Text 4454, 912 rader
Skriven 2007-04-26 23:30:46 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (0704266) for Thu, 2007 Apr 26
====================================================

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

For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary April 26, 2007

Press Briefing by Dana Perino White House Conference Center Briefing Room

˙ /news/releases/2007/04/20070426-6.wm.v.html ˙˙Press Briefings


1:51 P.M. EDT

MS. PERINO: Eighty days after President Bush submitted his troop funding
bill, the Senate has now joined the House in passing defeatist legislation
that insists on a date for surrender, micro-manages our commanders and
generals in combat zones from 6,000 miles away, and adds billions of
dollars in unrelated spending to the fighting on the ground.

I just spoke to the President in the Oval Office, and as he said he would
for weeks, the President will veto this legislation, and he looks forward
to working with congressional leaders to craft a bill that he can sign. It
is amazing that legislation urgently needed to fund our troops took 80 days
to make its way around the Capitol, but that's where we are.

Questions.

Q Dana, when will the President veto the bill?

MS. PERINO: We still don't know when we will get the bill. We don't know
when we're going to get the bill, so we'll make that decision once we have
it.

Q Will the goal be to veto it as soon as possible?

MS. PERINO: Well, the President has said that he wants to get the money to
the troops as soon as possible. And so as soon as we get the bill, the
President, as you could imagine, would make good on his promise to veto it,
and then we'll take it from there. And you can assume that the President
would soon meet -- quickly after that -- with the congressional leaders in
order to start work on the bill.

Q One other on this. Do you see it as a procedural step to veto it and get
on with the next stage, or do you see the White House staging some sort of
event around it?

MS. PERINO: A little bit too early to preview, but the main point is the
President is going to veto the bill, and then get to work with the
congressional members on the next step.

Q Dana, the latest CBS News poll has 64 percent of those polled in favor of
setting timetables for an Iraqi withdrawal of American troops. And that
dovetails, I think, with an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll that had similar
results yesterday. So, clearly, the administration is not on the same page
with the majority of the American public.

MS. PERINO: I've said it many times before, and I'll just repeat it. We
understand that Americans are tired of this war, they are weary, and they
are frustrated, and they want the troops to come home. We want the troops
to come home as well, and you're talking about a date for withdrawal. The
President is the Commander-in-Chief. He stands on principle. He does not
make decisions --

Q But what is --

MS. PERINO: His principle is that he is not going to put our troops into
the position of having a date -- a surrender date without providing the
Iraqis the chance that they need in order to get the political
reconciliation that they need.

Q But here's my question. Isn't his principle, at this point, clearly in
opposition with the majority of the American people?

MS. PERINO: Look, I'm not going to -- I can't tell you exactly how your
poll ran, or how the question was phrased. I do think that the American
people would understand that rashly pulling out quickly, without conditions
being right on the ground, is dangerous for the long-term security
interests of the United States. Now it is incumbent upon this
administration to explain why we think that is the case, and I understand
that there are people who disagree, people who are ready for the troops to
come home. The President strongly believes that setting a date for
surrender is not the way to do that.

Q Let me just follow once on that, because I think what's most interesting
in this poll is that two weeks ago the number was 57 percent, and now it's
64 percent. So Americans are watching, they've been watching the last two
weeks. The movement is against what the administration's position is.

MS. PERINO: Jim, you've covered the White House long enough to know that
this President does not make decisions or change with the wind as the polls
change. He understands that it's not popular. He understands how he could
be popular, but he's going to continue to have the principled stand that he
has.

Q This isn't an issue about popularity at this point, it's a question of
which path are you going to take. And the President continues to stay on a
path which, at least the polls as a representation of some kind of national
opinion, seem to suggest are more divergent than ever.

MS. PERINO: Jim, one thing I would say is that it's not just the President
who believes that a precipitous withdrawal is a bad idea. General David
Petraeus, who was on Capitol Hill yesterday and gave a press conference
today, has said similar, as did the Iraq Study Group, the Baker-Hamilton
group, as did the National Intelligence Estimate that is the consensus of
the 16 intelligence agencies that looked into this issue. They all said
that a precipitous withdrawal would be devastating for Iraq and for the
region, and then ultimately have negative consequences for the long-term
security of this country.

