Text 4596, 718 rader
Skriven 2007-05-15 23:31:08 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (0705153) for Tue, 2007 May 15
====================================================

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

For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary May 15, 2007

Press Briefing by Tony Snow White House Conference Center Briefing Room

˙ /news/releases/2007/05/20070515-3.wm.v.html ˙˙Press Briefings
˙˙Audio


1:05 P.M. EDT

MR. SNOW: Good afternoon. Before we start -- been a lot of debate about the
supplemental on Capitol Hill and we've talked about some of the funding
dislocations that have been taking place. Let me just have a couple of note
here.

First, tomorrow is going to mark the 100th day since the President asked
Congress to provide funding for the troops. Because Congress has not sent
an acceptable supplemental bill, the Department of Defense today is going
to notify Congress of its intent to transfer an additional $1.4 billion
from Navy and Air Force personnel accounts to fund ongoing Army operations
in the war on terror.

The funding is going to last about a week. It is the fifth one -- fifth
such transfer that has been necessitated because of the lack of
supplemental funding: two have been necessary for Army operations; one is
to procure mine-resistant ambush protection vehicles -- those are the
V-shaped hulls; one to bolster the Iraqi security forces; and one to
counter improvised explosive devices.

In addition, the Army has moved funding originally allocated to fourth
quarter expenses into the third quarter; the Army operations and
maintenance account, which is the principal account covering day to day
operations, no longer has any funding available for the fourth quarter.
Moving money around like this, as we've said before, creates uncertainty
and inefficiency, and it ultimately costs taxpayers more money in the long
run by wreaking havoc on existing funds and forcing, in some cases, people
to make inefficient decisions in the long run about how to finance ongoing
operations.

Questions.

Q Does this problem make the President any more inclined to work with the
Democrats in Congress, or negotiate with them on the terms that they're
seeking?

MR. SNOW: Well, again, if you're talking about deadlines for withdrawal,
no. The President has made it very clear here that he is not doing
"deadlines-for-withdrawal," he is not going to do something that is going
to tie the troops' hands. Democrats know what the base conditions are. And,
furthermore, the President has been working with Democrats in Congress.

Terry, it is pretty obvious that in some cases members in Congress have
known -- Democrats have known that what they're proposing isn't going to be
passed, but they wanted to get it out there. Perhaps they are trying to do
it for domestic political consumption. While they're doing that, the
Pentagon has the real business of financing ongoing operations. It has
required five transfers now in existing accounts simply to maintain ongoing
operations or procurement against such things as EFPs or IEDs -- the things
that are saving -- new technologies that can save the lives of people who
are in harm's way.

So I would caution against saying the President is not willing. As a matter
of fact, we have been talking about this from the very beginning and doing
outreach to the Hill and continue to. The President is optimistic that the
end result is going to be something that still meets those benchmarks of
funding and flexibility.

Q Tony, the President --

MR. SNOW: Stay on the same topic?

Q Yes.

MR. SNOW: Okay, go ahead.

Q To sum up, your description of Congress and some of the actions being
taken -- would it be fair to say that congressional Democrats are being
irresponsible on this?

MR. SNOW: I will let you play politics with it. I'm telling you what the
description is. Let me also note something that does not seem to be open to
analytical dispute, the idea of precipitate withdrawal -- it was described
in the Baker-Hamilton report, the National Intelligence Estimate. The idea
of simply saying at some early date we are simply going to get out -- that
has been described as a policy that would have devastating consequences,
creating a vacuum within Iraq, making it very difficult for the government
to survive; also creating the possibility of a safe haven for al Qaeda
within Iraq, creating opportunities for the terror network, and in
addition, creating aftershocks in the war on terror that would make our
lives less secure from a personal safety standpoint, economically. It would
also weaken the United States diplomatically around the world.

In that part of the world, people who are going to help us are going to ask
themselves, do we really want to stick with them if we cannot count on
them. As General Petraeus and others have said, this debate, the very
debate itself, has an impact on the way people are thinking, including in
the Iraqi government. They want to know whether we are going to be there to
pursue victory in Iraq. The President is determined to send the message,
and to send it the proper way, by having full and flexible funding for the
forces.

