR. SNOW: Okay, let's break these apart. First, let's talk about the
military side. The President will make what he considers the proper
military determination, but I think you're making way too much. Again, I'll
go back to what it says about precipitous withdrawal, because I think,
frankly, the Baker-Hamilton commission was a little tougher on some of the
proposals that were being floated during the campaign season.

It said, "It would be wrong for the United States to abandon the country
through a precipitous withdrawal of troops and support. A premature
American departure -- premature American departure from Iraq would almost
certainly produce greater sectarian violence and further deterioration of
conditions." And it talks about the fact that, of course, if things do not
proceed on their present trend lines, you'd have to revisit. So that, to
me, seems that they are talking sensibly about a conditions-based approach.
All I'm saying is, they obviously look at this. I just --

Q Well, let me widen out, then, add the frame. Is the President -- in your
opinion, do you think he's signaling the American public whatever I've said
or advocated or dug my heels in about to this point, it's a new day and I'm
going to give it a fresh look, and sort of fresh set of eyes on the whole
thing?

MR. SNOW: First, I would caution against the "dig my" -- there's this
notion that the President has dug his heels in and he hasn't changed
anything, whereas, in point of fact, things change constantly. And we've
informed you about a number of these --

Q But this is an impression in America, though -- the impression with
American citizens.

MR. SNOW: I'm just telling you that maybe you can help, because you
regularly get updates from me at this podium. For instance, on digging in
-- here you've had the President, who has had two face-to-face meetings
with Prime Minister Maliki. We had the unveiling of Operation Forward
Together. It did not produce the results desired, he demanded better. The
President also has been talking with regional allies. We have had the Iraq
compact. We have had efforts to try to work with the Iraqis on political
reconciliation efforts. You have had ongoing diplomacy on the part of the
Secretary of State throughout the Middle East. The point is, that's not a
dig-your-heels-in stance, it's a very aggressive and assertive stance. But
what the President has said is, we need new tactics.

Now what he will not change is, in fact, the thing that the Baker-Hamilton
commission -- again, the very first thing that they said is the goal, but
this is critically important -- and he agrees, and he's not going to change
this -- the goal stated by the President, an Iraq that can govern itself,
sustain itself and defend itself. What is important and is open for
wide-ranging reviews is, what's the best way to do it?

Q So you think -- last question -- this is a time, obviously, when there's
a focus about the way forward in Iraq in the country that there probably
hasn't been with an intensity just because of the report, in a while. That
the President is signaling the American people that he is open to a brand
new, wide range of new approaches.

MR. SNOW: Yes, sure. He's been pretty clear about that: Bring us a new
approach to that goal. Absolutely.

Q But he signaled yesterday with Syria and Iran that he still is holding
the same position, saying that Iran has got to suspend their enrichment,
but the Baker-Hamilton group said there shouldn't be any precondition.

MR. SNOW: Well, what it said -- well, on the other hand, it also did not
question that condition. As you know, what they did is they set aside the
U.N. Security Council issue, and they did not quibble with it, because the
Security Council has had the same condition. And I read that as they're
accepting the U.N. Security Council's demand that Iran does, in fact,
suspend its uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities.

What you have is a set aside, a different thing, that said that the United
States should do diplomatic engagement. Well, guess what? We have been. Zal
Khalilzad, when he was Ambassador to Afghanistan, had talked to the
Iranians about border issues. Colin Powell had been in a meeting in Sharm
el-Sheikh in which there were Iranians in attendance in 2004. Condoleezza
Rice, Secretary of State, has been in meetings with Iranians with regard to
the Iraq compact. It is not clear whether that does or does not meet the
conditions, the notion of direct engagement. But this much is clear: If
you're going to have talks, you have to have something constructive to
discuss. And it is important to realize that it's not simply an exercise in
chatter, but something in trying to get a job done.

And it is important that the Iranians understand that they need to be
playing a constructive role not merely in Iraq, but also in the larger
Middle East; and, furthermore, that it is not going to be possible, it is
not acceptable to use good behavior in Iraq as a bargaining chip on a
potential nuclear program that could destabilize the region and potentially
the entire world.

