Text 3966, 748 rader
Skriven 2007-01-18 23:31:12 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (0701181) for Thu, 2007 Jan 18
====================================================

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

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
January 18, 2007

Press Briefing by Tony Snow
White House Conference Center Briefing Room

Press Briefing


1:12 P.M. EST

MR. SNOW: All right, before we get started, let me just show you a tiny bit
of leg on the State of the Union address, but -- well, maybe it's just
upper ankle, I'm not sure. It's not going to be a typical State of the
Union address in the sense of going at great length through all the budget
items. It's not going to take a comprehensive look at all portions of the
budget.

It will address major issues, including the war on terror, energy, health
care, immigration, and education. When it comes to specific items, the
President will be discussing within those general categories -- and he'll
be talking about more, as well -- I will be of little or no help today. On
the other hand, we hope to get more to you as we approach the time for
delivery of the speech.

Q How long?

MR. SNOW: Don't know yet.

Q Can you elaborate on "not typical"?

MR. SNOW: You know, what typically happens is every department and every
agency gets a line or a mention. There are going to be areas -- there will
be areas that do not get extensive discussion that will be followed in
other speeches and events the President delivers in days after the speech.
Rather than -- we're going to have plenty of opportunities, including the
release of the budget the first week of February. So we'll have chances to
talk about a number of things.

Q Can we go back to Maliki, maybe some of the conversations from earlier
today? But I'm trying to get more of a big picture look this. He apparently
made his comments in an interview with a large number of American
reporters. And he did take exception to some of the characterizations
coming out of the White House, whether it be from the President or others
on his behalf. And he seemed upset about some of the things that are being
said. And how do you -- I'm not asking you to necessarily go point by point
with each thing, but how do you respond to the apparent feeling on his part
that some of the statements from here are not helpful to what he's trying
to do?

MR. SNOW: I think he understands that we were being helpful. There's a
disagreement on the handling of the Saddam execution, and that seems to
have been a chief point of friction. On the other hand, he said a number of
other things that have gotten less attention, but are of perhaps more
moment. One of the things he pointed out is that since October they've
arrested 400 members of the Mahdi Army, the Jaish al Mahdi, and they've
kept them in detention. He made it clear that politicians were not going to
have the ability to influence -- that is, sectarian politics were not going
to play a role in the Baghdad security plan.

To those who have described his being too close to Muqtada al Sadr, he
said, I've met the guy twice in four years, and strongly denied that. He
also made it clear that as far as he's concerned, he wants the ability to
move quickly toward enhancing security. One of the things that has been
described as a point of departure from the administration, but in fact is
not, is his saying that he wants more equipment and better supplies for his
army. I've said that a number of times up here, and of course he's going to
get it. We think that that is a natural part of building greater capacity
on the part of the Iraqi security force.

In addition yesterday, a couple of other announcements that are probably
worth making -- well, at least three more. Number one, Barham Salih was
pointing out -- who is Kurdish -- made the point that the oil law is close
to completion, and he hopes for a vote on that very soon. Secondly, you had
Ayad Allawi, who was one of the original promoters of deBaathification
talking about the importance of pursuing reforms in the deBaathification
laws so that people who are at lower levels of government employment when
Saddam was in power -- teachers, civil servants and the like -- can get
jobs, can vote, and can have full participation in society. Also reports
that the second of two brigades making its way from the north toward
Baghdad.

So there's a lot of progress in a number of areas. The Prime Minister
obviously sometimes reacts also to the tone of comments that are made in
the United States, but the one thing that's clear is that he understands on
the basis of his conversations with the President and with the Ambassador,
with the combatant commanders, that we're committed to success in Iraq, and
we define -- both sides are defining it the same way.

Q -- one specific thing, his displeasure with the borrowed time comment?
And he's clearly -- you all in the last week or so have been trying to walk
a fine line. You want to telegraph to both Maliki and to the American
public that patience is not going to last forever. At the same time,
Secretary Rice just made clear and others have made clear we can't push too
hard. So have you gone too far --

MR. SNOW: I don't think so. Take a look -- I think what's interesting is
the volume of action that's taken place in the last couple of weeks, and
interestingly, if you listen to congressional critics, we want these things
to happen, we want political progress, for instance. That's been cited by a
number of critics of the President's proposal. Well, guess what. Political
progress has taken place on, and on arguably the two most important fronts,
which are the hydrocarbon law, sharing oil and natural gas revenues, and
also opening up society, full participation rights, to people who, in order
to be employed when Saddam was in power had to be members of the Baath
party, and therefore have been shut out, that they are going to have those
opportunities, as well.