Q Senator Levin is proposing language that would allow the President to
waive the troop withdrawal requirements. Now, Josh Bolten has been up there
looking for common ground. Why isn't that common ground?

MR. SNOW: Well, again, I'm not going to get into -- what I'm just telling
you is, when you have a deadline for withdrawal, that's unacceptable. And
it's unacceptable for reasons that have been laid out in the National
Intelligence Estimate, Baker-Hamilton, and any number of other reports,
including those who have been put together by Democrats in the national
security community.

But Josh Bolten, I am not getting into any discussions behind the scenes,
because we're not going to negotiate it from here. One of the things that
has happened --

Q But --

MR. SNOW: No, Steve, one of the things that has happened is that both sides
have been respectful of one another, in terms of not getting into the
content of particular conversations. We're going to continue to abide by
that. We simply don't think it's constructive for me to be handing out
report cards about things that may or may not be discussed in those
sessions. It's best to let Josh go ahead -- he's the President's guy --
along with Steve Hadley and Rob Portman, let those guys continue to have
their conversations on the Hill, with the aim of getting a bill that gets
our forces financed through the fiscal year.

Q What do you think you've just done?

Q To follow up on this, you're talking about -- five transfers, I think you
said?

MR. SNOW: Yes, so far.

Q What is -- what in the Pentagon apparatus, though, is suffering as a
result of this?

MR. SNOW: Very simply, if you no longer have funds available for the fourth
quarter, you no longer plan on the basis of that. If you do not have -- the
Pentagon doesn't simply sit around and come up with 58 different potential
funding schemes. If the money is not there, you can't plan around it. And
as a result, you are constrained in terms of procurement. For instance, if
you only have money to a certain date, you either have to pull old
procurement into future -- into present spending, you have to speed up
schedules, or, in some cases, you have to shutdown production -- you have
to shutdown production lines. You can't simply say, well, we think it's
going to get passed in the future. You can't cut the checks, you cannot
sign the contracts.

So it has real impact in terms of procurement, in terms also such things as
handling the disposition of troops, moving forces around -- that's
expensive business, too. If you don't have the financing to do that, it
affects the way in which you handle the flow of troops in and out of the
region. So there are any number of circumstances. Secretary Gates outlines
them in more detail in a letter he sent last week to relevant committees,
but it is significant.

Q Changing topics, Tony --

MR. SNOW: Let me exhaust this one first, Kelly. Helen.

Q You've already laid down a non-negotiable position, and you talk about,
oh, we're not going to talk about it and all this. Is nothing going on? And
do the American people have any say about this? They want to withdraw.

MR. SNOW: The American -- again, if you take a look -- for instance, if you
want to live and die by the polls, Helen, 60 percent of the American public
say, let's go ahead and fund them.

Q Okay. They also say, let's get out.

MR. SNOW: Well, they do want to get out, but they also want to get out
under circumstances of victory.

Q Well, is the President listening to them?

MR. SNOW: Of course. And the President also -- you've got to keep in mind,
being President is a listening exercise and a leading exercise. And as a
leader, not only as a Commander-in-Chief --

Q Does he think they should abide by any of their will?

MR. SNOW: Yes, he does. But he also thinks that the will of the American
people is to be safe and secure, and that's his foremost concern.

Q What is the total of the transfers, the financial cost of all the
transfers in the last 100 days? And also, Tony, you talk about planning
beyond the fourth quarter, and you said that production could be shut down.
Could this ultimately -- if the stalemate were to continue for months down
the road --

MR. SNOW: If the stalemate continues for months, the funds are cut off.
You've got a military that's cut off, period.

Q Okay, a military that's cut off -- would that mean some of the military
may be coming back home, because they're cut off?

MR. SNOW: Darling, you don't have the money to send them home. That also
costs money. Total transfers right now $4.918 billion.

Q Four point nine --

MR. SNOW: It's not as if everybody just has frequent flier passes, say,
hey, war is over, send me back for free. That also costs money. It
literally affects everything, including the movement of forces in and out
of the theater of battle.

