Text 4441, 725 rader
Skriven 2007-04-25 23:30:56 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (0704251) for Wed, 2007 Apr 25
====================================================

===========================================================================
Press Briefing by Dana Perino
===========================================================================

For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary April 25, 2007

Press Briefing by Dana Perino White House Conference Center Briefing Room

˙ Video (Windows) ˙˙Press Briefings


12:10 P.M. EDT

MS. PERINO: Good afternoon. I have no opening statements, I'll just go
straight to questions. Terry.

Q The House Judiciary Committee took another step today in its
investigation of the firing of the eight U.S. attorneys. They voted to
grant immunity to Monica Goodling, the former aide to Attorney General
Gonzales. Does the White House think that's a good strategy?

MS. PERINO: That's up to the committee; it's not something we're going to
comment on.

Q But you don't object to them trying to force her testimony through an
immunity --

MS. PERINO: I'm going to let the committee make those decisions for
themselves; I'm not going to comment on it from here.

Is that it? (Laughter.) I shut that train down. (Laughter.)

Helen.

Q Is the President still going to veto anything from the Hill that sets a
timeline for withdrawal from Iraq, despite the belief of the public that we
should pull out?

MS. PERINO: I think that -- let me try to unpack that. The President has
said that if the Democrats decide to insist on sending him a bill that
includes a deadline for withdrawal, that he will veto the bill. And I
understand that there are many people who are in this country that are
frustrated with the war. I do think that you have to be a little bit
careful in blanketing everybody that they want to pull out quickly from
Iraq and with an arbitrary deadline or a rash decision, and leave that
vacuum that we believe is going to be left there, if we leave that quickly.

Q Well, if the majority of people really wanted to pull out, would the
President pull out? And what kind of a statistic do you have that they
don't want to?

MS. PERINO: As the President has said many times before, he does not make
decisions based on polls. He understands as Commander --

Q Did he make decisions based on what the American people want?

MS. PERINO: He makes decisions based as the elected President of the United
States and the Commander-in-Chief and his main priority is the protection
of the American people, and that's what he --

Q How do you protect the soldiers who are over there dying every day?

MS. PERINO: That is the President's gravest concern, and he talks to the
commanders on the ground to make sure that they are protected and that they
are doing their jobs. He understands that he has asked them to do a very,
very difficult mission. It's very dangerous in Baghdad. We do have a new
Baghdad security plan that's underway, being led by General David Petraeus,
who is up on the Hill today providing an update to the Congress on the
status of that Baghdad security plan.

Q But a hundred people are dying in Iraq every day.

MS. PERINO: It's a very tragic situation. I don't know if that number is
accurate, but obviously it's not only our troops that are dying, but very
many -- too great of numbers of innocent men, women, and children in Iraq,
as well.

Go ahead, Kelly.

Q Can the President say both that he does not question the patriotism of
Democrats, but their actions aid the enemy?

MS. PERINO: I think that I want to take a little bit more time to talk
about this based on our discussion this morning, because the President's
policies are held up to intense scrutiny by the media, and by Democrats,
and by everyone around the world, and we welcome that. And I think that
when the President and his team and other Republicans try to hold the
Democrat's policies up to that same standard of scrutiny, that immediately,
the Democrats play the patriotism card.

And I'm sorry, but I don't think that there's anyone in this White House
who has actually done that, nor have we have engaged in name calling.
Yesterday, Senator Reid called the Vice President a dog, after saying he
would not engage in name calling. And I think that let's all take a step
back, and if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wants to have a debate, then
we should have a debate, and we should be able to debate on the substance
and on the merits of what we're talking about.

Q Speaking of name calling, Congressman Emanuel had a pretty lengthy speech
today in which he said that not since the days of Watergate has partisan
politics infiltrated every level of our federal government. I know you've
seen the prepared remarks, what's the response?