You've seen increased military activity, such as the actions on Haifa
Street last week. You also now have the reports on the Mahdi Army , which I
think reassures a lot of people, in terms of going after Shia militias. You
have the reports of the two brigades moving down from the north.

So for people who have said, we need to see action on the part of the
Iraqis, you've seen it, and I think it's encouraging.

Q Tony, can I follow on all of this?

MR. SNOW: Sure.

Q The bottom line is that this administration, this President has bet on
Prime Minister Maliki. And if you read these things, you pay attention to
what he is saying on the record, it doesn't sound like he's on board.

MR. SNOW: Well, David, if you look procedurally, what he's discussing in
terms of troops and in terms of the way forward, I think he is on board. I
don't think that there's any distance when it comes to key issues -- when
it comes to political reconciliation, building capacity within the security
forces, going after those who are threatening society, regardless. I mean,
here is one of the things he says. He says, "We will not allow any
politicians to interfere with this Baghdad security plan, whether they're
Sunnis or Shiites, Arabs or Kurds, militias or parties, insurgents or
terrorists."

That's precisely the sort of thing that both sides can agree upon, and that
Americans have been wanting to hear. I think maybe there's been some
disconnect in the sense that a number of American politicians have also
been saying, we need to see action. You can understand why a head of state
might chafe at that. But on the other hand, what's also happened I think is
reassuring for people who are keeping a close watch on what's going on
because you have seen developments on all the fronts that people have been
discussing for the last week.

Q The President made clear that he told Prime Minister Maliki, you'll lose
the American people if you don't show up and fulfill your end of the
bargain -- is that a fair characterization?

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q And this is what Prime Minister Maliki said: "The situation would be much
better if the United States had immediately sent our security forces more
adequate weapons and equipment. If they -- the United States -- had
committed themselves more and with greater speed, we would have had a lot
fewer deaths among Iraqi civilians and American soldiers." Does that sound
like a guy who is living up to his end of the bargain, accepting
responsibility?

MR. SNOW: Well, again, if you take a look at what's been going on on the
ground -- David, I'm not going to get into a fight with the Prime Minister.

Q He's in a fight with you.

MR. SNOW: Well, no, he also has political considerations of his own that he
has to deal with. He's not in a fight with us, and that's the important
thing to realize. If you think about the operational level, it's not a
fight. And the President, in his dealings, has worked very well with the
Prime Minister, and the commanders on the ground and the commanders to be
on the ground also have good working relationships with him and people who
work in his government.

So, I mean, I understand the perception here, but, frankly, we're making
too much out of it.

Q Okay, but just one more on this because I think this is important, which
is, if your job, one -- you and the President -- is to persuade the
American people that we've got a real partner over there, isn't it
troublesome -- troubling to you and to the President that you and others
have to spend time explaining for him, making excuses for him?

MR. SNOW: We're not really making excuses. I mean, what's frustrating is
I've just told you about arrests with the Mahdi Army, the actions on Haifa
Street; the important political breakthroughs that have taken place; the
very clear statement that the law has to be enforced across all boundaries;
the clear statement that, no, he is not working hand-in-glove with Muqtada
al Sadr -- those are all profound statements that have to do with policy.
What you're really discussing is reactions to statements that have been
made at a great remove, and I'm sure that we'll be able to deal with any
concerns that he has.

Q These are statements that he's making for political consumption, that's
your point?

MR. SNOW: No, I'm just saying that when you take a look -- look, everybody
said words alone are not going to win this argument, you've got to see
deeds. Well, look at the deeds. The deeds have been impressive.

Q Just to follow again -- one more time, the political considerations, so
that the American people can understand sort of what's going on. Is there a
little bit of a wink and a nod that you understand Prime Minister Maliki
has got a domestic political audience, he understands President Bush has a
domestic political audience, but that after you're done sort of with the
wink and a nod, everybody is on the same page?