Q So no hypothetical --

MR. SNOW: I'm not going to get into a hypothetical, because --

Q No, but you did say that they were stuck there. There's no money to bring
them back home, and then there's no money to fight the war, so what
happens?

MR. SNOW: Well, again, that's not going to happen. You know that that's not
going to happen, I know it's not going to happen, Congress knows it's not
going to happen. They're going to get this fixed.

Q Going to the Attorney General and the U.S. prosecutors that were
dismissed. Today Mr. Gonzales said that the recommendations reflect the
views of the Deputy Attorney General, Paul McNulty. He signed off on the
names. Isn't the Attorney General effectively pushing blame to the official
who is heading out the door?

MR. SNOW: No, because he supports all the personnel actions. There's
nothing to blame.

Q Suggesting, though, that he was not a responsible party by saying he
signed off on the names, they reflect the view --

MR. SNOW: Look, what he understands is he's delegated authority for people
within the Department of Justice to make those decisions, which he
supports, and he's simply stating how it worked in terms of the assignment
of responsibilities.

Q Tony, following on that. Whenever the President has received criticism
about the terrorist surveillance program, he has said, look, top Justice
Department officials are monitoring this for abuses. Okay, very dramatic
testimony on Capitol Hill today -- James Comey, who in 2004 was the Acting
Attorney general, testified that when he raised objections to the terrorist
surveillance program, that Alberto Gonzales, as White House Counsel, and
the White House Chief of Staff, Andy Card, took this extraordinary measure
-- they went to the hospital room of John Ashcroft to try to get him to
override what Jim Comey was saying, about how this needs proper legal
footing. So wasn't that an end run by the White House to try to get John
Ashcroft to overrule James Comey?

MR. SNOW: Well, number one, you've got a representation of internal White
House deliberations, and we simply don't talk about that and are not going
to.

Q But he's testified on Capitol Hill. I mean, he --

MR. SNOW: I understand that, but --

Q All that "you have to tell the truth to the American people" -- he's
testified about this now, it's public.

MR. SNOW: Let me give you a couple of things. Also, what had always been
noted is the terrorist surveillance program was, in fact, something that
was constantly reviewed by the Department of Justice at either 45- or
90-day periods, and furthermore was reviewed by the Inspectors General at
the Department of Justice and at the National Security Agency. In addition,
there was review by the FISA Court. The terrorist surveillance program
saved lives, period.

Number two, those who had questions about the FISA Court sat down and
worked with the administration last year, and we worked out legislation
that I think has met any questions that anybody had. But the fact is,
you've got reforms, and I'm not going to talk about old conversations.

Q But you had the Acting Attorney General at the time saying, in regards to
what Inspectors General -- the acting -- chief law enforcement officer in
the country is saying in 2004, I've got problems with this, and then you've
got the Chief of Staff and the Counsel, Alberto Gonzales at the time, going
-- and according to James Comey, they were trying to take advantage of a
sick man who was in intensive care.

MR. SNOW: Trying to take advantage of a sick man -- because he had an
appendectomy, his brain didn't work?

Q Yes, "I was very upset, I was angry." He was in intensive care at GW. "I
thought I had just witnessed an effort" --

MR. SNOW: I --

Q -- let me just tell you -- "I thought I had just witnessed an effort to
take advantage of a very sick man." Okay? Did any White House officials
come and try to take advantage of you -- I mean, that's really not
applicable in terms of this.

MR. SNOW: You know what, Ed --

Q They were trying to take advantage of him, according to James Comey.

MR. SNOW: Ed, I'm just telling you, I don't know anything about the
conversations. I've also told you the relevant thing, which is, you wanted
to ask from a substantive point of view, were there protections in terms of
the terrorist surveillance program -- the answer is yes. It had multiple
layers of review, both within the Department of Justice and the National
Security Agency. Jim Comey can talk about whatever reservations he may have
had, but the fact is that there were strong protections in there. This is a
program that saved lives, that is vital for national security, and
furthermore has been reformed in a bipartisan way that is in keeping with
everybody. And you can go -- frankly, ask him. I'm not talking about --

Q Last question. The Republican, Arlen Specter, not James Comey, reacted to
this by comparing it to the Saturday night massacre during Watergate. Are
you concerned about Republicans now comparing this White House to the Nixon
White House?