Q Dana, the President has often said that he understands the patience of
the American people is not unlimited. But should we interpret that to mean
that patience should extend to the end of his term?

MS. PERINO: What the President has asked is that -- he understood last
November that people wanted a change in the war. He himself said he wasn't
satisfied with the way that it was going. And so he took pains to have a
comprehensive review in order to create the Baghdad Security Plan now being
implemented by David Petraeus. What the President has asked for is for the
Congress to give -- and the American people to give this plan a chance to
work.

And what you heard from David Petraeus this week -- I'm sorry, I should
call him General Petraeus -- is that he doesn't have all the troops there
that he's asked for. That should be about mid-June, he said, when they will
all get there. They're having small signs of success, the sectarian
violence is down, but we have the spectacular bombings from al Qaeda. And
he said that sometimes, you start to -- he can see progress on the ground,
but that can be overtaken by one spectacular bombing by al Qaeda in a major
market that kills hundreds of people. And these are not just -- this is not
just killing of American troops. These are innocent men, women, and
children of Iraq who are trying to go about their daily lives.

And the American troops are there to help try to protect them and to allow
this new government to get the de-Baathification law finished, and get the
oil law finished. And we understand that it's very difficult for them, but
we also -- I can assure you that the President is constantly in contact
with Prime Minister Maliki, pressuring him and pushing him and showing him
how to lead that country so that it can be one that can sustain, defend,
and govern itself.

Q Dana, why isn't it working? I mean, General Petraeus talks about -- the
security situation is obvious. But what has to happen here is for the
political track to kick in. It hasn't. How do you expect the American
people to have patience with Maliki again? This is where we were last year.

MS. PERINO: Well, I think if you listen to David Petraeus, it's not exactly
where we were last year, and that he has said the sectarian violence is
down by a third.

Q But Maliki has not made that much progress.

MS. PERINO: There has been some progress. And granted -- and President --
we recognize that there are many issues, like those three that I just
mentioned -- the de-Baathification law, and the oil law, and the
provisional regional elections -- provincial elections -- has not moved
forward fully, it's not finalized. But there has been progress and steps
forward.

Q But isn't that the key to all of this?

MS. PERINO: It is key. It is absolutely key. But I think that everyone
should keep in mind, we have a fully functioning democracy that's been in
place for 200 years. Our Congress, it took them five years to pass one
energy bill.

Q The President told the American people and addressed Maliki in January
that the time for this to happen, this political progress, was now. What
does that mean?

MS. PERINO: And I think that they are starting to make some progress. The
oil law has now --

Q How long is now?

MS. PERINO: I'm sorry?

Q How long is "now"? What does "now" mean? What's the President --

MS. PERINO: The President has said -- well, I think the way that I would
look at it is that the President has said, we're going to try the surge to
try the -- to quell the violence there in Baghdad so that the government
can have a little bit more time. And as I've just told you, General
Petraeus said they're just about two months into the surge, and they don't
have -- he doesn't have all the troops there that he wants, and it's going
to take a while.

And as I said yesterday, General Petraeus will provide an assessment
towards the fall, and that's, I think, when -- I think that's how I would
look at the time frame.

Q Can we also go to something you said this morning, which you said,
opponents of the administration have misconstrued the carrier appearance by
the President four years ago. I don't know how they've misconstrued it. The
President said, "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle
of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."

MS. PERINO: And he specifically also said, and this is a quote, "We still
have difficult work to do in a dangerous country, which needed [sic] to be
rebuilt." He also said, "The transition from dictatorship to democracy will
take time." And he has also said -- let me remind you what he said on
January 10th --

Q But he said major combat operations are over. I mean, I don't even know
why you're still arguing about that. I think the President --

MS. PERINO: What the President has said -- what we were talking about then
was the fighting -- we toppled the Iraqi government, we toppled the Iraqi
army, and that was a pretty quick succession of events.

But what the President then said, and he said on January 10th, is that he
acknowledged many times that the U.S. underestimated the insurgence and the
foreign fighters' ability to foment sectarian violence and to perpetrate
terrorist attacks. And then he also said, "Where mistakes have been made,
the responsibility rests with me."

Q So why quibble over something like this, that he said something that
really didn't happen?

MS. PERINO: The President -- because of what -- I think that if you only
take the one line, that the end of combat operations -- major combat
operations, that's true, but the President also --

Q Yes, but the banner is consideration, as well.

