Text 4541, 838 rader
Skriven 2007-05-08 23:33:14 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (0705082) for Tue, 2007 May 8
===================================================

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

For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary May 8, 2007

Press Briefing by Tony Snow White House Conference Center Briefing Room

˙ /news/releases/2007/05/20070508-2.wm.v.html ˙˙Press Briefings
˙˙Audio


12:50 P.M. EDT

MR. SNOW: Hello.

Q Good afternoon.

MR. SNOW: Good afternoon. The President tomorrow is going to be going to
Greensburg, Kansas. He'll spend the bulk of the day, as you know, in
Kansas, taking a look at the devastation in that town.

It's important I think not only for him to express his love and concern for
the people there, but he does want to tour a town that in a matter of
seconds was utterly obliterated -- 95 percent of the structures down, a
dozen people died. And as often happens also in this country, people began
responding very quickly, not only with love and concern, but help. And
there have been aggressive and ongoing efforts to deal with health,
construction, reconstruction and other problems in the area. And he will
receive briefings from local officials, as well as federal officials on the
scene, and get a full look at what's going on.

But that is something that obviously is very important and foremost in our
minds as we get ready for tomorrow. And I just wanted to mention that at
the top. Questions.

Q There seems to be a difference of opinion between the Governor and the
White House about whether or not the Iraq war has drained off resources for
recovery.

MR. SNOW: I think you guys are trying to pick a fight. And so we actually
talked with the Governor --

Q You have?

MR. SNOW: -- just a few minutes ago -- Fran Townsend called the Governor
just a few minutes ago. There are two separate issues. A number of states
have expressed concerns about National Guard levels into the future, and
they have talked about Iraq deployments; we're aware of those. It's one of
the reasons why the President talked about expanding the military, in part
to take pressure off National Guard units, and of course, National Guard
expansion is part, also, of longer-term planning.

But as a separate issue, the question is, were resources available? And so
Fran had a conversation and I'll just play out a little -- just repeat a
little bit of it. Fran said that it was her understanding that we'd met
every request the Governor had made, and had moved resources proactively
into Kansas, into the region, to anticipate requests. We had a conversation
this morning, for instance, about notifications and declarations. There
were some conversations on Saturday prior to the Governor's officially
requesting a declaration, and on the basis of those conversations, the
federal government began moving assets into the region before paperwork was
done, because it was important -- as a matter of fact, FEMA had resources
moving in within a couple of hours.

So there was a very -- this is a success story in the sense that people
were moving very quickly to get assets there. So, in response to Fran's
question, the Governor said that she had what she needs. She did repeat her
testimony that she's been raising the issue about DOD for a number of years
in terms of National Guard deployments. When Fran again said, "Is there
anything you need to respond effectively to this disaster," the Governor
responded, "No. We could not have asked for a faster response. Dave
Paulison was terrific yesterday."

Fran asked a third time, "I want to make sure that we're saying the same
thing, is there anything else you need for a fast and effective response to
the disaster?" And the Governor said, "We've got to get power and water
running. I've got what I need. I've got your number, I won't be shy, I will
call if I need anything."

And that's the way it ought to work. I mean, these are not situations you
can anticipate, and there are, in fact, enormous resources available to the
state if they do need them, in terms of 83,000 National Guard units,
hundreds of trucks, thousands of lift vehicles, helicopters, any kind --
the kind of logistical support you may need -- meals-ready-to-eat, water,
tarps, construction equipment, all of that.

The President also signed an emergency declaration that makes immediately
available individual aid for people saying, my house is down, I need help;
public aid, for instance, for the state -- if you need equipment, you can
get it from private vendors, you can get it from non-profits, you can get
it from other state and local governments. So there are a lot of resources
available.

And the important question now is, let's figure out what people need and
let's get it there, because there are still people who, in a matter of
seconds, had their lives obliterated, and it's, I think, everybody's
concern to try to do what we can to try to put it back together as quickly
as possible.

Q Did you listen in on the call and take notes?

MR. SNOW: Fran took notes, and I'm giving you her readout.