MR. SNOW: I'm not sure that there's any winking and nodding. What I'd ask
everybody to do is open their eyes and look at the stuff I've just drawn
your attention to, because --

Q But that's not --

MR. SNOW: No, that is important.

Q That's not what he's saying. Prime Minister Maliki had all these
reporters in yesterday --

MR. SNOW: No, what you guys are focusing on is a description -- his
reaction to rhetoric and what he perceives as the tone of statements in the
United States. What you haven't paid attention to, at least in these
questions, is what he's doing, which seems to be a critical matter. When it
comes -- for instance, there has been all this concern, why don't you
enforce the law when it comes to Mahdi Army? Why don't you go against the
Mahdi Army? He says, oh, we are. By the way, we've got 400 in detention
right now. They've been rounded up since October.

When people say, well, what about moving troops toward Baghdad and living
up to your end of the bargain; the second of two brigades now making its
way toward Baghdad. When it talks -- when people say, will you go ahead and
make those important political steps, whether it be a hydrocarbon law -- I
mean, the hydrocarbon law has been mentioned repeatedly, deBaathification,
and at the same time, he's making very public statements about the fact
that nobody is going to play favorites. Those are all substantive matters
that also, I think, deserve real attention because they demonstrate what
the Iraqi government is doing.

Q One more on this. He seems to be suggesting that if he's properly armed
and properly trained the Iraqi army, gets proper arming and training, that
American troops could be out in four to six months.

MR. SNOW: Well, we'll see what happens on the ground, but the whole point
is that we agree that it's important to arm up and train the Iraqis. This
demonstrates, also, for those who say, well, we're not so sure that they
want to step up, this seems to be the statement of somebody who does want
to assert control and wants control over security. And I've been making
this point a number of times. When we've seen the Prime Minister, he's not
acting as if he wants to sit back and have Americans do all the work. He
understands that as a sovereign head of state, he needs to be assuming
primary control over key operations, whether they be security or dealing
with infrastructure. And these are the kinds of things you would expect a
head of state to say under such circumstances.

Q So, for the record, there is no rift between President Bush and Prime
Minister Maliki?

MR. SNOW: Correct. Correct.

Q But then how do you react to Prime Minister Maliki saying that some of
the comments from the President himself and the White House have given a
"morale boost to the terrorists"?

MR. SNOW: Again, I'm just not going to comment on that.

Q Okay, what evidence do you have -- does the U.S. government have any
evidence that these 400 militia men are actually in custody?

MR. SNOW: Yes, keep in mind that you do not -- I'm not going to tell you
exactly what evidence --

Q They're not really in jail.

MR. SNOW: Our people are confident that that's the case. Keep in mind that
most of the operations are joint operations.

Q Okay, and are you confident that they're going to be held in custody and
that, in fact, they're not going to be let out soon --

MR. SNOW: Well, that's --

Q -- and that this is actually --

MR. SNOW: I would refer you to your colleagues at The New York Times who
reported today that they've been held continuously in custody and not been
released.

Q -- The New York Times, but he also said that there are American officials
that were concerned that they would be let out again.

MR. SNOW: Yes, they were concerned, but they had also noted that they had
not been at this point. We expect them to be held in detention as long as
appropriate.

Q One last thing on Maliki. He also said there's a crisis in the American
administration in the wake of the elections, and saying at the same time
that you have conservative columnist Robert Novak saying that there is
"sense of impending political doom that clutches Republican hearts right
now."

MR. SNOW: Yes, I think what happens is that a lot of people are looking for
a panic or a failure narrative out of this White House. And it's just not
the case.

The Prime Minister -- again, quite often when you're looking at political
developments from a remove, or you're not directly conversing on a daily
basis, it's easy to see notional or fractional reporting and to draw a
conclusion that maybe there's a certain amount of uncertainty going on.

The President is absolutely resolute and steadfast in his support of this
government and of the goals of a democracy in Iraq that can stand up for
itself, and really provide a role model for the region and be a supporter
in the war on terror. That remains unchanged, and I think, as we've said
all along, it's going to take -- the facts on the ground really are going
to be the key determinates, and what's happening here is that you're trying
to create a war of words that we're just -- I'm afraid -- I'm afraid --

Q They're his comments. We're not creating a war of words. The Prime
Minister said this.