So that's where -- you know, it's interesting. There's kind of a balancing
act within the commission. I think if you want to say -- well, I'll leave
it at that.

Q So, Tony, can you just clarify, are you saying that the administration
would object to regional talks involving Iran and Syria, as well as Bush
administration officials, regarding Iraq?

MR. SNOW: I don't know. Let's see what -- first, what materializes. But the
one thing that we have said is, you need to let the Iraqi government, you
need to let the Prime Minister assemble regional groups. It's an important
sovereignty concern, and one that we share, that the Iraqis put together
regional groups that deal with their own internal situation. And,
therefore, lets find out what Prime Minister Maliki has to suggest, and
we'll do it.

But I can say this, Suzanne, again, if you're using the Iraq compact, there
have been times when representatives of both countries have been in
attendance.

Q And what can we expect next week? I know that he's going to be meeting
with Secretary Rice, Secretary Rumsfeld. Do we expect in those meetings
with the State Department and Pentagon that he's going to get those reports
from them? Or is this --

MR. SNOW: No, this is not an exercise where they sort of push their
homework across the table. Instead, what he is going to get is some
briefing. For instance, the State Department, they'll talk about the
political and economic situation in Iraq. Obviously, of great importance,
as well, is the reconciliation process.

He's also going to hear from provincial reconstruction teams. And Secretary
Rice, Ambassador Khalilzad, and the provincial reconstruction team leaders
are going to take part in the briefing. So obviously there's going to be a
lot of discussion of fact, and there will be some discussions of ideas. But
this is not, in any sense, sort of a final report time in any of the
meetings. He will be getting briefings.

Q And can we expect that would happen the following week?

MR. SNOW: Again, I don't know. I know it's frustrating to everybody, but
here's what the President wants. He wants the reports done, he wants them
done thoroughly, completely, and competently, as quickly as possible. And
we have talked about his possibly delivering whatever recommendations he
may have before the end of the year, but we can't -- we just are not in a
position yet, because the work is not completed and the process of vetting
them has not been concluded. So I can't give you a firm date or any of the
details of what may come, but as soon as that's available, we'll obviously
let you know.

Q Tony, to be clear, there are going to be written reports from each of
those --

MR. SNOW: Well, to be clear, you're going to have a little bit of
everything. I mean, you're going to have people talking. There will,
obviously, be some things that are documents. There will be any number of
things. But is it going to be a glossy report that can be sort of shoved
under the doorjamb of august media organizations? Probably not.

Q Iraq. Before I have my question, if I may make a quick statement for the
record.

MR. SNOW: Please, not. I'm here to speak for the record. Let's stick to the
-- Goyal, I love you, but --

Q Okay. Question is, as far as Iraq war is concerned, we are giving
billions of dollars to many Arab and Muslim countries. Why their troops are
not there to be killed or to fight the war for their brothers and sisters?
Not many major Muslims and Arab countries are there, only the global --

MR. SNOW: We believe that -- for instance, today the President talked with
Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey. And this may also get back to lending
further context to the issue of Iran and Syria. Prime Minister Erdogan has
just returned from visits to Iran and Syria, and he gave a readout of those
meetings. One of the things that the President was making clear is that
regional allies, Muslim countries, can play a constructive role, and they
are doing so.

We are not going to be in the position of telling people to commit troops
to Iraq. But what we are trying to do, and we are finding a good reception,
is for people to work constructively so that this government can stand up,
can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself. That is of paramount
importance, a free, democratic society standing on its own in that part of
the world.

o what you do, as you know, Goyal, is that you use a number of different
levers in that case, economic cooperation, and in fact a number of regional
partners have been active in that area. Similarly, on reconciliation,
Sunni, Shia and Kurd, they can all play a role in that. So there are any
number of constructive things that the regional partners can do, and we
accept them.