Q And you said this morning that if you don't request it, you're not going
to get it. Is there --

MR. SNOW: Well, it turns out I've had subsequent conversations, and what
happened was, she actually did get -- there was not a formal request, but
they'd had conversations. So on the basis of those, the government began
moving things proactively.

The Governor was out of state when it happened, and it was -- it was
difficult. We were working through staff to get in touch with her. It
clearly was a priority to get things moving, and so people did get things
moving.

Q The Pentagon said that I guess they've been in touch with 35,000 soldiers
and Marines with the instructions to prepare for possible deployment in the
fall. Does this indicate the surge will go well beyond --

MR. SNOW: No, it actually has -- no, it has nothing to do with the surge,
actually. It's designed -- there were conversations before, as you may
recall, about deployment times and how much time people would have off.
This was part -- the President announced it in the State of the Union
address as part of expanding the military. This is designed merely to give
people the kind of predictability they need in terms of when the
deployments are going to take place, and also when they're going to be
rotated out. So it is not related to an assessment of the surge.

Q Does this have anything to do with shortening the amount of time in
country for soldiers and Marines?

MR. SNOW: No, no. It's, again, this is part of the regular process now of
trying really to make sure that you do have predictable deployments and
also predictable time off between deployments.

Q Just back to the National Guard for a moment. You said it's a success
story, they moved in quickly. But could you have gotten equipment there any
sooner were we not in Iraq? I mean, could it have been closer, would there
have been units that were closer, equipment closer?

MR. SNOW: I don't -- that's a hypothetical question that I'm not sure --

Q It's not hypothetical.

MR. SNOW: Well, it is -- let me put it this way. We have no indication that
people did not get what they needed as soon as they needed it.

Q So they couldn't have moved in sooner had they --

MR. SNOW: Again, things were moved -- again, some of the things -- let me
just give you a sense --

Q As quickly as they could now doesn't mean as quickly as they could were
they not deployed.

MR. SNOW: Let me give you a sense of what's available in the state, because
I think -- resources available: I already told you 83,000 National Guard
units in the region, 99 bulldozers, 61 loaders, 246 dump trucks, 59
graders, 228 heavy expandable mobility tactical trucks, 2,243 2.5 and 5-ton
trucks, 70 palletalized load systems. There's a lot of stuff available. So,
again, I think this is one where the equipment was available and everybody
was moving as rapidly as possible.

Q This morning you said the only thing the Kansas Governor requested was FM
radios. Has she, in fact, requested more now?

MR. SNOW: I believe so. Let me take a quick look. I think there are a
couple of other items that have been requested and supplied. Let's see, the
state has requested a mobile command center, an urban search and rescue
task force, a mobile office building, 40 two-way radios, and coordination
calls between Kansas, Texas and Oklahoma, to determine if they need extra
Black Hawks; Kansas has six, Texas and Oklahoma have offered to make
available another five to six if necessary. So those are the things that
the state has requested, that FEMA has provided.

Q And if the Governor repeats her concern that she's expressed for many
months about National Guard units to the President, face to face, what will
his response be?

MR. SNOW: Well, the response will be -- again, what you're doing is you're
taking a separate issue about National Guard deployment and how that works
into national security concerns, and this particular case. Was there
anything she needed that she didn't have? And the answer she gave to Fran
was, no. And she praised Mr. Paulison, Administrator Paulison on the swift
response.

I think you've got to step back and realize that there are plenty of times
to talk about this, but the real focal point is the devastation in
Greensburg. And I think when you get to a situation like that, I think the
President and the Governor and other politicians and citizens, my guess
will be sufficiently struck by the enormity of what they see and the
incredible devastation. You really -- your natural inclination is, we can
talk about these things, but let's get our job done here first.

Q But it is just such an event that causes people to recall the other role
of the National Guard, which is to help with these types of --

MR. SNOW: Well, keep in mind, but there are -- but it was there. I mean,
resources were there. There are 6,801 available non-deployed National Guard
units in Kansas alone. There are a number of resources available in Kansas
alone. So again, I think what you're trying to do is to sort of create a
source of friction that is inappropriate for this particular story.

Q I'm not trying to do that. The Governor has said she didn't have all of
the equipment and that she was concerned about the personnel.