MS. PERINO: Look, I think that there's an interesting messenger today
giving a speech at the Brookings Institute. It's one that you would
consider reading in the National Enquirer rather than at a prestigious
American think tank like the Brookings Institute. And I think what we have
going on here is that the 100-hour congressional agenda is faltering, and
in that vacuum, that they've decided to fall back on what is a tried and
true tactic of theirs, which is creating grand conspiracy theories that
have no basis in fact.

Q On another topic --

Q Are you accusing Brookings of that?

MS. PERINO: No, no, someone is giving a speech there today.

Q On another topic --

MS. PERINO: I just called it a prestigious think tank. Go ahead, you had a
follow up.

Q Sara Taylor, is she protected under the same protections given to Karl
Rove and Harriet Miers -- would you -- as far as letting her testify with
Congress?

MS. PERINO: She would be, but I do think that what we should remember is
that we offered to the Senate Judiciary Committee and House Judiciary
Committee the opportunity to interview White House officials, in addition
to getting documents -- email documents that had come into or out of the
White House, and that we would consider adding additional names to that if
they wanted to take us up on that offer.

Martha.

Q The President said on Charlie Rose last night that he hoped when a new
President took over that there would be fewer troops in Iraq. Why is that
not a draw-down timetable? Why is that not telling the enemy something?

MS. PERINO: I think that he said "fewer" and it doesn't mean everybody is
leaving, it's not telling them a date on which we are going to start
withdrawing. I think that in the bills that are up on Capitol Hill right
now, there's one that says you have to start withdrawing on July 1st, and
another that says October 1st; it's one of those two dates. And I think
what the President is saying is that what David Petraeus has said, it's
going to take until the fall to see if this Baghdad security plan is
working before we can evaluate. But the President has said before that he
hopes that there are fewer troops there at the time, but he has said that
we're going to be in Iraq for a while, and it's going to last beyond his
presidency.

Q So it's okay to say we're drawing down or he hopes to draw down by a
specific date, but it's not okay to say we hope to get out?

MS. PERINO: Well, the Baghdad security plan hasn't even had a chance to be
fully implemented yet. And what they want to do is allow General Petraeus
to go there, but their mission --

Q I'm not talking about that. I'm saying what the President said last night
is he hoped that there would be fewer troops -- I'm sure he's not talking
about five or ten, I'm sure he's talking about a substantial number -- by
the time a new President takes over. That sounds like it's cluing the enemy
into something. I don't get the distinction.

MS. PERINO: No, I think -- well, I do; I understand that you don't. But I
do think that it's apples and oranges, and let me try to explain it again.
I think what the President is saying is that we have a Baghdad security
plan; it is a surge. A surge by its name is a temporary mission. General
David Petraeus is there on Capitol Hill today to talk about the status of
that and how it's going, and that he would know by the fall whether or not
we are going to be able to have success with the mission.

I think the intention is that we need to secure Baghdad. In the meantime,
what we need to have happen is the Prime Minister Maliki and the rest of
his government to finish many of the pieces that they need to do. They've
made progress on several of them, but the key ones -- like the oil law and
de-Baathification, and then regional elections -- are ones that they have
to do, as well.

The whole point of the surge is to calm the city down so that you can get
that political reconciliation, which everyone agrees will help calm the
rest of the country down so that they can sustain, defend and govern
itself. And I think the President does hope that by the time he leaves
office that Iraq is either at that point or nearing that point when they
can be a self-sustaining democracy.

Q So it would be okay for the Democrats to start talking about a timetable
after the surge in the fall?

MS. PERINO: No, I think -- let's just take what the Democrats have said
right now, which is, they don't even want to give this surge a chance to
succeed. They want to pull out. Harry Reid has said that the war is lost.
And they're not even allowing it to have a chance, and they're wanting us
to pull out prematurely. And it's going to put our troops in danger if we
were to follow that path, and it would put the innocent men, women and
children of Iraq in more peril. And that's why the President says he'll
veto the bill.

Q Can you explain why the funding for the troops wasn't put in the regular
budget, why you have to have an emergency supplemental?