Q To follow up quick. As far as if this war continues like this or
disrupting a more, much more larger war, let's say, what is the (inaudible)
for global war (inaudible) and from the area, because most of the country
get the oil from this region, or through this region? So --

MR. SNOW: Well, rather --

Q -- (inaudible) any plans for --

MR. SNOW: Rather than trying to deal with vast, hypothetical questions, let
me just repeat what the President said many times, which is that one of the
important stakes in Iraq is to make sure that you have an independent,
free, democratic society that's able to stand on its own. If you don't, you
have the possibility -- and this is mentioned explicitly within the
Baker-Hamilton report -- of an Iraq that will be susceptible to terror
organizations taking control and perhaps also having access not only to
oil, but the revenues it generates, and therefore being in a position to
wreak havoc throughout the region, if not the world.

So that, clearly, is one of the reasons why it is important to pull
together bipartisan and national support and national unity behind the goal
of that freestanding Iraq. There is real national interest and concern that
this is something that's not only going to affect me, it's going to affect
my kids and my kid's kids. And it is important to do this right and to do
it unified as a country.

Victoria.

Q When I was talking with a radio talk show host this morning, it was said
to me that it was inappropriate of the President yesterday to laugh after
he said that it was bad in Iraq. Could you speak to that please?

MR. SNOW: No. I mean, I don't remember it, and we appreciate the -- look,
the fact is, here's a President, if by this -- actually, maybe you can help
me, because what I have is a statement of people's emotional reaction. What
exactly -- to what did they take umbrage, and what did they think it
implied? Did they say?

Q They took umbrage to the fact that a question was asked by the reporter
from the BBC that the President had said that it was unsettling. And the
President replied that it's bad in Iraq, and then he laughed. They thought
that that lent an air of levity to the proceedings that they didn't think
was appropriate.

MR. SNOW: I see. The BBC question, I think, was in fact -- he was parsing
and bantering a bit with the President.

Q The bantering hadn't happened at that point.

MR. SNOW: No, I think if you go back and look at it -- in any event, let me
put it this way -- let me try to soothe the anxieties. Anybody who doubts
the President's seriousness hasn't been looking or listening, period. This
is something where, again, he signs letters of condolence to every family
that's lost a loved one. He is briefed on it on a daily basis. He
understands the national security is at stake here. He not only hears about
this, but he gets regular briefings on intelligence about ongoing terror
efforts to kill American citizens.

After September 11th, it's a different world. And it is a world where, I
guarantee you, the terror organizations are looking for any possible way to
do two things: number one, to kill Americans; and number two, to divide the
American public. So if, in fact, there is a desire on the part of the radio
talk show hosts to reach an Iraq where human dignity once again has an
opportunity to express itself within the context of a free and democratic
society, and if they want to be helpful, we're open to all suggestions and
support, because it is a time for people maybe to stop looking for offense
and start looking for ways to be constructive and helpful.

It's a real moment of opportunity when it comes to these things. And that
is the approach the President is taking. Certainly, if people tried to draw
from that that there is an air of levity when it comes to the human toll or
the difficulty of the challenge ahead, I assure you, there is none.

Q Tony, who does the President have coming? There are some outside advisors
coming Monday; is that right? And what's he expecting to get out of that?

MR. SNOW: Let's see, let's take a look at the Monday week ahead, if you
bear with me. I'm not sure I'll have -- it's just senior State Department
officials on Iraq. He's going to be over there. And the outside experts, I
don't have a readout. But as you know, we've had a number of meetings with
outside experts. And what you end up doing is, again, getting people who
will give you their full and honest assessment about what's going on. I'll
try to get you more. I don't have anything on it right now.

Q Tony --

MR. SNOW: You've been interrupted. Go ahead.

Q Tony, Secretary Baker said that one shouldn't treat this report as a
fruitcake --

MR. SNOW: Fruit salad. (Laughter.)

Q Fruit salad.

MR. SNOW: And he's right. Nothing should be treated as a fruitcake.
(Laughter.) That, I think, is a human rights violation.

Q We won't get into fruitcake status. (Laughter.)

Q Not to treat it as a fruit salad because obviously it was a report
indicating the opinion of a large section of the U.S. political
establishment wanting to change the policy of the United States. Each of
these parts is interconnected, and Baker and Hamilton both indicated that
one without the other is not going to work. But it seems, judging from the
President's statement, and also from what you said today that he is,
indeed, treating this a fruit salad.