MR. SNOW: And again, when you're talking about the availability of
literally tens of thousands of personnel, and thousands of vehicles, and
people willing to deploy them -- and it's not merely, by the way, it's not
merely the National Guard in surrounding states. You have EMS, you have
fire departments, you have private vendors. The President signed a
declaration that made private help available immediately -- just writes the
check, boom, you just -- have them do it, we'll write the check for you. So
we did everything possible to make available any resource necessary.

Q Tony, looking beyond this Kansas situation to the evolving tornado season
and the hurricane season coming, does the administration feel that with all
of these Guard units deployed, that there are enough resources for coming
big disasters?

MR. SNOW: We certainly hope so. Again, you don't want to make predictions,
but on the other hand, there is an enormous amount of planning going on so
that you have the flexibility. A lot of things have been pre-positioned,
both for tornado and hurricane. It is a subject of continuous planning.

Q But those are FEMA resources. What about the Guard itself?

MR. SNOW: The National Guard also -- the National Guard -- if you take a
look at the way the National Guard units are dispersed, you still have
considerable strength in each state, and also you still have the ability of
governors to seek assistance from neighboring states.

So -- let me put it this way: Everybody is certainly doing their very best
to make sure that the assets and the individuals and the planning and
everything that are necessary -- there are also planning requirements for
states, when it comes to putting together their plans, and they're supposed
to report to us so that we can coordinate with them on the steps that may
be necessary. But nobody can ever predict how, when or where something like
this is going to strike, but it certainly remains a priority.

Q To what extent are disaster -- potential disaster needs taken into
consideration when deployment numbers are --

MR. SNOW: Again, I think, look, potential disaster -- you keep trying to
say, if we're going to have National Guard units in Iraq protecting
Americans you're not going to be able to deal with disasters here at home.
The fact is you do have, as I just pointed out, more than 6,000 available
units, and there's only 566 deployed right now in Kansas -- 6,800
available. So there are, in fact, large amounts -- large numbers of
individuals and equipment available.

Furthermore, again, you do have plans on how you get assistance from other
states and certain units that can provide logistical support. For instance,
the FM radios we were discussing today came from Kentucky. So you do have
plans and you do figure out ways to share. You have conversations about the
helicopters with the states of Oklahoma and Texas. Again, I'm not sure if
they're going to need them; if they do, the conversations are ongoing.

Q Tony, how much is the disaster response effort impacted by the war?

MR. SNOW: I think they're separate issues. The war --

Q Aren't they shared resources?

MR. SNOW: They're shared resources, but on the other hand, it is not
something that you can't -- just as in a time of war, the Pentagon plans
for more than one conflict at a time, you have to be able to do more than
one thing at a time. So the fact that you have people deployed in a time of
war to protect Americans is important; but at the same time, you also
maintain your capability of dealing with domestic concerns.

Q There is no impact?

MR. SNOW: I don't know. I don't know how you measure. How would I measure
-- I'm not being snarky in giving -- I just don't know how you measure
that.

Q You look at the available equipment and you see how much of it is
overseas.

MR. SNOW: Well, the fact is, again, taking a look at what you're talking
about, in many cases, vital equipment for Kansas -- they have more than 100
percent of their National Guard requisition in Kansas now, including
2.5-ton trucks, and 5-ton trucks and a lot of that stuff.

There are a number of things that are appropriate for a time of war that
are not necessarily going to be helpful to you in a time of rescue. Also
keep in mind, it is not solely a National Guard responsibility. And in a
time like this, again, great American tradition, pulling together assets
from a variety of different sources so that you respond to the needs and
you get to the site what you need. And in this particular case, people
responded swiftly.

And the Governor and others -- if you look at some of the immediate
responses, people said, yes, they were pleased with the response. And the
most important thing to do is to continue working with the Governor and
with authorities in Kansas to help these people.

Q Shift to Iraq?

MR. SNOW: Any more on this? Okay, shift to Iraq.

Q Can you update us on any White House-Hill negotiations planned? And also,
are you going to be able to head off that developing bill by Democrats in
the House --

MR. SNOW: Am I going to be able to head off?