MS. PERINO: Okay, well -- and that's what I meant by that this morning. And
we have explained it many times. And you know what? I have a feeling I'm
just on the losing end of this battle because the left has decided to
believe what they want to believe, which is that the President was saying
that the war was over and the troops were coming home. That's not what he
said, and I just told you specifically what he said, and I encourage people
to read the whole speech.

And that ship -- I'll get to you in a second -- USS America [sic] Lincoln
had been deployed for well over its stated period. It was supposed to be
gone for six months, and I think it was several months later, that they
were coming home. And it was the ship that -- that mission was
accomplished. And the President never said, "mission accomplished" in the
speech, and people use it that -- now I understand that that's what the
banner said, I understand that. But I'm telling you what the President --

Q I'm concentrating on the President's words, more than that.

MS. PERINO: But Martha, what the President said is that the transition from
dictatorship to democracy will take time. It is -- we still had difficult
work to do in a dangerous country which needed to be rebuilt.

Q Do you believe the timing of all this is related to the May 1st
anniversary, which is coming up, in terms of --

MS. PERINO: I would certainly hope not. I think that if that's true, that
it is very troubling that Democrats would be so cynical to use our troops
in that way, to use troops for a political PR stunt, and to withhold money
from the troops and their families. We already know the hardships that are
happening from the military based on this.

And I also think that given that they say that they want to provide funding
for the troops, it is curious why they didn't appoint conferees for two
weeks, and I'm not sure if that had anything to do with this particular
timing. I know that their on-the-record quotes are saying that it's just a
coincidence, but certainly, the background chatter that they're providing
to you anonymously would lead you to -- would only lead me to conclude that
they are using the troops for their own political PR stunts.

Q Dana, though, last year it was a Republican Congress that took 118 days
to get you a war funding bill, and the White House didn't complain that it
took a long time. So why is 70 or 80 --

MS. PERINO: There's a key difference. One is that -- a couple of things. We
did not provide the Congress the detail in the request that we did this
year with the budget. In fact, we provided it to them later than when the
budget came out. This year, we heard their complaints, and we got the
request for the supplemental to them the same day as we sent up the regular
budget of the United States.

In addition to that, there were some complaints, but the major key
difference is, last year we knew that eventually -- that we were going to
get a bill that the President could sign.

Q The point is, though, that it took 40 days longer for a Republican
Congress to pass a war funding bill, and the money still got to the troops
in the field. So isn't this -- aren't you exaggerating the effect on the
troops in the field? Last year it took 40 days longer.

MS. PERINO: No, I don't think that we're exaggerating at all. I think if
you look at the words from the military, from Secretary Gates and General
Pace, that those are real things, and this stage in the war is different
than last year. We're in a surge right now. And I think the other thing
that they're looking at are some of their long-term procurement contracting
issues, that they need to have this money now.

I think you can't underestimate the importance of realizing that we
realized that we would get a bill last year that we could sign.

Q But on the question of major combat operations, isn't it more broadly
just that, when you said earlier that the American people are weary and
frustrated, they want the troops to come home, isn't that due in part to
the fact that the President set unrealistic expectations with speeches like
that, which suggested to the American people that this was going to be done
very quickly?

MS. PERINO: As I said, the President has acknowledged numerous times that
he and the administration underestimated the sectarian violence and the
ability of al Qaeda in Iraq to foment these spectacular -- I'm sorry, to
perpetrate these spectacular bombings, in which hundreds of innocent people
are killed. And he said that where any of those mistakes were made, that
the responsibility rests with him. And I think that the American people can
rest assured that their Commander-in-Chief, number one, takes on that
responsibility, and number two, has only the best interests of their
security in mind when he makes these decisions.

Q What's your latest pronouncement on when you will know -- since General
Petraeus is here now briefing people, when you will know whether or not the
surge is working?

MS. PERINO: I'm going to leave that to General Petraeus, who said that it
would be sometime in the fall in which he would give an assessment.

Q Dana, looking beyond the veto, you said that the President will be
talking to members of Congress. What is the White House position? Is it
your position that you will accept nothing less than a clean bill -- no
pork, no timetables, no benchmarks -- or is the White House -- is there any
give in this from your end?