MS. PERINO: Yes, we have done that over the years. That's the way that we
have decided to do it, which is so that you don't put all of that money for
a war into the baseline budget of the Department of Defense because we
believe that it would be harder to extract it out afterwards, after the war
was over.

Q But, I mean, why not plan for the worst? As the President always says,
you plan for the worst. Why wouldn't you put that money in there to make
sure that the troops had their money, instead of having what's happened
now?

MS. PERINO: Well, as you know, Congress last year didn't even pass a
budget. And this year I don't know how much more progress they're making --
I mean, we hope they make some more progress, but I think that in order to
ensure the troops have what they need, we had to do it this way, follow the
path that we have the past couple of years.

Q Rudy Giuliani said in New Hampshire last night that a Democratic
President would put the U.S. at greater risk for suffering another
9/11-type attack. Does the administration agree or disagree with him?

MS. PERINO: I know it's going to be very tempting over the next two years
to get us to comment about presidential politics from the podium, and I'm
just not going to do it. I'll let Giuliani answer that question for
himself.

Q So the administration's view, essentially, is that a timetable, any
timetable -- specifically in this case the ones that the Democrats are
trying to force -- are surrender dates, that the enemy will recognize as an
opportunity to kind of galvanize around. Down the road, if a Republican
President -- not this President -- if another President talks about a time
to draw down troops, why should that not be viewed as a surrender date, as
well? Understanding --

MS. PERINO: I think you're talking about a wildly hypothetical situation.
And what I'm talking about -- I'm here to represent this President, and he
believes that telling the enemy on the day which you are going to leave,
that they can sit and wait us out, is the wrong thing to do. And that's why
he said he would veto the bill. I'm not going to predict what any future
President, Republican or Democrat, will do. I just know what this President
will do, and he will protect the American people and fulfill the mission to
the troops.

Q Can I also ask you just to kind of give us some sense of the
administration's thinking of the process, as far as this bill goes -- how
quickly might the President veto it? What are you envisioning, or what are
you thinking about, perhaps, in terms of --

MS. PERINO: Well, since we don't have it yet, it's a little bit hard to
tell. I don't think it's an exact science up on Capitol Hill that they know
the exact time and hour in which they'll be able to send it to us. I think
they have tried in good faith to try to give us a general idea, and we do
believe it would be either later this week, or more likely, we've been told
early next week.

So we'll take it from there. And the President, I think it is safe to say
he would veto the bill soon after receiving it.

Q Obviously, the President wants to push back with Democrats. He's talked
about them making this political statement, and the President obviously has
his own message to send. I mean, is he --

MS. PERINO: What the President has said is that if they insist on sending
him this bill that he will reluctantly veto it. But one of the reasons he
will veto it is because he wants to get that done quickly so that we can
then move on to the next step, which is how do we get the money to the
troops. That's why the President is in a hurry.

Go ahead, John.

Q On the Hill, House Republicans are beginning today to basically push back
against Chairman Waxman's investigations and oversight. And he, I believe,
is going to have them vote on authorizing subpoenas for Secretary of State
Rice. Has the White House said, or are you prepared to say what Waxman is
doing is over-reaching?

MS. PERINO: Well, I do think that there is a difference between oversight
and over-reaching. And we understand that the Congress has a role to play,
which is oversight over the executive branch. I believe that this
administration has been responsive to Congress, as we've worked with the
new majorities, as well, that we've been responsive. But there does come a
point where it does start to look like over-reaching.

Q Any people who have been reached yet or --

MS. PERINO: No, I think that I'll let the American people judge for
themselves.

Q One other thing. Pelosi -- Speaker Pelosi, it has been reported -- it
hasn't happened yet, but it's been reported that she might not attend the
briefing by General Petraeus today. Do you have any comment on that?

MS. PERINO: No. I don't know what her schedule is. I'm sure if she's not
attending, she has good reason.

Q Can we go back once more to the timeline issue. I understand the issue of
a timeline for setting a date for withdrawal. But doesn't the President
also tell the enemy exactly what to do by saying, we'll know by the end of
August, beginning of September whether the surge has worked? Isn't that the
same -- here's the plan, here's how you can derail it.