Q Head off, derail, oppose --

MR. SNOW: I don't -- again, members of the House -- we made it clear that
the idea somehow of doing a short-term supplemental, we think it's bad
management. It's kind of a start and stop measure. It denies commanders and
forces the kind of predictability they need to be able to plan effectively.
It also does not give General Petraeus the ability to implement fully the
plan that Congress authorized and voted for him to go ahead and work out
within Baghdad, within the Baghdad security plan and elsewhere.

A couple of things to note. Number one is you get into a situation like
this where you do not have predictable funding. It means that in some cases
you're going to delay deployments. It's enormously expensive to move forces
around, so it means that not only would you delay deployments in some
cases, you also may have to prolong tours at the same time. You interrupt
purchasing; you interrupt planning; you interrupt contracting. It may be
that, in fact, you can only buy small pieces of what in a larger bid would
be the kind of vehicles like the V-shaped hulls that a lot of people think
are going to be effective in saving lives against EFPs and other devices.

So what it does is it denies you the ability for the long-range planning
and procurement necessary and it creates instability and uncertainty in
daily operations that really is not consistent with a fully effective
military operation. It affects procurement schedules; it affects cost
containment -- all the sorts of things that Congress wants to look at.

We think it's best to go ahead and get us through this fiscal year. That at
least gives you the kind of predictability you need. Members of Congress
will continue to have debates, we'll continue to work on Capitol Hill, but
our goal is pretty clear here.

Q That would provoke a veto if it came down --

MR. SNOW: Again, you're assuming more than I'm willing to assume.

Q Prolonging tours? They may have to prolong tours? You just prolonged
tours -- your Pentagon just prolonged the tours to 15 months. Are you
saying that if they do this short-term bill it may be even longer than 15
months?

MR. SNOW: I'm just saying -- you have to ask yourself what the unintended
consequences are of cutting off funding and making it impossible to do
things that are expensive, but planned -- like moving people in and out.
I'm just saying that is one of the possible outcomes.

Q So a possible outcome is tours longer than 15 months?

MR. SNOW: I don't know, Martha. You have to talk about particular units.

Q It was Petraeus, himself, who set the September deadline.

MR. SNOW: Let me warn against this --

Q Isn't that a benchmark to stop the killing?

MR. SNOW: What he's saying is he is going to give a report in September.
Please avoid the idea that Iraq is like Oz, and one day it's going to be
black and white and the next day you're going to wake up and it's color.
It's a war. And it is something where progress is something that our people
are devoted and dedicated to achieving, but it is not something that
appears with a snap of a finger.

On the other hand, you also have to ask yourself: What are the costs to
national security, what are the costs to the region, what are the costs to
the world of failing to complete the job? The Baker-Hamilton commission was
very clear on this, and analysts in both parties have been very clear on
this. So the question is how do you put together an effective strategy so
that you can have a successful democracy in Iraq.

General Petraeus is going to be reviewing the stages of the Baghdad
security plan and he's going to report back to Congress. It is not a
deadline. It is, in fact, what you would expect in a time of war, which is
to try to get full information so that people can make informed judgments
about how to proceed.

Q When does the President want to end this war?

MR. SNOW: Yesterday.

Q Can I follow on that? There's an article today saying that members of
Congress -- a Washington Post article saying members of Congress, both
Democrats and at least some Republicans, are looking at September or
October as a time frame where they feel they should see some of these
benchmarks being approached or reached, should see progress; otherwise they
may reconsider how their funding the war, may attach these strings. Is that
reasonable?

MR. SNOW: I'm not going to say it's reasonable, I'm not going to say it's
unreasonable. You're asking me to respond to people expressing opinions who
are permitted to do it. What we've always said is, let's see what happens.
Shouldn't we be trying to analyze the evidence and see what happens? And I
think at this juncture, the Baghdad security plan is still -- it's not in
its early stages, but it's in its middle stages. And it's important to
allow General Petraeus and also the commanders on the ground to continue to
do what they think -- not only the commanders, but the Iraqis. The Iraqis
are playing -- part of this is to have the Iraqis play an increasingly
visible and important and assertive role in taking care of their own
security. So let's see how these things do play out between now and the
fall.

Q But would Congress be justified in --

MR. SNOW: Look, I'm not going to play should have, would have, could have,
but, of course, they're going to look at it.