MR. SNOW: I understand that, but I also -- what I'm telling you is that you
have comments to reporters and you also have actions on the ground, and
those are actions that we support in this -- that demonstrate real
seriousness on the part of the Maliki government.

Q Maliki also said that if there's success in Iraq, this will be a success
that the United States will share. But if there's failure, this will be a
failure for President Bush and for the United States. Do you agree with
that?

MR. SNOW: Well, again, what we've said is if there's failure, it's going to
be failure for the whole world, and there will be real repercussions.
That's why we're determined to succeed.

Q Tony, can I just --

MR. SNOW: Let me move it around. I'll get back to you, David.

Q Tony, you now have a bipartisan Senate resolution that's been introduced,
has a good chance of passage, that says there's not a national interest to
deepen the U.S. involvement in Iraq. Now my question is, what's the
administration's reaction to that? And does the President see a need to
make a stronger case than he made in last week's speech when he gives the
State of the Union speech?

MR. SNOW: Matt, as we've noted all along, the speech was not a one-time
only engagement with the American public. It's worth talking about.

Several other notes. We disagree. We think it's absolutely a matter of
national interest. Furthermore, for those who say that they wish to succeed
in Iraq, we look forward to seeing what their proposals are for succeeding
in Iraq -- and serious proposals, so that you have a government that is
going to be able to sustain itself, to stand up, to be an ally in the war
on terror and an example to others in the region, a success that is going
to say to everyone, the United States is your friend and ally and you can
depend upon us. Those are statements -- that is what you want at the end of
all this.

And, so, look, there's a disagreement. And what's also interesting is that
for the most part, other than saying we want to go, we have not heard any
specifics, in terms of how that achieves the goal of trying to have the
kind of Iraq we're talking about. And furthermore, it has implicit the
assumption that the Iraqis right now have everything they need.

It's our view that they have a lot of what they need, but there is still a
need for more training, there is still a need for more support, and we're
going to provide that. And then when the Iraqis are able to handle all
their affairs, we're going to move out.

Q Doesn't the public and congressional reaction to the troop increase plan
--

MR. SNOW: Well, what's also interesting is the public reaction says we want
to succeed in Iraq, and also, we'd like to see what alternatives the other
side has. And so that's fine. Look, if you've got a better idea, you have
an obligation, you can perform a service to mankind by letting us know what
it is.

Q Doesn't that reaction show that the President has to do a better job of
selling this troop increase plan?

MR. SNOW: No, I think what it shows is -- what, are you trying to hand out
grades on the preliminary discussion? This is the beginning of a
discussion. And it's interesting, because I don't think there are a lot of
people who know what all the parts are. For instance, when people suddenly
-- let me put it this way. As Americans begin to get a sense of what's
going on in Iraq, I have mentioned already, there was a lot of concern
about the Mahdi Army. Here you have the Prime Minister standing up and
saying, no, this guy's not -- I'm not in political tandem with Muqtada al
Sadr, and here's evidence that we've taken up 400 members of the Mahdi
Army, and we continue to go after militias. That's reassuring to the
American people.

When the American people find out that there have been aggressive actions
against terrorists led by Iraqis in Baghdad in recent days, that's
reassuring. When the American people see that the Iraqis -- in fact they're
moving, even despite the chaos that sometimes flares up in Baghdad and
elsewhere, moving toward some of the key elements that are going to bind
their people together, in terms of making available to people who are
members of the Baath party full rights, and at the same time also sharing
oil revenues across the country, including among people whose own regions
do not have oil wealth, those are encouraging signs. When you find out that
two divisions are moving from the north into Baghdad, in advance of any
American battalions being dispatched in their aid, that's reassuring.

So what Americans have said is, we want signs that these guys are serious.
There are signs now. And we expect people to keep an eye on it, and we
certainly are going to be interested in reporting developments as we see
them both ways.

Yes, Wendell.

Q Two questions on public perceptions. Are you saying that four years into
this war, the American people don't have an accurate picture of what's
going on in Iraq?

MR. SNOW: I think, Wendell, four years into a war, the picture constantly
changes. The picture that we saw in April of 2003 was different than the
one we saw a year ago. If you think a year ago, Wendell, there was
considerable optimism, Democrats and Republicans both coming back from the
region saying, you know, we think things are going okay. We've had the
election. They did not anticipate the, I guess, eruption of sectarian
violence.