MR. SNOW: No, I think what he's doing is treating it as a report -- you
know what I'd do is take a look at what happened on Capitol Hill among
Democrats, as well as Republicans yesterday. I think what you're trying to
do is to -- we have actually not taken a position on any specific
recommendation. There are people who have. It's natural to think that that
would happen.

Members of the Baker-Hamilton commission made it clear that they don't
expect everybody to agree with each and every jot and tittle, but also that
we do respect the fact that a lot of these issues are interconnected, and
ought to be taken seriously as such.

And the President, as Commander-in-Chief, still has the obligation to take
seriously every bit of analysis and advice he gets, and to make his own
decisions. And as I said before, he's not going to outsource that, but he
certainly is going to -- he has received, with gratitude and admiration,
the work product of 10 members -- five Democrats and five Republicans. He
also will do the same when it comes to State Department officials and
National Security Council departments, and the Department of Defense, and
others who are involved in a regular and ongoing basis with what's going on
in Iraq, which is exactly what you'd expect. And I think the best way to
take something seriously is to examine each and every part of it and to
look at it carefully and to move from there.

John.

Q Thank you, Tony. It's been reported that Secretary Paulson has held over
--

MR. SNOW: Okay, let me stick with Iraq first, unless this is an Iraq
question. Is this an Iraq question?

Q No.

MR. SNOW: Okay, let's hold off. Let me finish Iraq, and then we'll get to
that.

David.

Q I know the administration review involves the State Department and the
NSC and all that. But the President often refers to his military advisors.
And I'm wondering, are Pete Pace's recommendations going to be first among
equals, then?

MR. SNOW: No, I think it's -- I know there's an attempt -- and this
question has also been asked about Baker-Hamilton -- surely -- look, the
President doesn't sit around and say, ah-ha, this is the one I've been
waiting for, because they're all ones he's been waiting for.

And what you do is that you look at all of them and you weigh them -- and
it's one of the reasons why everybody is saying, well, when is it going to
be ready? Well, you know what? These are enormously complex issues, getting
back to the previous question, you can't look at them in isolation. You
really do have to think about an integrated policy that has an economic
component, has a political component, has a regional, diplomatic component,
has all of those components.

And maybe what we see is a moment of opportunity for Americans to lower the
partisan tempers that always flare up during election time, and now move to
a position of governing. And that's one of the things that was discussed in
today's bipartisan leadership meeting.

If, in fact, you accept the goal of an Iraq that can govern, sustain, and
defend itself, then you have a practical job before you. And what the
President is going to do is to look at every contributing factor of it. And
as the generals, themselves, say, this is not something that is strictly a
military operation; it has a lot of other components. And, therefore,
you're going to look at each and every piece.

John.

Q Did the President talk about the quote from Senator Vandenberg that you
mentioned earlier --

MR. SNOW: No. No.

Q Did that meeting come up?

MR. SNOW: Only in the sense that the President did welcome bipartisanship.
I've got to say that each and every person talked about this being a moment
of opportunity and a moment of bipartisanship, and it was also stressed
that if people simply opposed proposals because the other guy supports it
-- as has happened in recent years in American politics -- it's not going
to get anywhere, it's going to be bad for the country.

So now it's time to be fair-minded, and also for people to be reaching out.
Understanding, there -- look, there are going to be times when people lock
horns, and there are going to be times when tempers flare and people say --
I mean, that's all going to happen. So don't expect this suddenly to be all
peace and love.

But on the other hand, there is a chance -- and I think the people in the
meeting all recognize this -- to prove something to the American public:
that in a time of divided government, you can get things done. As a matter
of fact, one of the participants said that quite often the most -- a couple
of them, one Democrat and one Republican, said that quite often the most
significant things get done in times of divided government.

And so it's a opportunity, as I've said before and as the President has
said before, with Democrats in a position now of responsibility, both in
the House and Senate, it gives them not only the opportunity, but the
incentive to work with this White House to deal with some of the most
vexing problems, not only on the foreign policy front, but the domestic
front.