Q Do you still view this as a long war, Tony? The war in Iraq is a long
war, given you have an insurgency, sectarian strife, al Qaeda presence? Do
you view it as a long war -- is that Dave Petraeus's mission?

MR. SNOW: Dave Petraeus's mission is to build the kind of capability so
that the Iraqis can assume responsibility for their security. I don't think
there's any doubt, Martha, that even with the Iraqi government in place,
fully responsible for these things, there will be continued attempts to
destabilize. All you have to do, again, is look at the statements of
Zawahiri and others -- they want Iraq. They want Iraq for theirs. They want
to do whatever they can to shake it up. And meanwhile, the Iraqi people are
standing up against it. They are -- innocent civilians are being blasted to
smithereens. So there is considerably going to be conflict. And I'm not
going to get out the crystal ball, but it is certainly a war in which our
walking away is not going to turn Osama bin Laden into a flower child.

Q Where is he?

Q Is there anything you can tell us about the talks, any progress, or --
Roger's question --

MR. SNOW: No, we just -- we continue to do it. Again, I'm not going to --
we're proceeding in a spirit of trying to get stuff done.

Jim.

Q Tony, on the World Bank, you have a report ruling that -- out of a Bank
committee that Wolfowitz broke the rules barring conflicts of interest. You
have board members, at least privately, expressing questions about his
credibility in running the Bank. When did -- what does the President think
about Wolfowitz's ability to continue effectively running the Bank as these
questions remain?

MR. SNOW: Well, Hank Paulson, the Treasury Secretary, is our governor on
the World Bank board, and he's the one who is dealing primarily with these
issues. The President has expressed his support for Paul Wolfowitz. But if
you want to get into the nuts and bolts of those kinds of conversations,
you need to talk to Treasury.

Q Just to follow up on that, does there come a point when the
administration has to say that Wolfowitz's credibility is in question --
hampering his ability to do the job?

MR. SNOW: Again, I refer you to Treasury on that, but that's kind of a
hypothetical debating point question that does not lend itself --

Q That sounds like distancing.

MR. SNOW: No, I've said exactly the same thing all week, I've used exactly
the same formulation: The President supports him.

Q Does the administration still have the same confidence it had two weeks
ago?

MR. SNOW: Yes, it still has confidence.

Q I guess the question is with those allegations coming out of this report,
how can the President continue to support Wolfowitz? And are you aware of
any efforts to forge a compromise, perhaps the Europeans bringing something
to the table?

MR. SNOW: Again, talk to Treasury. They're the ones who are fronting this.

Q Tony, on immigration, there is a concern on --

MR. SNOW: I was going to you, but -- apparently the first row thinks the
third row doesn't count. Let me proceed. Go ahead.

Q Apparently, there's concern on the part of some on the Hill that the
President's immigration reform proposal reflects a change in immigration
philosophy in the United States from a more family-based immigration
philosophy to a more skill and merit-based. Apparently, there was a hearing
today and Kennedy was saying it would be a huge mistake to make this
change. And --

MR. SNOW: The change is what?

Q Well, apparently, when it comes to, say, legal immigrants would lose the
right to petition to bring adult children and siblings to the U.S., limit
-- their ability to talk to parents would be limited, temporary workers
couldn't bring family members at all. Can you elaborate on that? Is it a
change in philosophy?

MR. SNOW: No, what the President has been trying to do is to pull together
immigration reform that once again pulls -- that unites a number of very
important strands and traditions in the United States of America. One is
respect for the rule of law. Number two is openness for people who want to
be American citizens, and make the American Dream open to those who want to
work hard and play by the rules.

Number three is to deal with the thorny situation of 11 to 12 million
people who came here illegally -- how do you deal with their status in a
reasonable way? How do you also create a temporary worker program that does
not, in fact, create an inducement for moving here illegally, but creates
an orderly flow back and forth, and still holds open to those who would be
temporary workers the possibility, should they want to go through the
regular system, of eventually becoming citizens?