MR. SNOW: What I'm concerned about is -- I'm not even going to get there.
That's too tempting and probably not responsible on my part. I think what
you really want to do is --

Q Oh, go ahead. (Laughter.)

MR. SNOW: That's my way of counting to 10. (Laughter.)

The fact is, you've got somebody who has splashy testimony on Capitol Hill.
Good for him. We're not talking about internal deliberations.

Q Let me just read one other thing that Senator Specter said today about
the Attorney General. He spoke about Mr. McNulty's resignation, and called
it "a significant step and evidence that a department really cannot
function with the continued leadership or lack of leadership of Attorney
General Gonzales." That is the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary
Committee. How can he continue with that kind of comment?

MR. SNOW: He's going to continue, he's going to continue. We have faith in
him. We disagree with Senator Specter, but we understand that he's got his
concerns. Members of Congress are free to express them.

The fact is, if you take a look at personnel throughout the administration,
we actually continue to recruit first-rate people for this administration,
and Paul McNulty served the administration well. He's decided that it's
time that he wants to move on. We thank him for his service, and we are
sure that there is going to be a new deputy attorney general who is going
to meet the same high standard. And we have full confidence in Alberto
Gonzales.

Q Tony, on Wolfowitz. ABC was reporting that -- on Wolfowitz's future --
"all options are on the table," and second, that it's an "open question"
whether he should stay. Does that reflect the White House views?

MR. SNOW: Let me explain. There are two separate things going on. Number
one, there is an inquiry right now -- I believe Mr. Wolfowitz today is
talking to the World Bank, presenting his side -- on personnel matters. And
what we've said all along is, first, we do support Paul Wolfowitz.

But the second thing is, you need to separate these into separate
inquiries, and a lot of times I think they get bundled together. He has
made it clear that he made mistakes. It is pretty clear also that there
were problems, in terms of communicating the proper ways of dealing with
personnel issues -- as you know, originally he tried to recuse himself,
then an ethics board said that he ought to get himself involved. The fact
is that he made mistake; they're not, in our view, firing offenses.

Separately, at some point in the future, there are going to be
conversations about the proper stewardship of the World Bank. And Mr.
Wolfowitz, himself, says that what you need to have is a full, fair
conversation about what is going to be best for the future of the Bank. In
that sense, they say all options are on the table. This is not to leap to
any conclusions, but to give you a statement of fact -- which is members of
the board and Mr. Wolfowitz need to sit down and figure out what is, in
fact, going to be best for this Bank to be able to serve as a venue for --
especially in the developing world -- for trying to address problems of
poverty, and to try to create the proper kinds of hope and opportunity in
the long run.

So what we're really talking about is, let us get through this original
process because, again, not a firing offense; throughout, regardless, we
have faith in Paul Wolfowitz. We do think it is appropriate for everybody
to sit down after the fact, calm down, take a look and figure out, okay,
how do you move forward.

Q Well, when this person says it's an open question whether he should stay,
that sounds a lot different than what you've been saying here or what you
said this morning.

MR. SNOW: Again, that's something that he is going to have to resolve, or
members of the Bank are going to have to resolve; we support him.

Q What does the White House think would be the best thing for the Bank? I
mean, you're aware of everything that's happened. Does the President think
it would be the best thing for the Bank --

MR. SNOW: Again, it's premature. There are going to be conversations of
this sort. Hank Paulson is in contact with other members of the board of
governors at the World Bank, and we're not going to talk about discussions
that have yet to take place.

Q Well, but the President has said -- beyond just saying that he should
have his day in court, he's also said that he supports Wolfowitz --

MR. SNOW: Right.

Q -- is that still true?

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q So then he does think he should continue.

MR. SNOW: Yes -- he supports him.

Q So then this person is not reflecting the White House view?