MS. PERINO: I can see your point, although I think that what is important
is to keep in mind that what the President is saying is that we need to
give Baghdad a chance to calm down. And General Petraeus -- obviously,
these are closed briefings up there, and if he has a chance to talk to the
press, I think that he will and hopefully we can ask him these questions.

But the President said last night on Charlie Rose that if our definition of
success is no more car bombings, that's not realistic. We know that the
enemy realizes that when they can set off a spectacular bomb in a market
and kill people, that that grabs people's attention and it's one of the
things that they look to in order to foment chaos and to spread their
ideology.

Q Who is the enemy you speak of? Are these Iraqis?

MS. PERINO: We have different folks that we're considering the enemy.
Obviously, al Qaeda is in Iraq, and they say that this is the battle. And
then there are insurgents --

Q Are there Iraqis that you speak of, when you speak of the enemy?

MS. PERINO: I think they are definitely -- obviously, there are Iraqis who
are engaging in criminal activity and in sectarian violence.

Q Criminal? To defend their own country?

MS. PERINO: I think when anyone is killing innocent men, women and children
that they --

Q Against an invader and occupier?

MS. PERINO: Helen, we are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government,
and we are there under the U.N. Security Council resolution.

Mark, did I finish your question?

Q I guess I'm still not sure I see how putting a timeline on a surge --
admittedly, a timeline for something other than withdrawal, but a timeline
-- how that still does not communicate something useful to the enemy.

MS. PERINO: Well, I think that what we're seeing is the modest signs of
hope, little seeds of hope, amongst the destruction and the challenges that
we have in Iraq that the Baghdad security plan is starting to have some
effect and some success.

And what the President has said is that the American people don't have
unlimited patience; he understands that. So just like the Iraq Study Group,
the Baker-Hamilton group said we could support a surge to calm the
situation down in Baghdad -- that's what the President is trying to do.

Roger.

Q On the Sara Taylor authorized subpoena by the Senate Judiciary Committee
today, if one is issued for her, would it be the intent of the
administration to resist that subpoena?

MS. PERINO: I think I'm not going to go down the hypothetical road. But
what I would submit to the House and Senate Judiciary committees is that if
they wanted to take us up

on our offer to have the four officials provide an interview up there
without a transcript, and then if they would provide -- we would provide
them with documents going to and from the White House, which was an
extraordinary offer on our part, that we would consider adding additional
officials to those interview requests.

Q That offer, though, has been on the table for several weeks now. Is there
anything happening on that?

MS. PERINO: No, the ball is in the Democrats' court.

Q Can you explain the objection to a transcript?

MS. PERINO: I think what we have tried to explain is that there is a long
tradition in history of not having presidential close advisors testify in
front of Congress. But we do want to be responsive to the Congress, and in
order to do that, we thought that an interview and a hearing -- an
interview is not a hearing, and that's what we offered.

Q Dana, two quick questions. Today, President will talk about malaria and
other disease. My question is that, there are people dying around the
globe, as far as many diseases, including malaria, HIV/AIDS and all of
that. And does the President support the cause by President Clinton, and
also Mr. Bill Gates, that they're also taking --

MS. PERINO: Yes, I would say the President and Mrs. Bush, having declared
today for the first time ever Malaria Awareness Day, are very interested in
anyone who can add to the collective help that we're trying to give to the
third world that is suffering from malaria. So I think that the President
and Mrs. Bush -- you will hear from them, the President will be introduced
by Mrs. Bush in the Rose Garden. I'm sorry, it will be in the East Room,
because it was 50 percent change of rain.

Q Second question. As far as Iran is concerned, Iranian President, or Iran
has not changed their minds, as far as nuclear program is concerned. But
Dr. Condoleezza Rice is planning to meet if they come to the table, as far
as -- my question is, is U.S. policy has changed, as far as Iranian nuclear
program is concerned, or there will be any compromise if they meet?