So there are a whole series of concerns. We're aware of Senator Kennedy's
concerns and that has been a topic of conversation and negotiation. We've
been working with him and we'll continue working with members of both
parties because the President is deeply committed. I'm not going to get in,
once again, to sort of dealing with issues that are still under
conversation.

In a bill like this you're going to have to look for ground that's going to
be able to attract enough votes to pass and, at the same time, achieve your
major goals and objectives. And the President is committed to that, and
Senator Kennedy knows it, and they've had some very good conversations.

Q If I could follow on Keith's question. I know you don't view September as
a deadline. But given some of the comments from Republicans talking about
looking for a Plan B if there's not progress then, given that the fiscal
year is over and there will be some funding decisions, how do you not look
at that as an important moment for a time when support could go in one
direction or the other?

MR. SNOW: Well, the question there is -- you need to ask that to members of
Congress, too, because at that point you begin to look very carefully at
the issue of if you leave, how do you make America safer? How does that
make America one tiny bit safer? How does that avoid creating a vacuum in
Iraq that could kill hundreds of thousands, if not more? How would that
kind of a situation not unleash economic chaos that would affect the United
States, Asia, Europe, most of the world? How would you do that in a way
that would not allow Ayman al Zawahiri, who was gloating about such a
possibility in the most recently released tape, to proclaim victory and use
that as a way of recruiting new terrorists?

So people who also take a look at these questions at such a time will have
to ask, what are the consequences of the action; what is our strategic goal
in Iraq? And the strategic goal is to build a democracy that not only
become an ally in a war on terror but becomes, by example, a complete
rebuttal to the ideology of hatred that's been spread by Zawahiri, bin
Laden and others. Those are serious questions that members of Congress will
have to face, as well.

Of course they're going to be looking at what's going on on the ground, and
they should. They also ought to be willing to take a look and say -- and
acknowledge progress when they see it. This is going to be a time when
members have to be very serious and sober about their judgments. I mean,
that's how the system works.

Q We do have a moment of full appropriations decisions. I mean, couldn't
some of the funding decisions be pretty critical, in terms of which way the
war goes at that point?

MR. SNOW: Of course, of course. I don't expect the Iraq debate to go away.
The Iraq debate is, I'm sure, going to continue to be vigorous and heated,
especially as we move toward the presidential primaries. But again, a lot
of times -- facts are funny things, and sometimes they can support your
position and turn around, and either good news or bad news, depending on
how you view it, can force you to adjust your view of things.

Q You're moving the bar.

MR. SNOW: No, I'm not moving the bar at all.

Q It doesn't sound like there's any way, over the next two or three months,
whatever happens in Iraq with the surge, that the administration's position
is going to be adjusted at all.

MR. SNOW: Well, you mean, leave?

Q No, I'm not saying leave, but --

MR. SNOW: The administration say --

Q I think the American people have been sort of expecting, based on what
was laid out, that you'd have this summer, you'd get to, say, the fall,
you'll have these reports from Petraeus, there would be some evidence
collected, and then maybe the administration will be making adjustments.
But it doesn't sound like, from what you're describing today, that there's
any way you're going to see any real major --

MR. SNOW: Define adjustment.

Q How about you define adjustment?

MR. SNOW: You asked the question. I'm trying to figure out what the
question is.

Q So what can happen, what information can you get in the next couple of
months that would make significant changes in course in Iraq?

MR. SNOW: Well, no, I think you -- again, don't expect Oz, expect a war.
And you look for incremental changes that are indicators. Now, you've seen
-- perhaps you've been reading the stories about Anbar; maybe not. That's a
significant change in a province -- and also what's gone on in Diyala.
You've seen stories about Baghdad neighborhoods; that's significant. It's
not determinative, it is not conclusive, but furthermore, if you begin to
see --

Q I'm seeing an incredibly deadly week of American soldiers -- of military
dead.

MR. SNOW: What you're saying is --

Q My point is this -- my point is if you are seeing these things happen,
for instance, over the course of this weekend, and the administration,
every time they're asked about it, says, it's going to take a couple of
months, don't make any judgments -- I'm just asking, at what point is it
fair to make a judgment?