MR. SNOW: No -- again, there are going to be conversations about how you
move forward. And you talk about any possible options in the future about
how to maintain the integrity and the effectiveness of the World Bank.
That's what they're talking about. They're going to leave all options --
Paul Wolfowitz is somebody who thinks that that is the proper way to
proceed, as well.

Q But if they come to the conclusion that Wolfowitz should not continue,
the President would oppose that, correct?

MR. SNOW: Well, let's just find out what happens when they have those
conversations.

Q There's a report that the IAEA has concluded that Iran has solved its
technological problems and is now enriching uranium on a far larger scale
than before. Does that match what the U.S. believes it knows about the
enrichment inside Iran -- hold on -- and, two, does it have any sense of
urgency stepped up because of this report?

MR. SNOW: I'm sorry, I shouldn't laugh, but you're asking me to give you
classified intelligence, and I'm not going to do it.

Q How about the urgency question?

MR. SNOW: The fact is -- we also have not seen the IAEA report. So that's
-- we have to review -- let's be clear, the Iranian government continues to
isolate itself with rhetoric that talks about the desire to create a
nuclear program that is far more than necessary for having peaceful nuclear
energy within the country, and is something that raises the spectrum, the
fear that they're trying to develop nuclear weapons. That is unacceptable.

The P5 plus-1 have been very clear about that, not only in terms of laying
out conditions where there are going to be sanctions against the Iranians,
but also laying out a series of benefits that can be made available to the
Iranian public that are going to serve not only as a reward, but an open
welcome into the community of nations.

So, obviously, reports of this sort you're going to take a very careful
look at. What is of paramount importance is that Iran not be able to
destabilize an entire region of the world, a region that needs stability,
not additional instability. And the only way you're going to do that is to
make sure that they do not have the capacity to build nuclear weapons.

Q If this report about the IAEA report is accurate, it's clear that Iran
continues to thumb its nose at the world, at the same time, the U.S. is now
sitting down with Iranian officials in Baghdad. So even though that's just
on Iraq, isn't that kind of giving Iran a pass and --

MR. SNOW: No. As you recall a year ago, there was also a Baghdad channel
made available for dealing with Iraqi security issues, where the then
Ambassador Zal Khalilzad was also empowered to talk with the Iranian
officials on matters dealing with border security. It is not only not
unusual, but it's not unprecedented. I've just discussed something that I
think everybody in this room knows was the case last year.

Now what we're really doing is a continuation of policy that involves
several things. Number one, using diplomacy as effectively as possible. The
P5 plus-1 process is one where we're trying to use leverage -- diplomatic,
economic, and otherwise -- to get the Iranians to realize that moving down
the road toward nuclear development is something that is not good for them
and not for the region. We're serious about it.

Number two, we also make it clear that we prefer diplomacy as the approach,
hence the P5 plus-1, hence also using anything available to us to try to
make it safer for the government of Iraq, and to make it possible for them
to continue the hard business not only of fighting those within the country
who have been trying to undermine the government, but those who are coming
in from outside the country, and also those who are shipping weaponry from
out of the country to try to destabilize the government.

The Baghdad channel that the President has authorized follows into that
same sort of pattern. It does not in any way, shape or form confer upon the
Iranians full diplomatic status, and it does not give them the things that
they want, nor does it change the series of sanctions that have been
ongoing, nor does it change ongoing diplomacy to firm up international
resolve when it comes to the behavior of the Iranians.

Q But how do you sit across the table with the Iranians who are sitting
there thumbing their noses at the U.S. and trying to discuss stability,
when the question of stability surrounds the enrichment?

MR. SNOW: The same way you do it before -- you have -- again, what you're
not talking about is enrichment. There are two different kinds of talks.
One has to do specifically with what's going on in Iraq. Now, last time
around, the Iranians, in fact, declined to participate. There seems to be
some indication that they may be willing this time, but this is a
conversation not about ancillary issues. They know if they want full
diplomatic recognition how to get it. But if they, in fact, are willing to
engage in constructive conversations about making Iraq a safer, more stable
place, they can certainly have those conversations, and the President has
made available the channel.

Goyal.