Les. Oh, I'm sorry, wait. Go ahead, Sarah.

Q Thank you, Tony. Will Secretary Gates --

MR. SNOW: Are you Iraq?

Q Yes.

MR. SNOW: Okay, well, I'll get to you.

Q Go ahead.

MR. SNOW: And I'll get to you, too. All right, go ahead.

Q Will Secretary Gates make an early trip to Iraq to confer with General
Casey and Iraqi leaders?

MR. SNOW: Well, he's already said that he will go there -- if he's sworn
in, he will go there soon.

Les.

Q Tony, since our good colleague from CBS was allowed to ask what I counted
as eight questions today, could I, on rare occasions like today, ask a mere
three?

MR. SNOW: If Ann will permit.

Q That was one. (Laughter.)

Q Oh, no. That was a motion of procedure. (Laughter.)

Yesterday, leaders of Islamic Jihad, Hamas and al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade told
WorldNetDaily's Jerusalem correspondent how very pleased they were with the
Iraq Study Group's suggestion, and proclaimed it as a great victory for
them over America. And my question: If we were to remove all our troops
from Iraq, how could we prevent these terrorists from moving West and
committing a new kind of 9/11 here in the U.S.?

MR. SNOW: There are two pieces to understand. Number one, the report,
itself, talks about the importance of going after terror within the region.
And it says very explicit things about the roles of Syria and Iran. So I
don't know what -- they must not have read the report. They must have
watched accounts on al Jazeera or something -- sorry if al Jazeera is here.

But the fact is that in this particular case, the President has been pretty
clear that the purpose here is not to foment terror or to create vacuums,
but to create freedom and also destroy the case for terror.

Q Republican Congressman Rohrabacher and 49 others have petitioned the
President about U.S. Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean
who, Rohrabacher said, "are heroes because of their actions. Over a million
dollars in illegal drugs were stopped from being sold to our children.
Bringing felony charges against them is a travesty of justice beyond
description." Question: Why is the President delaying a pardon of these
men, who face prison next month for shooting this drug dealer in his
buttocks?

MR. SNOW: This is the same question you asked me once before, and when I
tried to make the simple point that it's inappropriate for me to talk about
pardons, you had WorldNetDaily run up a big thing that Snow wants to let
people go free. So let me just tell you, as you know, it's inappropriate
for me to comment about pardons.

Q I've never said that.

MR. SNOW: I know, but WorldNetDaily did, and so I just thought I'd save
both you and your publishers the trouble, in understanding that it is
inappropriate for a press secretary to be announcing pardons or even be
discussing them.

Q Syndicated talk radio host Michael Savage said yesterday that co-chairman
Jim Baker belongs to a law firm that represents Saudi Arabia, which he said
major media is refusing to report. Is that true? And, if so, why was Baker
made co-chairman with no members from any of our armed forces?

MR. SNOW: Number one, Jim Baker's legal connections are well known. And,
number two, Congress appointed Jim Baker and Lee Hamilton as the co-chairs,
so that's the appropriate place to take it.

Ann.

Q Concerning the breadth and the depth and the detail in the Iraq Study
Group, and the flurry of consultations the President has had, should
Americans expect a full, dramatic new way forward from the President, or
will it be more tinkering on the margins?

MR. SNOW: You know, I don't -- because I don't even know how you define
such a thing. Keep in mind that the President -- what the President is
going to be is assertive, and he's going to show leadership. But I cannot
tell you precisely what's going to happen. The idea that -- you know, you
already have upward of 150,000 troops on the ground. And as people at the
Pentagon have pointed out to me, the logistics of, boom, doing something
suddenly is just not possible. But on the other hand, what you can talk
about is a fresh new way of addressing the challenges that we face, which
are different than the challenges we faced a year ago.

After the Samara mosque bombing in February, you had success on the part of
Zarqawi and al Qaeda in Iraq in fomenting sectarian tension. And that now
is a focal point. At the same time, you have an Iraqi government that has
now been elected, has had six months in office, is beginning to assert
itself on a number of these fronts.