What is important is that the American people not only understand the
violence, but they also understand the response and the nature of the
response and the way in which we're building capacity among the Iraqis, and
the assurance that what a lot of Americans want to see, which is going
after the sources of violence -- because I think there's been a notion that
our guys are just wandering around getting shot at rather than moving
aggressively against an enemy, and at the same time, that the Iraqis are
carrying their weight, that they're now devoted $10 billion out of $11
billion of their national surplus to reconstruction.

That's putting their money where their mouth is, talking about the
importance of arming up and being fully equipped and ready, making clear to
everybody that they are not going to be permitting anybody to commit acts
of violence, and nobody gets a free pass just because of their sectarian
belief or affiliation.

All of those are important data points that I'm not sure everybody has had
a chance to take into account, and therefore, we understand this is going
to be important to talk about it a lot.

Q A new Fox poll released today, a substantial majority feels this plan is
the President's last chance for saving Iraq. Does he see it that way?

MR. SNOW: No, I mean, what the President -- look, you know why? Because
that -- I think the formulation has either a sense of brinkmanship or
desperation that don't reflect the way in which a Commander-in-Chief
approaches operations. What you do is you take a sober look at what's going
on on the ground and figure out how to deal with it.

Let's see what happens. Look, we fully acknowledge that facts on the ground
are going to be absolutely critical in influencing public perceptions.
People want to see -- they want to see what's happening, and we don't blame
them.

Q Can I follow up on Matt's question? You talked about the State of the
Union, you gave us a list of things the President will talk about. You
didn't mentioned Iraq -- I presume it's --

MR. SNOW: I mentioned the war on terror.

Q -- as part of the war on terror. Is the speech going to be dominated by
Iraq, or is it going to be dominated by the other things that you just
listed?

MR. SNOW: It's going to be dominated by sound policy.

Q Tony, again following up on the State of the Union, which you said would
be not typical.

MR. SNOW: Right.

Q It suggests to me that the President, who will be giving his first State
of the Union to a Congress controlled by Democrats, might be concerned that
Democrats won't be receptive to the kinds of specific programs that are
ordinarily in the State of the Union address, so he'll get a bad reception
there. Is that fair?

MR. SNOW: No, look, we understand that because of politics -- I mean,
people are already prebutting his speech they haven't heard. And they're
developing their responses to policies they haven't seen. So we understand
how that works. You've been through the ritual on State of the Union night.
The fact is that there are going to be a number of policies here that are
going to be good politics because they're good policies. And they're going
to offer opportunities for Democrats and Republicans to work together on
areas where they do have a vested interest in making this a stronger and
better country.

As you recall, just two short weeks ago, as Democrats came to power, there
was a lot of talk about working together and demonstrating that we can work
together. Well, there are going to be a lot of opportunities within this
speech to address stated concerns on the part of both parties, and
therefore, what I would suggest is, give the night of speech reactions
their due, but then let's see what happens as these ideas begin to present
themselves.

Secondly, part of the calculation here is that a lot of times these
speeches, they just go on and on and you lose people. It's better to spend
some time focusing on big issues so that people do get a sense of your
engagement with them, and there will be opportunities to pick up other
topics in much greater detail later on.

I don't know about you, but I've been through it where you sit around and
you tick almost cynically how many different policy proposals or how many
departments or agencies are mentioned. In this case, I think it's important
to give people a sense of an in-depth and thoughtful approach to a series
of key issues.

Q Is it too late for the Democrats and Congress -- you call this the
beginning of the debate on Iraq, but is there anything in any of the
proposals and discussion being talked about now that would prompt the
President to change his decision to increase by 21,000 the troops in Iraq?

MR. SNOW: Not at this juncture, no. We just haven't seen anything that
addresses it.

Q So far.

MR. SNOW: Yes. And I -- look, we're already committed. Five brigades are
going to Baghdad, 4,000 Marines to Anbar.

Go ahead, Helen.

Q I'd like to revisit a question yesterday. You said that we would not
submit to a referendum from the Iraqis on our military presence.

MR. SNOW: You're talking about a -- I thought you were talking about a
referendum within the United States.

Q No. No, in Iraq.