MS. PERINO: I know that those are all the questions that are burning on
your mind. I am not going to negotiate from this podium. I think the best
thing to do is let the President get the bill, veto it, and then as I said,
you could assume that he would be meeting quickly with congressional
leaders. And I'm going to let them talk about it from there.

Q We assume that he is willing to compromise, to a certain extent, to meet
them halfway or part way.

MS. PERINO: Sheryl, I'm not going to negotiate at all from here, give any
sort of signal in any which way or form.

Matt.

Q The President has accused the Democrats of holding up funding to the
troops. But it's the President's veto that will, effectively, put the
funding -- stop the funding in its tracks. So if this is so urgent doesn't
he at least share some of the blame?

MS. PERINO: No, Matt --

Q -- some of the blame for the holdup, for failing to have his White House
and his fellow Republicans achieve a workable compromise with the
Democrats?

MS. PERINO: No. For several weeks the Democrats have known that if the
bill, in its current form, is sent to him, that he would veto it. They've
also said that they don't plan on cutting off funds for the troops. And
given that, since they don't have and they know they don't have the votes
to override the President's veto, it is their responsibility to send the
President a bill that he can sign. They said -- they insisted on sending
him a bill that they knew he couldn't sign. They insisted on sending him a
bill that he would veto. And what he had said is, I will reluctantly do so,
and then we'll have to get about the business of working on a bill that I
can sign. And as you -- as Sheryl's question just indicated, we know that
they're going to do that. So the responsibility rested with them.

April.

Q Dana, as the time line issue is lingering, and Americans are in the polls
saying they're tired of this war, they want change, does the administration
feel that there is pressure that something has to give? I'm asking that as
General Barry McCaffrey, someone who has talked to the President, the
President has listened to, said that -- let's give Bob Gates another year,
and if the game hasn't changed, it's time to go.

MS. PERINO: I'm sorry, I don't understand what your question is.

Q The question is, is there pressure, is there pressure on this White
House, understanding that Capitol Hill, you have people that you're talking
to; the American public is saying look, something has to give --

MS. PERINO: Of course there's pressure. And that's why the President kind
of changed strategy in January, and is hoping that the American people and
the Congress would give the new strategy a chance to work.

Q But the issue is, is there pressure on this administration to turn around
and walk out? Does this administration feel that pressure?

MS. PERINO: I think the President feels pressure to accomplish the mission,
fulfill the mission that he's promised to the troops and to their families,
and -- why are you looking at me like that?

Q I understand, but you're not answering --

MS. PERINO: I'm answering your question.

Q Not really. The pressure is to turn things around. He hasn't turned it
around.

MS. PERINO: April, what I'm saying is that the surge, as General David
Petraeus explained today, he doesn't have all the troops that he has said
that he will need in order to fulfill his mission. And so the pressure is
to let that process get underway and let the troops get there so that they
can fulfill it.

Q That will take 10 years, and the American public is not going to wait --

MS. PERINO: It's not going to take 10 years. He said they'd be there by
mid-June, April.

Q No, no, no, to turn things around -- you're saying it's going to happen
immediately --

MS. PERINO: No, none of us have said it's going to happen immediately. We
have said that we are up against a very determined enemy. This is a sworn
enemy of the United States who are being helped by other sworn enemies of
the United States. This is very serious. We are deluding ourselves if we
think that we walk away, that everything is going to be okay, and that we
can just let that region fester and not have any consequences for it, and
not have to suffer the consequences of our actions here in Washington. And
that is why the President has the principled stand that he does. And he is
the Commander-in-Chief, with the long-term national security interests of
this country in mind with every step of the way.

John.

Q The General today said that, essentially, this is not an open-ended
commitment. He talked about the American clock ticking. He talked about in
September he'll give an assessment. And he was asked if he thinks it's not
working, will he tell the truth, and will he say we should get out of
there, and he said, yes, I will tell the truth about that.

MS. PERINO: As one would expect.

Q Right. So is the White House prepared for a report like that in
September, where he comes back and says, we should leave and --

MS. PERINO: We are very clear-eyed about the situation, and we are also
very heartened and honored that General David Petraeus is leading this
mission.

Q Again, though, I'd have to say, is the President determined to stay
there, no matter how many options he runs out of?