And so I think what you're going to be able to do is to have the President
take a fresh look at a constantly changing and evolving situation, and come
up with proposals that are going to assure the American public that when it
comes to that goal -- again stated in the report, an Iraq that can govern
itself, defend itself, and sustain itself -- that the United States is
going to help the Iraqis win. And I think when Americans see a path
forward, that is what we're hoping.

What you look for may not be splashiness or boldness, as you may call it,
but what you look for is a serious proposal that addresses the real
concerns of many Americans about, are we pursuing victory, and if so, how.
And those are the questions that will be answered.

Q Tony, real quick, you talked about the challenges of governing, moving
forward. By all accounts, this is the first time the President has met with
the Blue Dog coalition since he's been President. They're a growing group
-- or they've grown. Can you talk about the significance of that group, and
is it now essential that he work with them to get things accomplished?

MR. SNOW: Look, the President has met with the representative leadership in
the House and Senate, he's met with Democrats, he's met with Republicans.
And I think what it does indicate is that there's a determination on the
part of the President to get stuff done. As we've said many times, the last
two years of this presidency are not going to be years of leisure, but, in
fact, we hope, years of accomplishment. And the way to do that is to seek
out ideas and also seek out the support of people on both sides of the
aisle. You're going to have Democratic leadership of the House and Senate.

Q Are Blue Dogs more important today than they were?

MR. SNOW: I don't know. The President considers them important. And the
fact is that he's going to be reaching out. I think what is significant is
that you're having members of both parties also coming to the White House.
Bret, I think there's a mutually agreed recognition -- if you take a look
at the congressional approval numbers, which have fallen 10 points since
Election Day, that it's important to demonstrate that this country can
govern itself, and that people of both political parties can pull together
and can do things that are vitally important in the foreign policy areas as
well as domestic policy. And the President has made it clear that he's
eager to do that. And, you know, you've got a number of Democrats who have
made it clear that they're eager to do the same thing.

So I would not single out any group because, again, what you will see --
you've seen it some this week, you'll see it in weeks to come -- is the
President is going to invite a lot of people over, and he's going to talk
to a lot of people. And he's going to do what Presidents do in a time like
this, which is try to build support and build consensus for important
initiatives. And he's going to listen to people, because from time to time
you're going to have both sides going back and forth and figuring out,
okay, what can we agree to and what can we get done.

One of the points he did make is that the Baker-Hamilton commission does
set a good example in this sense. You had people who disagreed about
issues, and yet they worked it out. And that's an important thing to do
when it comes to the ongoing legislative business of the United States
Congress and the President as he deals with this new Congress.

Q Can I get one non-Iraq question in, Tony?

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q Thank you, Tony. It's been reported that Secretary Paulson has not closed
the door on raising taxes in his discussions with Democratic congressional
leaders. Does the President rule out raising taxes, including lifting the
income tax cap on payroll taxes, and lifting the marginal income tax rates?

MR. SNOW: What the President believes in, and he's talked about it before,
the President believes in cutting taxes. He also believes in addressing the
long-term problems we face with entitlements, both Medicare and Social
Security. Having not been party to Secretary Paulson's discussions, I'm not
going to be in any position to characterize what's going on. But I think
you know as well as I do that the President is a tax cutter, and he also
wants to address Social Security and he believes that we ought to be able
to have market incentives in there so that future generations are going to
be able to take advantage --

Q So you are ruling out a tax increase? Or you're not?

MR. SNOW: No, I'm not -- I'm not commenting either way. I'm not ruling it
up and I'm not ruling it down, because you know what, as you and I have
seen in the past, definitions of these things can be very squirrelly. And I
would just rather not get locked into a debate about it. Let's wait and see
what happens. But you know the President's record when it comes to taxes,
and he's a tax cutter.

Q Thanks, Tony.

MR. SNOW: Thank you. Yes.

Q Quick one. You may have seen the report last week about Kashmir. General
Musharraf has said that he may be willing to give up Kashmir if there are
more --

MR. SNOW: You and I discussed that. I really don't know. I'll try to find
out.

END 12:59 P.M. EST
===========================================================================
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/12/20061208-5.html

 * Origin: (1:3634/12)