MR. SNOW: Oh, well, the Iraqis can do whatever they want politically. I'm
sorry, I completely misunderstood that question.

Q Well, I want to continue this question. Even if you said, no, you
wouldn't. The President also has said that he would ignore the polls and
what Congress says. Does he really think that he can run a war alone?

MR. SNOW: No. And the President doesn't ignore the polls, but he also
doesn't ignore his obligations as Commander-in-Chief. And most of all, he
does not --

Q Well, what supersedes the other.

MR. SNOW: No. There will be times when a President sometimes has to show
political courage in trying to defend national security because -- and that
has happened at a number of junctures in this nation's history. And the
President is going to do everything in his power to keep this country
secure, and also to prevent a threat, a stated threat, from gathering
strength so that future Presidents will not have to deal with even worse
crises in the future.

So, as Commander-in-Chief, his most solemn obligation is to protect this
country, and that's how he sees it. Now, when it comes to maintaining
public support for a war, approaching four years in, that is always a
difficult prospect. We understand that. And we continue to talk about it.
And we think when the American people not only receive a presentation of
what's going on in Iraq and how it fits into the larger war on terror, but
also the simple question, if not this, what -- I think it not only sets the
basis for --

Q It's not "if what," it's to get out. That's the "what."

MR. SNOW: No, no, I'm afraid not, because if you leave and create a vacuum
you really do --

Q There are people there, they've lived there 5,000 years.

MR. SNOW: Yes, I'll rehearse the -- you understand the geopolitical
argument.

Q Tony, getting back to the speech, if the approach the President is going
to take is not based on the new political reality, why have you all decided
from a communications standpoint to take this way, to use this way to
address the main issues?

MR. SNOW: I just think some of the old State of the Union formulas have
kind of run their course, and it's important to take a look -- you may be
right, Peter. It may be that it's important to emphasize the areas where
you can work together. And so, in that sense, maybe it does reflect a
little bit of the political reality. But also, just as a presentational
point of view, we want people to watch. And quite often what happened with
previous speeches is you would have these recitations with one or two
lines, you couldn't really dig into it or you would try to enunciate big
themes, and then you would somehow get lost in reams of detail later on.

I think it's important to give a sense of how this government, with
Democrats and Republicans, can, in fact -- he's going to lay a way forward
for Democrats and Republicans to work together on the issues that are atop
the stated concerns for all Americans -- health care, education, energy,
immigration. Those are all atop everybody's lists -- war on terror. So if
you talk about those in a way that gives both parties an opportunity to
work together and achieve success, that's a good and important thing.

Go ahead, Sarah.

Q Tony, for the first time, the United States has agreed to bilateral talks
with North Korea if North Korea agrees to give up its nuclear weapons
program. Would it be better to put all issues on the table before
negotiations begin?

MR. SNOW: Well, the premise of your question is wrong. In the September 19,
2005 agreement, one of the things that's in there is the possibility of
bilateral negotiations within the context of the six-party talks. We have
not had bilateral talks. What you had over the week -- this week in Berlin
were talks with Chris Hill and a North Korean representative as
preparations for the six-party talks. Chris is then moving on to Beijing
and Seoul and also Tokyo. So he's going to be meeting with heads of state
in Japan, South Korea, and also China.

All the parties of the six-party talks -- we'll speak with the Russians at
some other venue, I'm sure -- at this particular point are in the loop.
They know that he's been having these conversations. But this is not
bilateral -- number one, this is not an instance of bilateral negotiations
on the side. And secondly, bilateral relations between the North Koreans
and the United States has always been part of the agreement laid out in
that September 19th accord.

So if the North Koreans return to the table without preconditions, then
you've got the opportunity to move forward.

Q Thank you.

MR. SNOW: You're welcome. Les.

Q Yes, Tony, thank you. Two questions. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont
and Congressman Maurice Hinchy of New York have just introduced companion
bills called the "Media Ownership Reform Act," which are an attempt to
revive the "fairness doctrine" for TV and radio with no such government
control proposed for newspapers, magazines or wire services. My question,
does the President believe that we should revive the so-called "fairness
doctrine" which was repealed during the Reagan administration?

MR. SNOW: You know, Les, we'll take that up if it becomes a real issue.