MS. PERINO: The President is determined to win in Iraq. I think that the
bill that they sent us today is mission defeated. And the President wants
us to win in Iraq, not only just for the long-term security interests of
this nation, but because 12 million people in Iraq came out and they voted,
and they wanted a new government and they wanted a constitution. And they
said -- they wanted -- they thanked us for allowing them that opportunity,
and now we have a responsibility to help that young government stabilize,
to get themselves some laws that will get on the books, and will establish
some political reconciliation.

Granted, Martha, this is very tough going; it is slow going. But we have to
have slow, focused, persistent work, and encouraging patience on behalf of
the American people. As you said, there's a -- there's this talk about an
American clock versus an Iraqi clock, and sometimes the two don't tick at
the same time.

Pete.

Q I want to ask about the political briefings that were given to --

MS. PERINO: Can we stay on Iraq, just in case, and then -- anybody else on
Iraq?

Q I have one more about the oil law, de-Baathification, the constitution
stuff. Is it your thought that if there was no terrorist element in Iraq
right now, if al Qaeda all packed up and went wherever home is, would the
Iraqi government have oil and de-Baathification and constitutional issues
worked out, what, weeks, months?

MS. PERINO: Jim, I'm not going to answer that hypothetical, because al
Qaeda is in Iraq. They have said this is the battle for them to win.

Q Let me rephrase that. What is a reasonable period of time for the
American people to expect the Iraqi government to work out these critical
measures of political accomplishment?

MS. PERINO: I'm not going to start the stop watch on the Iraqi government.
We encourage them to do it soon.

Q When you say that, you're not going to then, nobody -- then it's again --
it's going to go on forever.

MS. PERINO: No, it's not. Listen, the Iraqis also want progress, and they
want it fast.

Q But there's been lots of reports this week that say, regardless of the
terrorist activity, there are people inside the Iraqi government who are
saying, you know what, this just isn't going to happen. So therefore, you
have American troops in Iraq, essentially to reach goals that are
unreachable.

MS. PERINO: I think that even in our Congress, you can find people who say
that we're never going to get an immigration bill this year, or we're never
going to be able to get No Child Left Behind reauthorized. Look, we're all
working towards it. This is a new democracy, and I think that they deserve
a little bit of time to be able to get things done. That's what our --
that's what we offer our Congress, as well.

Q But you can't define "a little bit of time."

MS. PERINO: I'm not going to do that to them.

Go ahead.

Q Dana --

MS. PERINO: Let me go to Ben.

Q Part of the Democratic plan is to hold the Iraqi government accountable.
And the President often talks about accountability, not just in foreign
policy, but how lawmakers should conduct themselves, how elected officials
should spend the public's money, and I'm wondering, where is the
accountability in the President's plan? You talked about in pressuring
Maliki, patience is not unlimited, but where's the accountability? Where's
the teeth to it?

MS. PERINO: I think that -- well, one, I think that the President realizes
that one of the -- you don't necessarily work with a government that way,
with a sovereign government that way. The President has said he's not --
his patience isn't unlimited, and the American patience isn't unlimited.
We've also -- as I've said, I mean, nobody wants peace and stability in
Iraq more than the Iraqis. So they feel a lot of pressure on themselves in
order to accomplish what is going to be very hard for any democracy. And it
would be hard for this Congress to be able to pass those things through.

It's very complicated. But I think that we have to look at this
objectively. One of the things that they did do that they are being held
accountable for, is they passed a bill in Iraq to spend $10 billion of
their own money to start help rebuilding that country. And I think that
that shows commitment on their part.

Let me go to Martha, and then Sarah. Okay.

Q When you talk about how long this could take and it's a tough battle,
Admiral Fallon recently came out apparently saying that he doesn't want the
term "long war" used anymore.

MS. PERINO: I saw a newspaper report about that. I don't know. I just --
what I do know is that what the President has said is that this will be a
generational war, and I think that people who have -- understand that the
enemy that we face -- and I know that Admiral Fallon is one of them -- that
this is going to take a long time. I don't know. I'd have to --

Q That seems at odds with what the administration is --

MS. PERINO: I'd have to refer you to Admiral Fallon. I saw a briefing about
that -- I'm sorry, a report about that. But there's no doubt that it's
going to take a generation in order to help stamp out this enemy.

Q It is a long war.

MS. PERINO: Go ahead, Sarah.