MS. PERINO: No, and I would refer -- I know you were at Sean McCormack's
briefing yesterday when he addressed this, and I think I'd refer you to his
comments. What he said is that Secretary Rice will be joining the Iraq
neighbors' conference in Sharm el Sheikh, Egypt, next week, the one that
Harry Reid apparently hasn't heard about because he keeps saying that we
need to have a conference. But I would just let him know once again that it
is happening next week.

And what Sean McCormack said is that he's not going to rule out any
inadvertent contact. This meeting, though, is to talk about Iraq. Our stand
with our -- the Permanent 5-plus-1 is strong against the Iranian nuclear
program. We do believe that if they want to have a path to get to civilian
nuclear power, that it's available to them. They just have to suspend their
enrichment.

Q But nothing --

MS. PERINO: Let me move on. Kelly.

Q A couple of points. Has the White House been notified in any way from the
agency known as the Office of Special Counsel about its inquiries into the
work of Karl Rove or the political operation here?

MS. PERINO: No. No, we have not. As I said yesterday, we have had
cooperation with them in the past, and we've responded appropriately. But
we have not heard from them on this issue.

Q Dana, in the wake of Senator Reid's comments yesterday that you
referenced today, and Congressman Emanuel's comments today, is it fair to
say that any hope for spirit of bipartisanship is pretty much out the
window?

MS. PERINO: I hope not. I know that we are all working towards -- one,
we're working towards getting money to the troops. Secondly, we have a
process underway in which we hope to get an immigration bill done.
Yesterday, the President was in New York talking about the No Child Left
Behind bill. We are moving forward on the energy bill. So we are focused on
the priorities of the American people, while at the same time having to
work in parallel with the Congress on their oversight request.

Q You have the head of the Democratic Caucus today saying that your
administration is "a pattern of political appointees putting partisan
interests ahead of the country." Earlier, you said this is part of the
nightmare of waking up of a right-wing conspiracy again. What did you mean
by that?

MS. PERINO: Well, I just think that what we have is a return to the
partisan politics because I think that they are frustrated that their
100-hour congressional agenda has stalled. And they have very little else
to talk about. There was nothing in that speech, as I saw it as prepared,
that was positive about the -- a positive agenda about for the American
people, nothing that talked about what people care about -- how do we make
sure that our children are educated and able to compete in a very
competitive and growing competitive world? How do we make sure that we are
reducing our dependence on foreign sources of energy? How do we make sure
that we solve our immigration problem so that we can be a nation that is
welcoming, as well as a nation of laws?

These are all issues that the President is focused on, as well -- not to
mention protecting the American citizens from terrorists who are a very
real threat. That speech, as I read it, was one that just strung -- tried
to string together a series of unrelated issues and tried to cloak it in a
grand conspiracy that was just reminiscent of the vast right-wing
conspiracy of the 1990s, and I think the American people have moved past
that.

Q Dana, yesterday --

Q Dana, Dana --

MS. PERINO: Let me go over here. I'll get back to you guys.

Q The Petraeus briefing on the Hill is behind closed doors, but if he goes
there and has a lot of positive things to say, do you expect him to talk
about it? Do you expect the Republicans to talk about it and let it be
known -- let the message get out to the public about that things are
getting better?

MS. PERINO: I think I found that members of Congress aren't shy about
talking to the media after a meeting. (Laughter.)

Keith.

Q Do you -- this specific response to the decision of the Office of Special
Counsel to enlarge this investigation of Hatch Act violations, is there a
legitimate --

MS. PERINO: As I said, Keith, we haven't heard from them.

Q But what do you think about it? I mean --

MS. PERINO: I'm not going to comment on it until the Counsel's Office is
contacted by the Office of Special Counsel. I'm just not going to do it.

Q Also just one more on the comment about over-reaching, you kind of seemed
to suggest that Waxman is over-reaching, but then you kind of -- you put it
out there, but you didn't really embrace it fully. I mean, do you --

MS. PERINO: I said I think the American people are going to have to make a
decision. If they think that their Congress and their President should be
working on issues that are important to them, then I think that they would
be sadly disappointed in the first four months of this new Congress.