Q Okay. President Kennedy's Assistant Secretary of Commerce, Bill Ruder,
said, "We had a massive strategy to use the 'fairness doctrine' to
challenge and harass the right-wing broadcasters and hoped the challenge
would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was
too expensive to continue. And my question, do you remember that statement
reported by The Washington Times on September 5, 1993?

MR. SNOW: No. Although I do have some memories of the Kennedy
administration, that particular utterance does not rise to thought.

Q That was from an article headlined, "Return of the Fairness Demon," and
the byline was, Tony Snow.

MR. SNOW: All right, thank you. (Laughter.)

Q Thank you.

MR. SNOW: I guess my research -- played "gotcha". That's great. (Laughter.)

Q Will the speech next week be traditional length, or is going to also be
shorter in an attempt to get people to maybe watch?

MR. SNOW: I don't know. We're still working it out. I honestly don't have
an answer for you on that.

Q Tony, in the list of priorities for the speech, you mentioned energy, but
you didn't mention environment. So I'm just wondering, with respect to your
policy, does that mean that this administration believes in incentives to
try to lessen dependence on foreign oil or to develop alternative fuels,
but no penalty if you don't, particularly with respect to environmental
impact?

MR. SNOW: I'm about to bang my head on the microphone again. Let me just
try to make it clear one more time. Energy and environmental policy are
linked up, for the simple reason that the President has talked about
getting rid of an addiction to oil, addressing an addiction to oil, and
looking for alternative sources of energy, which themselves do not
contribute to greenhouse gases or to global warming or to climate change.
And he will talk about that. And the way you do is you encourage
innovation. And there are plenty of opportunities out there to encourage
people to do the right things. Carrots tend to work better than sticks.

But I'm not going to get into the details of what the President is going to
propose, but it is certainly no secret that this President believes deeply
in the importance of trying to innovate our way out of a situation where
we've been dependent on an oil source that can render us insecure. So what
he's really trying to do is to balance the needs of security and, at the
same time, also the environment. And you can expect him to make that
linkage in the speech.

Q Two other quick subjects. On China, the White House has expressed concern
that China tested a satellite-killing weapon. Was this a provocative move
by China? What's the White House response?

MR. SNOW: Don't know that, but we are concerned about it, and we've made it
known.

Q What about these 55 lawmakers, most of the Republicans yesterday came out
on behalf of these Border Patrol agents and are saying that they want a
pardon, they want the President to pardon these Border Patrol agents who
have gone to jail. What's the White House reaction to that?

MR. SNOW: Well, the White House reaction is, we would encourage everybody
to take a look at the fact record in the case, because there have been a
number of things that have been alleged that simply aren't true.

You had a situation in which a fellow was pulled over; one of the agents
hit him in the chest with a rifle butt after he finally got out. He had
resisted slowing down. He had his hands in the air. When an agent slipped,
the guy started running away. They fired 15 shots at him, then they
departed the scene. And a lot of the allegations about a scuffle and
discovering drugs at the scene and all that, they're simply not supported
by the fact record of the case.

So what we would encourage members to do -- and I think the prosecutor,
Johnny Sutton, is going to be making some media appearances today, is to
take a look at what the facts are, because what members have been talking
about, and the things that have inflamed passions, are not consistent with
what was presented at trial, under oath, and certainly not consistent with
what 12 members of a jury agreed to unanimously in that case.

So I think there's kind of a caricature, both of the situation and of our
justice system, to think that people would be cavalier about folks who had
behaved heroically. I will not characterize what's going on. These
gentlemen still have legal avenues and legal redress. But I do think maybe
the best way to address the concerns of those members is to take a look at
the fact record in this case.

Q If not a pardon, will the President at least meet with these lawmakers to
hear these concerns? Will the President get involved himself?

MR. SNOW: I don't know about that. I mean, the President has heard the
concerns. One of the things that we think is important is that the
lawmakers, as they look at the case, need to look at the facts of the case.
This is somewhere where, in a very real way, people have created a
narrative that is simply not supported by, again, what was presented under
oath at the trial. And if they took a look at that, my sense is that they
would take a much different approach to this particular incident.

Q Thank you.

MR. SNOW: Thank you.

END 1:46 P.M. EST
===========================================================================
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070118-1.html

 * Origin: (1:3634/12)