Q Thank you. Same topic. If the President won't accept benchmarks and a
timetable to go with them, what will he do to make Iraq -- the Iraqi
government effective --

MS. PERINO: Sarah, I've answered that question several times today. I'll
refer you back to the transcript.

Keith, go ahead. I'm just -- let's move on. Keith.

Q Okay, on the political briefings, there seems -- there's no shortage of
political information out there. Why does the White House feel it's
necessary to give these employees these briefings in the first place?

MS. PERINO: I think that's kind of ridiculous question. I mean, there's --
sorry, I usually don't say those things, but I do think that that one was.
Look, there is nothing wrong with political appointees providing other
political appointees with an informational briefing about the political
landscape in which they are working.

Q I understand. That's not an answer, as ridiculous as the question was.

MS. PERINO: What, you think that we should just look at the CBS/New York
Times poll and make our decisions based on that?

Q It's 20 briefings --

MS. PERINO: Jim would agree.

Q Well, I'm trying to get to the motivation for this, and it's 20 briefings
--

MS. PERINO: The motivation is to provide people information.

Q But why? Why do they need this information --

MS. PERINO: Why are you asking me these questions? You're asking
information, as well.

Q No, no, but --

MS. PERINO: My point was that you're asking --

Q Was there any intent to try to tell people that they need to do something
about the election, and to take some action?

MS. PERINO: These are information -- they're informational briefings about
the political landscape.

Q Okay, so there was -- there was no intent to do that? Who -- did they ask
for the briefings, or was it the White House that decided they wanted to
give these briefings?

MS. PERINO: I think it sort of goes both ways. I do know that political
appointees around the government -- I used to work at an agency, and you
are interested in -- the reason that you're here working for the President
is that you want to support his policies and his agenda, and so it's good
to get information from time to time.

Q Well, who's idea -- it was the White House idea, initially, or was it the
agencies?

MS. PERINO: I think that these briefings -- well, I know the Clinton
administration had similar briefings. Where did they originate? I don't
know. I couldn't give you a date.

Q Can I follow up? I just wondered why, then, did, according to apparently
six witnesses that have apparently spoken to Congressman Waxman, say that
at the end of the one of these briefings the head of the GSA said to, I
think it was Scott Jennings, one of Karl Rove's aides: What, then, after
getting this briefing can we do to go help Republican candidates? And he
said, let's talk off line about that.

MS. PERINO: I never talked to Scott Jennings about that. I think that --

Q Well, why would he suggest that?

MS. PERINO: Well, I'm not going to speculate as to what he would have meant
by that or not. I mean, he could have meant that that was an inappropriate
comment to make in front of other people and talked about that off line,
instead of embarrassing her in front of --

Q But if you don't know the answer to that, how do you know that no laws
were broken or there was nothing unethical, if you --

MS. PERINO: Checking with Counsel's Office and talking about informational
briefings about political landscape, that that is okay, that that is
acceptable; there is nothing in the law that says you can't do that, it's
not unethical. And it is something that is absolutely reasonable and
appropriate, to provide political appointees with information about the
landscape in which they're working.

Q But what if at the end of those briefings there were other conversations
about, then, how you could help --

MS. PERINO: "What if?" "What if?" I'm not answering "what ifs," Ed.

Q But you don't know the answers to those questions, do you? I mean, how
can you make a blanket statement that no laws were broken, as you said this
morning, when you don't really know what happened at these briefings or
after the briefings?

MS. PERINO: You're asking me to prove a negative and I can't -- nobody can
do that.

Q Then how can you make a blanket statement saying no laws were broken? You
just made blanket statements without knowing the details.

MS. PERINO: The question is whether or not the political briefings are
inappropriate, unethical or unlawful. And the answer to all three of those
questions is, no.

Q Even if, at the end of it, an aide to --

MS. PERINO: "Even if," "Even if," I'm not -- you can --

Q Well, but six people who were there say it; it's not just a random "if."
Six people.

MS. PERINO: Right, but what I'm saying is you don't -- I have not spoken to
Scott Jennings about this, I don't think that I will. If the Office of
Special Counsel wants to look into this, they are more than welcome to --
but I'm not going to get into the middle of someone else's investigation.
I'm not going to do it.

Q Did the legal Counsel's Office approve -- all of these --

MS. PERINO: As a general rule -- as a general matter, yes, they had
approved them.