Q But since you put it out there, do you think that he is over-reaching at
this time with all these difference of opinions --

MS. PERINO: I think that there is a difference between oversight and
over-reaching, and the American people will make a decision.

Go ahead.

Q Dana, yesterday we heard testimony from the family of Pat Tillman about
the circumstances of his death and the numerous falsehoods that were told
to the family by Pentagon officials. Pat Tillman's memorial service was on
May 3, 2004. When did the President learn about the unusual circumstances
of his death and the possibility that he was killed by friendly fire?

MS. PERINO: From all indications, it was well after the funeral. And I did
check, and the President did ask for updates yesterday on the hearing and
received them from senior staff members.

Q And any reaction to the testimony by his family at yesterday's hearing,
from the President?

MS. PERINO: I haven't spoken to the President, but in talking to -- in
checking that out to ask if he had been updated on it, he was interested.
He was the one who asked about the hearing. He wanted to know more about
it. And I think that he feels deeply sorry for the family and all that they
have gone through, and he's pleased that the Department of Defense has
taken it upon themselves to investigate it, and he hopes that people are
held to account.

Q Has he spoken to the family since the IG report has come out, or since
the family has complained about the numerous falsehoods that were told to
them?

MS. PERINO: No, he has not spoken to the family. And I think that we have
to remember that as this matter is ongoing, that it would be inappropriate
for the Commander-in-Chief to do so, to get involved, in terms of while
there's an investigation in questioning. But he does believe that General
Pace and others at the Defense Department are honorable people who will
make sure that it is -- that the wrong is righted.

Les.

Q Thank you, Dana. Two questions. How will the United States ever develop,
adopt and enforce any sort of immigration policy when individual leaders
such as San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom have vowed to oppose federal
enforcement of such laws and, in fact, are preparing to run a sanctuary
city that would facilitate illegal activities, as just reported for the San
Francisco Chronicle and one wire service?

MS. PERINO: Wow, two sources. (Laughter.) President Bush believes that the
laws of this country, including immigration laws, need to be followed.

Q Second. The National Border Patrol Council, the union of our 11,000
non-supervisory U.S. Border Patrol agents, has just passed a resolution,
which, among other concerns, deplores what they say is, "shamelessly
promoting amnesty and a greatly expanded guest worker program, despite
intense opposition to these concepts from the front-line Border Patrol
agents who risk their lives enforcing our nation's immigration laws."

MS. PERINO: Your question is what?

Q Yes, the question is right here. What is the White House reaction to this
resolution?

MS. PERINO: Okay. I haven't seen the resolution. What I would say is that I
would hope that the council would take a look at the President's plan. We
are working with members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to try to
work through a plan that would help alleviate the pressure at the border.
And I understand that they have very real concerns, since they work on the
border every day. And the President believes that the plan that we have in
place is one that would help alleviate the problems at the border, as well
as allow our country to be one that is continuing to be a welcoming one.

Go ahead.

Q Just to follow up on Mark's point, that you have a surge which is
announced, and yet the supposed insurgents or enemy have moved up 35 miles
north and killed our servicemen earlier this week. How is not that -- how
isn't it the same as essentially announcing a date pullout? I mean --

MS. PERINO: Well, first of all, we haven't announced a date pullout.
There's a huge difference.

Q No, but the Democrats have said that they would like to have a date
pullout.

MS. PERINO: No, no, no, they've put in a date to pull out.

Q I understand.

MS. PERINO: It's not they just don't want to -- they don't like it -- they
don't just like it, they have done it.

Q What I'm saying is the surge is -- announcing the surge is the same
thing, because they just moved north and did a suicide bombing and killed
our service members.

MS. PERINO: Well, look, the President has said that we are going to be
facing very real dangers about the possibility of more servicemen from --
men and women from the United States facing possible death or injury
because of our new Baghdad security plan, and he understood that. We also
have new operations in al Anbar province. It is this plan that has small
signs of hope that General Petraeus is going to be talking about today.