MR. SNOW: Well, Jim, but --

Q You're saying September is not --

MR. SNOW: Notice what you did. You referred to body counts. What you've
said is, anytime al Qaeda can blow up a truck, they win. And the President
--

Q But, Tony, notice what you did. You never have to answer the question as
to what's significant --

MR. SNOW: Now I will continue to do my analysis. What you totally avoided
was the analysis of real changes on the ground, including more effective
activities against al Qaeda, including the demobilization in some cases of
the Mahdi Army, or certainly a reduction in there. You have ignored -- you
have refused to talk about the changes in the metrics on sectarian
violence. So what you're saying is, if you can get al Qaeda to blow up a
concrete truck nothing has changed, even if you have peaceful
neighborhoods, even if you have jobs, even if PRTs are setting up
operations, even if the sheikhs are cooperating in Anbar, there's no
change, when, in fact, there are a whole series of changes, but the one
thing you're looking at is the concrete truck.

Q What I'm asking is, is what is a reasonable period of time for the
American public to expect for there to be enough evidence, enough reporting
back so that the administration may say, you know what, this surge that was
announced in January is either, A, working, or B, not working?

MR. SNOW: Well, I think what you've -- we've already given you some
measures of progress. Again, it's -- I think what you're looking for is a
snap, boom, it just changes. It doesn't change in a time of war. What
happens is you not only have shifting conditions on the ground, but people
in Iraq are making judgments. And partly they're making judgments on how we
respond.

For instance, if you're a tribal sheikh and making the decision, do I take
the leap and support the Americans, I think they're bailing out, or not? On
the other hand, if I think that they've got a mission here they've
committed to, yes. So there are a whole series of different things that
play into this.

But we've offered metrics. I mean, we have offered things that allow you a
basis of judgment. And the American people will have to take a look at it.
What I would encourage you to do, though, is not only look at the bad guys
when they commit acts of terror, but look at what's going on with the
military operations. Go and take a look at the kind of metrics that you got
yesterday -- or I guess on Saturday, from Bill Caldwell, when he talked
about discovery of IED caches -- actually EFP caches -- the apprehension of
terrorists. Take a look at what's going on on the ground; take a look at
what goes on in neighborhoods -- because if you want to measure progress,
you've got to report it. And in fact, the data are out there, but if all
we're going to talk about is EFPs, then you're allowing bin Laden to govern
the terms of this debate, as opposed to --

Q Where is he?

MR. SNOW: -- wish I knew -- as opposed to taking a fuller look at what U.S.
forces are going to do. And I think it's one of the reasons why it's useful
for General Petraeus to give that kind of a comprehensive report.

Q We're now at the point where we can have an incredibly bloody weekend in
terms of troop count, and you can say, you know what, that's really not the
most effective, accurate thing to point to.

MR. SNOW: Well, apparently, success doesn't work for you. So I don't know
--

Q That's not what I'm saying at all.

MR. SNOW: It is, it is -- I mean, of course -- look --

Q Tony, I think we're looking for metrics. You're saying, Jim or whoever,
is not looking at the good news. And I think we're all looking in part at
the good news, but we're looking at other metrics, as well.

MR. SNOW: Well, of course.

Q And if you're going to say now, look, we have all this success, then what
are you going to say different in September?

MR. SNOW: Well, again, let's take a look at what happens. Let me give you a
couple of things --

Q -- the metric that you're telling us we've done this, we found caches --
I mean, they've found a bazillion caches, they've found all kinds of people
--

MR. SNOW: Two days ago you and I were talking and you acknowledged
significant changes in Anbar province. You said, that was before the surge,
but you acknowledged that there was progress, and that is part --

Q And I'll acknowledge now. But there are greater metrics, and if you're
going to stand there and say there's good news/there's good news.

MR. SNOW: Are you certain that the targeted al Qaeda attacks are a change
in the greater metric? Or do you have underlying realities that indicate
greater confidence on the part of the Iraqi people to step forward? For
instance, you had the Prime Minister today, in response to yesterday's
bombings in Ramadi, saying, we are going to step forward and we are going
to compensate the victims. Now, that may not seem like a big thing to us,
but you understand the politics of Iraq. Reaching out to a Sunni population
after such a thing is an important act of political reconciliation.