Q Tony, two questions. One, tomorrow Prime Minister Tony Blair comes to the
White House, and whatever we are doing here in Washington, London or in New
Delhi, terrorists, including Osama bin Laden, are watching, including this
briefing. My question is that Prime Minister Tony Blair has been a strong
supporter of global war against terrorism. So when he leaves office this
time in the middle of his term, what message are we sending to terrorists,
as far as fighting against terrorism globally?

MR. SNOW: I think it's pretty clear, if you take a look at the resolve of
the British government, it has been firm. And I don't think it says
anything about the resolve of the British people that Tony Blair has
decided to move on. He's been -- what is it, third longest-serving Prime
Minister in British history, I believe. He's certainly one of the longest
serving. He's had an extraordinary tenure. That is something that happens
in parliamentary democracies.

But on the other hand, what will happen is that the new government will
have an opportunity to take a look, and if you think about it, Gordon
Brown, what's one of the first things he did, in thinking about this? He
came here and talked to our national security people. So Gordon Brown
understands, if in fact he becomes the next British Prime Minister, and
maybe I'm leaping to conclusions, that one of his solemn obligations also
is to be a commander-in-chief and somebody who thinks deeply and thoroughly
about the security needs of the British people.

Q On immigration. As far as the Washington Post editorial today, detailing
immigration issue (inaudible), they are saying that the Post editorial made
or break (inaudible) this time, as far as immigration is concerned
(inaudible) the U.S. on Capitol Hill. How does the President feel about
this editorial, if he has seen it, and how -- is he pushing on the Capitol
Hill, because it may not go through if it doesn't go now, we're looking at
maybe in the next --

MR. SNOW: Rather than playing the "if" game, Goyal, let me flip it around.
There continue to be conversations about immigration involving Democrats
and Republicans. There's a great deal of hard bipartisan work taking place.
The President is apprised of it constantly. It is something he is
profoundly committed to. One year ago today he went on national television
and told the nation about his comprehensive approach to immigration reform,
and that continues to be the backbone of his policy and really the template
around which negotiations are taking place.

So rather than sort of talking about prospects if things don't turn out, I
think there is a certain amount of -- what we're struck by is the
determination and goodwill on both sides to try to get comprehensive reform
done, and we're going to continue working at it.

Q Tony, on another issue, gas -- I know the President talked about gas
prices yesterday, but are there any conversations around the White House in
some of the closed doors that you've been hearing about possibly renewing
the effort to go back into some environmentally -- seeing if Congress will
allow the White House to look at some environmentally protected areas again
to possibly tap for oil?

MR. SNOW: Well, again, look, the President, on a number of occasions, has
talked about things like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and presented
it with Congress, and there's been overwhelming opposition on the
Democratic side. The question is, if you don't like alternative sources --
I'm sorry -- if you don't like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or
alternative venues, if you don't like creating new oil refineries, if
you're not sure whether you're going to support alternative fuel uses, how
are you going to provide more fuel in a more environmentally sensitive way
so that you can have economic growth and a clean environment at the same
time?

Those are the balances the President has always kept at the front and
center of his energy policy. His energy policy has always been an energy
and environmental policy. Clearly that's going to continue to be the
subject of debate. I think what's happened, April, is that the events of
the last couple of weeks, where you have disruption in some of the
refineries, highlights once again the importance of dealing with energy in
a very comprehensive way -- look for all the sources you can get, and
develop independence.

Second, develop new means and sources for the future, especially in terms
of biofuels and alternatives that are environmentally friendly. The
President has talked about nuclear power. Once again, a lot of people say,
we don't want nukes, we don't want new refineries, we don't want ANWR, we
want more energy. Okay, well, we're all ears.

Q But those are long-term. What about issues of, especially in Texas,
uncapping some of the capped oil wells, working on possibly getting some of
those --

MR. SNOW: April, decisions of those sorts are the kinds that are made by
economic reasons. When it's economically feasible to uncap oil wells, they
do it. You've seen it in the past when you've had oil spikes -- when it's
not economically feasible, they're not going to do it.

Q Has the White House received any word about Jerry Falwell, who we
understand --

MR. SNOW: No, we just -- no, we haven't. Obviously this is breaking news
and we'll follow it, too.