Q But they didn't go back to them for each one, to approve each one?

MS. PERINO: Not necessarily, no.

Q But isn't a political landscape, in part, describing vulnerable districts
and areas where the Republican Party might have trouble in an election
season?

MS. PERINO: I think that's what -- yes, of course.

Q Dana, is it the President's view, then, that this Office of Special
Counsel inquiry is not warranted?

MS. PERINO: I didn't say that.

Q I'm asking you.

MS. PERINO: No.

Q But if you're saying these briefings are perfectly appropriate --

MS. PERINO: If the Office of Special Counsel wants to inquire about
something, that is their right and I'm not going to say whether or not it's
appropriate or not. He can inquire and talk to the Counsel's Office about
it. We've worked cooperatively with them in the past, and we will do so
this time, as well.

Q Dana, I need to clarify something, get you to clarify something really
quick. You just said that this is going to be a generational war. And I
said something earlier about the American public may not allow the --
accept this, going the way it's going for another 10 years. And you said,
it's not going to be 10 years.

MS. PERINO: Oh, I think there's a distinction -- I think that that was
about the global war on terror, and I think your question was specifically
about the surge.

Q Dana, just back on Iraq for a second. What would be a reasonable period
of time for the President to assess whether the surge has worked or not and
he had to readjust?

MS. PERINO: As I've said several times, General Petraeus has said that he
won't know until the fall, at that point he'll give an assessment. And I
think that the President will defer to his commanders on the ground for
those assessments.

Q When he gets that assessment, though -- when the President gets that
assessment, at that point is the President open to readjusting?

MS. PERINO: Wow, is this, like, hypothetical question day? (Laughter.) I'm
not going to say. I think that the President is going to listen to his
commanders on the ground, he's going to get an assessment for General
Petraeus -- but he's not going to wait until the fall to get an assessment
from General Petraeus, they talk quite often -- sometimes weekly, or more.

Q I want to ask about former CIA Director Tenet's new book coming out. He
says, in defense of enhanced interrogation techniques, while insisting the
United States does not torture, says, "These are people who will never,
ever tell you a thing. These are people who know who's responsible for the
next terrorist attack." Does the President support these because the ends
justify the means?

MS. PERINO: Well, Goyal, first of all -- Wendell, sorry --

Q Thank you.

MS. PERINO: Sorry, I was looking at Goyal. I have not seen the book. I'm
not going to comment on the book. What you're suggesting is, does the
President support torture. The United States --

Q I am not talking about torture or the book, in this case. I'm talking
about enhanced interrogation techniques, which the President has commented
on.

MS. PERINO: The President wants our intelligence agencies to follow the law
and to make sure that they get the information

that they can get in order to protect this country. That's what he
supports.

Q Is this a situation, the use of these interrogation techniques, that is
specific to now in the global war on terror? Is it policy that's likely to
continue? Is it something we're going to be seeing 10, 15 years from now?

MS. PERINO: This is like a hypothetical question day. I can't look 10 to 15
years in the future. What I can tell you is that this President, and I'm
sure future Presidents are going to have the responsibility of protecting
the American people. We're ensured that the intelligence agencies follow
the law and make sure that any information that is needed from suspects
that are picked up, that those laws are followed and that that information
is used -- any information gleaned from it is used in order to protect the
American people, or our allies around the world.

Q This is also a matter of interpreting the law. These enhanced
interrogation techniques have come under some criticism from officials of
other countries. Has it complicated the U.S. relationship with our allies?

MS. PERINO: I'm sure that there might be some people who disagree with the
United States on that, but I've never heard anything -- I've never heard
anything or witnessed anything specific about that. And I think that our
allies, who we share information with, are supportive. I would just have to
point you back to -- and this has nothing to do with enhanced interrogation
techniques, that I know of, but last August, when we worked with the Brits
in order to prevent a spectacular al Qaeda attack of blowing up airliners
over the Atlantic Ocean. We share information with our allies in order to
protect innocent men, women, and children from terrorists who want to kill
us.

Q But again, I'm talking about the interrogation techniques used on, in
particular, Khalid Sheikh Muhammad. And the President has said that this
was effective, former Director Tenet says we got more information from him
than all the other agencies were able to glean from other suspects. So it
takes me back to these interrogation techniques, in particular. Are they
something that we're using now in the global war on terror that we won't
have to use five or 10 years from now?