I'm saying, look, what we're doing now is we are talking at such a level of
abstraction that it's almost as impossible to give a good answer as it is
to ask a good question. We're going to have to figure out -- we will have
specific things to talk about, in terms of political accomplishments and
neighborhood safety and job creation and all those kinds of things. Those
are the kind of metrics that people are going to have look at. And they're
going to have to ask the converse question: Do you leave because it's
tough, or do you stay precisely because it gets tougher if you go away?
Those are the kinds of balances you have to make.

Q Can I try to get at the essence of the question, which really is, is the
President's commitment open-ended, or is there some point at which there is
not enough progress that he would withdraw militarily?

MR. SNOW: Again, I want you -- the way you look at the question -- what
you're saying is: What's it going to take for you guys to leave? I think
that's the real question here: What's it going to take for you to leave? Is
that correct?

Q No, the question is -- let's simplify it completely and say: Is the
President's military commitment to this fight open-ended, or not? Yes or
no?

MR. SNOW: No, of course not. But on the other --

Q We're talking about the surge, Tony, specifically by the September date,
the surge, not --

MR. SNOW: You'll have a report in September, and then we're going to be
able to assess it. Do you not want to know -- because at that point we -- I
think we're -- we believe that the last brigades will be getting in and
probably be fully operational within a month or so. That now gives you an
opportunity to see them in action working with the Iraqis, and it does give
you a reasonable time to be able to assess what's going on.

Q Other topics?

MR. SNOW: I don't know, this is so much fun.

Q If the consequences are so bad -- if withdrawing, the consequences are so
bad, why isn't the President's commitment open-ended?

MR. SNOW: Well, again, it's one of these things where ultimately the
President's commitment is to building capability on the part of the Iraqis.
What you're assuming is that the United States is the only partner here.
It's not. The people who are dying in greater numbers are the Iraqis. The
people who are signing up in greater numbers are the Iraqis. The people who
are submitting a greater percentage of their gross domestic product are the
Iraqis. These guys are putting their lives on the line. They need to know
that we support them, and they do.

Q Do you have any update on the arrests in New Jersey, and has an order
gone out for stepped-up security at military bases here?

MR. SNOW: Well, number one, I know nothing about military security and
probably wouldn't be at liberty to tell you. Secondly, as I said earlier,
the U.S. Attorney will be having -- Chris Christie will be having a 2:30
p.m. scheduled press conference. It's probably the best time to try to get
data on that. We've given you all we know.

Q Does the administration have a position on certain states that are trying
to divest themselves from governments that engage in terrorism, such as --

MR. SNOW: I'm not aware -- again, we believe in federalism, and the states
can do what they think are necessary.

Q Tony, thank you. I have two questions, based on the belief that the
President would like to support any reasonable procedure that would reduce
federal spending and the national debt. First, on Sunday, The New York Post
noted that since the bulk of public broadcasting income is not from its
viewers but from the federal budget. My question: Does the President
believe the Post was wrong or right to contend to get government out of the
broadcasting business once and for all?

MR. SNOW: I don't believe that's an issue before the President right now.

Q That's part of the budget.

MR. SNOW: I know, but I'm not sure -- perhaps there is a move afoot of
which I'm unaware.

Q Okay. The Post also noted, back when there were only three broadcast
networks and a few UHF channels, PBS arguably presented a valuable
alternative; not so in today's 1,000-channel communications universe. And
my question: Why does the President believe there should be any government
subsidies to PBS?

MR. SNOW: Well, again, Les, that is -- it's a charming question. It is,
again, I don't think --

Q I thank you for your appreciation --

MR. SNOW: Yes, but it's -- (laughter.)

Q Forgive me if you've already answered this question, but the Iranian
government is supposed to take a two-month vacation. Is there any progress
--

MR. SNOW: You're talking about the Iraqi government. There's conversation
about it -- as I've said, let them work it out. I know they're having
conversations.

Q Isn't it critical that they are --

MR. SNOW: As I said, legislative processes work on. We're talking about --
we're now discussing a date that is still seven-plus weeks out. When we get
closer, we'll deal with it.

Q Thank you.

END 1:28 P.M. EDT
===========================================================================
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070508-2.html

 * Origin: (1:3634/12)