Q Thank you, Tony. Two questions. Last week you said you would "check into
the polygraph test of Sandy Berger." And WorldNet Daily is grateful for
your willingness, and now asks, what did you find out as the result of your
checking into the possibility of Sandy Berger actually being administered
the polygraph he agreed to take to resolve the case of his removal of
classified documents from the National Archives?

MR. SNOW: A thousand pardons, my homework is not in yet.

Q Okay. In view of the extensive media coverage, there are millions of
Americans who are wondering, how does the President, as a devout Christian
and faithful husband, believe that the Bush administration is rightfully
serving this country and providing moral guidance to our young people by
saying that it is not a firing offense for a man who boosted the salary of
his mistress to head the World Bank?

MR. SNOW: Well, I believe what we are talking about here is so-called
firing offenses in terms of personnel policies and communications. I like
the fact that you presented it in a colorful and moralistic way, but I
don't believe that those particular issues were the approximate issues
before the World Bank, or before the President, or before the board of
governors at the World Bank.

Q Can you confirm any plans for meetings in Baghdad with the Syrians along
the same lines of meetings with the Iranians?

MR. SNOW: No, I can't.

Q Back on Comey's testimony, does the White House dispute his claim?

MR. SNOW: You've got to understand what you have are characterizations of
conversations, the sort of which we simply don't talk about. So we will --

Q You've described his testimony as "flashy." I'm just trying to find out
if it's accurate, if Card and Gonzales went to the hospital.

MR. SNOW: I understand that, and again, that's not the sort of thing that
I'm at liberty to comment about it.

Q Is it accurate?

MR. SNOW: Again, you're just asking me to comment about it.

Q But aren't you trying to have it both ways? You won't comment on it, so
that you leave some doubt as to whether it's true or not --

MR. SNOW: No, I'm not leaving doubt --

Q -- this man used to be your Attorney General. He was the --

MR. SNOW: -- attacking Attorney General?

Q "Acting" Attorney General -- pardon my grammatical -- but, Tony, he was
your Attorney General. He was the President's man. He's not a Democrat, he
was your man. And he's making these charges.

MR. SNOW: Okay, then I'm going to violate our rules on confidentiality of
conversations?

Q It's already out there; it's public, he testified before the American
people today.

MR. SNOW: I understand that, but I'm still not going to -- and his
testimony can stand on its own.

Q Can I ask what the rule is on confidentiality? Because it's not really an
internal White House discussion, it's a discussion with another agency --
isn't that a little different?

MR. SNOW: Again, this is conversations talking about with the White House
counsel.

Q Tony, on North Korea, North Korea insists to have a North Korean fund
with a BDA, be transferred only through the United States banking system,
which is also subject to the (inaudible) by President Bush. What is your
comment?

MR. SNOW: I am sorry, I did not understand the question. You're talking
about the BDA money, the North Koreans want the BDA money, they do not have
it; is that correct?

Q Yes.

MR. SNOW: And they want it and therefore -- look, we think the North
Koreans need to abide by the obligations of the February 13th accord, and
we continue to believe that. Obviously, they're having some difficulty
getting a hold of the BDA money; can't really comment on that. But their
obligations are pretty clear under the accord.

Q Did this (inaudible) approval by the President of the United States?

MR. SNOW: The President of the United States doesn't have approval over
bank transfers.

Q Tony, I know you said this was breaking news -- the Associated Press now
is saying that Reverend Falwell has died. Can you comment a little bit
about what he's meant to the political process, the Republican Party, et
cetera?

MR. SNOW: No, I think at this particular point, rather than trying to do
political encomium, the first thing you do is you pray for him and you pray
for his family. If, in fact, he has died, he died suddenly, this is the
kind of thing that is going to be a shock to those who love him and were
around him. And I think the proper attitude at this juncture is to pass on
our condolences and prayers, and we'll try to do the fixing place in
history a little later.

Thanks.

END 1:36 P.M. EDT
===========================================================================
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070515-3.html

 * Origin: (1:3634/12)