MS. PERINO: Wendell, look -- I don't know anything more than what the
President or George Tenet have said. And I'll just -- I'm just going to
have to leave it at that. I can't look at -- I can't look in a crystal ball
10 to 15 years down the road. It would be wonderful if we would believe
that terrorists are not going to exist in the world 10 to 15 years from
now. But I'm not going to -- nobody can make that prediction.

Q Dana?

MS. PERINO: Go ahead.

Q Dana, first of all, you've done an excellent job in Tony's absence. We
look forward to his return on Monday. I wanted to return to the case of Pat
Tillman. We, of course, spoke about that yesterday. Yesterday, I asked if
the President had spoken to the family of Pat Tillman since the IG report
came out, or since the family has complained about the numerous falsehoods
that were told to them. And you replied that it would be inappropriate for
the Commander-in-Chief to do so. But at the same time, from that podium,
you said that he feels deeply sorry for the family and all that they've
gone through and he hopes that people are held to account. Why couldn't the
President express those thoughts directly to the Tillman family? Why
couldn't he call them up directly and express not only his condolences for
his death, but his regret for the way in which the Pentagon essentially
lied to the family?

MS. PERINO: As I said, I'm the President's spokesman. I provided that
comment yesterday because I speak for him. I also know that the President
provides a personalized letter to everybody, every family who loses a
family member in the war on terror. And what I meant by it would be
inappropriate for the President to get involved is that there is a command
influence issue. And when the Department of Defense is investigating
something, it would be inappropriate for the President to insert himself in
that process. He believes that Secretary Gates and General Pace and others
that came before them were honest in their assessments of what happened.
They found out that there was a question of wrongdoing, a question of a
cover-up, and that's why we have the information that we have now and
that's the way our system of government works.

Q As far as the President learning that his death was from friendly fire,
you said yesterday that from all indications it was well after the funeral.
First of all, where are you getting that from and what is your definition
of "well after the funeral"?

MS. PERINO: I'm getting that just because there is no indication the
General McCrystal memo ever made its way to the White House. There's just
no recollection on the part of anybody else that the President would have
learned about that before the funeral that was held on May 3rd.

Q Does the President feel regret as to the way the family was treated by
the Pentagon --

MS. PERINO: Yes --

Q -- and people from the Army?

MS. PERINO: Yes, I expressed so yesterday. Absolutely.

Goyal.

Q Dana, two quick questions. One, as far as global war on terrorism is
concerned, Iraqis want to have freedom, they are free now today, but there
is terrorism going on and the Iranians are supporting still terrorism in
Iraq. And, also, Osama bin Laden has people claiming that they are behind
terrorism in Iraq. My question is that are we still really going -- how are
we going to find Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda people? Because many
people are saying that if we eliminate Osama bin Laden or his people, then
you can eliminate terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan.

MS. PERINO: What I can assure you is that there are people all around the
world that are united in trying to hunt down Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.

Q And, second, just quick. Yesterday President spoke about malaria, no more
malaria. And there are 15 countries from Africa, and also we know that
millions have died of the diseases in the past and Africa and around the
globe. My question, yesterday President was talking about 15 countries in
Africa.

MS. PERINO: What's your question?

Q But malaria also has spread in other parts of the world also. What role
U.N. is playing and also if President is going to talk about global war on
malaria?

MS. PERINO: When the President talked about Malaria Awareness Day it was
not just in Africa -- obviously, that's a huge problem, but we recognize
that malaria is something that hurts men, women and children all around the
world, especially the children.

I'll take one from Lester and then we'll be done. Les, go ahead. Just one.

Q Two.

MS. PERINO: I've got to go.

Q Yesterday, a Republican National Committee cited the AP report that
Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean said the following: "If you want
to hear anybody's true views, you cannot do it in the same room as the
press. If you want to hear the truth from them, you have to exclude the
press." What's the President's opinion of this prescription of the end of
press freedom in politics coming from a former governor and national
chairman of one of our two main parties?

MS. PERINO: Let me decline to comment now. I'll take a look at the
comments; this is the first I've heard of them.

Q Thank you.

MS. PERINO: Thank you.

END 2:26 P.M. EDT
===========================================================================
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/04/20070426-6.html

 * Origin: (1:3634/12)