We have not at all set a date certain. What we have said is that we won't
know until the fall whether or not -- General Petraeus, who will make the
determination as the commander on the ground, whether or not we are having
success there.

Q Can I just go back to Tillman? You said that the President only knew
about it well after Pat Tillman's funeral.

MS. PERINO: Sometime after that.

Q Can you tell us how he knew, and whether the speechwriter knew? I mean,
there's this email that apparently went to General Abizaid, that he didn't
get for a long time.

MS. PERINO: We have no indication that the President knew that there were
questions surrounding the circumstances of Colonel Tillman's death until
sometime afterwards. And it's not clear -- people don't remember if he
heard it from media reports or if he heard it from the Pentagon, but it was
sometime after the funeral.

Q Did the speechwriter know?

MS. PERINO: It's unclear. It didn't seem that he did. I did not speak to
him; he no longer works at the White House. But it is not unusual --

Q But he never got word through this email --

MS. PERINO: It seemed that it never left CENTCOM and got to here. There's
no record of that -- of General McCrystal's memo coming to the White House.
But let me tell you it is not unusual that any time the President is going
to be giving a speech mentioning somebody that has connections to the
Department of Defense or another department, that we wouldn't reach out and
make sure that we had any I's dotted and T's crossed. And, obviously, in
this regard we would maybe have treated the situation differently had the
President known.

Q But it's unclear when he found out and how he found out?

MS. PERINO: Correct.

Q As the most high-profile casualty at that time, wouldn't it have been the
responsibility of someone to directly tell the President, and not leave it
up to him overhearing reports?

MS. PERINO: I think that's part of the inquiry that Department of Defense
is looking into.

Q Is he convinced now that it's friendly fire?

MS. PERINO: I think that that's been established.

Q It has?

MS. PERINO: I believe so.

Q Dana --

MS. PERINO: No, no, no, Goyal. Let's go to Paula, and then we'll get these
two in the back, and be done.

Q The meeting this afternoon on immigration reform, is this primarily a
listening session with the Hispanic Caucus, or are you going to be
discussing new ideas beyond the general principles that the President --

MS. PERINO: I think listening, discussion, and talking about general
principles or other principles. I think that the President wants to talk to
them about a variety of issues regarding immigration. They're not going to
be drafting bill language together, but I think that they'll have their
input given to the President and to the members of his staff so that we can
include that into our thinking as we're working on Capitol Hill on a bill.

Q Would that include more focus on a temporary worker program?

MS. PERINO: The President is very focused on a temporary worker program, so
that will definitely be a part of the discussion, sure.

Yes.

Q Thanks, Dana. Al Jazeera is reporting in an interview with a Taliban
commander that Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden are alive, and that Osama
bin Laden directed the attack against Vice President Cheney in Afghanistan.

MS. PERINO: It's an interesting claim, but we don't -- I haven't seen any
intelligence that would support that.

Q What about the idea that these individuals are unaccounted for, that they
could be out there, and could have directed an attack against the Vice
President?

MS. PERINO: Well, I guess that that is possible. It's just I'm not an
intelligence experts, and I'd have to refer you over to the DNI's office if
you want to check that out. I think that would be a good place to ask.

Q Dana, the word "impeachment" has cropped up in D.C. and elsewhere in the
country. How seriously does the administration take those words?

MS. PERINO: How seriously do we take Representative Kucinich's --

Q That and the decision by the assembly in Vermont?

MS. PERINO: The assembly of the what?

Q In Vermont. The resolution by -- in the state of Vermont.

MS. PERINO: Oh, I didn't even know there was a resolution in the state of
Vermont. Is that a monthly occurrence? (Laughter.) I don't know. The
President and the Vice President have served honorably, and I don't think
there's any merit to those impeachment claims.

END 12:39 P.M. EDT
===========================================================================
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/04/20070425-1.html

 * Origin: (1:3634/12)