Text 4802, 802 rader
Skriven 2007-06-13 23:30:58 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (0706137) for Wed, 2007 Jun 13
====================================================

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

For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary June 13, 2007

Press Briefing by Tony Snow White House Conference Center Briefing Room

˙ /news/releases/2007/06/20070613-7.wm.v.html ˙˙Press Briefings
˙˙Audio


1:09 P.M. EDT

MR. SNOW: Hello, everybody. Questions.

Q Senator Specter said he wants to negotiate with Fred Fielding about these
subpoenas. Is there any negotiating room for the White House --

MR. SNOW: We're going to review the subpoenas and we'll respond
appropriately.

Q Your usual response to even the talk of subpoenas is just to say flatly,
no. Is there any room for any other --

MR. SNOW: Again, I'm just giving you -- what I'm saying is that we'll
respond appropriately. That's what we say. One of the things that you can
say is that it does appear -- we have made available to all committees
anybody who wants to talk and we have laid out conditions. It seems that
right now there is more interest on the media circus; witness the fact that
those arriving over your BlackBerrys this morning before we had been
informed. So at this juncture, it's clear that they're trying to create
some media drama, and I'll leave it at that.

Q But, Tony, on March 14th, the President was in Mexico, he was at a press
conference and said, "I've heard those allegations about political
decision-making in this matter. It's just not true." How can that be true
when now there are emails showing that the White House Political Director
was involved in the firings? Wouldn't that suggests politics --

MR. SNOW: No, the White House Political Director -- I think if you take a
look at the White House Political Director, these most recent emails I
believe took place after the personnel action had taken place. And
furthermore, look, you can assume that when you have political appointees,
the Political Office is certainly going to have some conversations. And I
believe that the emails you're talking about involve Tim Griffin.

Q Okay. But you're saying you would assume that politics would be involved
because there's a political -- but at the beginning of this story --

MR. SNOW: No, no, no, I said the Political Office would have some knowledge
of it.

Q Okay, but at the beginning of this story, the President, you, Dan
Bartlett, others said on camera that politics was not involved, this was
performance-based.

MR. SNOW: That is something -- we have never said that. I think you'll have
to take a look at comments that have been made by the Justice Department.
What we've said is that people serve at the pleasure of the President.
That's the operative principle here.

Q The President said, I've heard those allegations about political
decision-making and it's just not true. I mean, he clearly said politics
was not involved, right?

MR. SNOW: Right.

Q So now politics was because the Political Director --

MR. SNOW: No. Just because the Political Director is weighing in on
something does not mean that this is politics involved. These are political
appointees. Also, if you took a look at the emails that have come out,
there was -- at least from the White House side, a very strong effort to
say we do not, in fact, want to be impugning the character of these people
who have served. And the principle is the same, it's the one that I've been
saying from the very beginning, Ed, which is that the President has the
authority to remove those who serve at his pleasure. And these were all
individuals who had completed their terms as U.S. attorneys.

Q You make a good point that these emails were in February, with Sarah
Taylor. Can you say from that podium categorically that the White House
Political Affairs Office was not involved back in November, October,
leading up to the December decision?

MR. SNOW: I think what we've done is we've already released all the emails
that are available, and you can draw whatever judgments --

Q From the Justice Department, but what about White House emails?

MR. SNOW: Yes, but the -- those were Justice Department emails, including
those that had come from the White House.

Q You don't think that there's any explanation owed to the American people
on whether they really performed badly, or not -- over the politics? And
what have you got against them taking an oath and having a transcript? What
is this administration -- why are you always opposed for someone swearing
to their testimony?

MR. SNOW: No, Helen, I think you take a look at a long line of precedence
that have to do with the way these -- what we have said is that we will
make available to the committees individuals who are perfectly willing to
answer any and all questions.

Q But they won't swear?

MR. SNOW: -- that would be sufficient for the purposes of the committees.

Q Well, what is the objection to swearing, swearing in on this?

MR. SNOW: Again, I'm just -- I'm not going to go beyond --

Q Because you don't have any.

Q Is the President willing to go to court to fight these subpoenas?

MR. SNOW: That is way premature.

Q Why is it way premature? He has said, I believe, in the past --

MR. SNOW: Again, the first thing that we've said --

Q -- said in the past that you would be willing.

MR. SNOW: Well, again, we'll just take a look. At this point, they are
going to be reviewing the subpoenas and responding appropriately. It's very
early. I can't characterize something that hasn't been fully vetted.

Q I've got a question on something else, unless there's another question on
this. What is the process for considering all of these letters and other
requests for pardons for Lewis Libby?

MR. SNOW: Again, there's a -- you have a pardon process that goes on within
the White House, and it's a standard process where these things are
reviewed and vetted and so on. At this juncture, I don't even know that
there is a process specific to the case of Lewis Libby. What the President
has said all along is that in this particular case, you've got to let the
legal process run its course, and it has not. He intends to appeal, and
we'll have to see what happens.

Q But there's going to be something of a turning point in the process
tomorrow as the judge may decide whether or not to send him to prison
immediately or delay. Will that affect the thinking here at all?

MR. SNOW: It's our understanding -- and I may be wrong on this -- but that,
in fact, any such rendering would not result in immediately going off to a
detention facility. In fact, there is still a process that has to be
followed with petitions and reviews that could go on for some time.

Q But does this affect the timing, Tony?

MR. SNOW: Again, I'm not going to -- you're asking me to get into areas
that I'm not going to speculate on from the podium.

Q Tony, the attack today on the mosque, what likely impact could that have
on the tensions boiling in Iraq to begin with, and what has the
administration found about who may be responsible?

MR. SNOW: Well, number one, an investigation is clearly ongoing. A couple
of things: First, the President did receive a briefing this morning. It was
a scheduled SVTS, the secure video teleconference, with General Petraeus
and Ambassador Crocker. Prime Minister Maliki -- and, by the way, we also
had a prior scheduled phone call with Prime Minister Maliki -- he, perhaps
understandably, was not available at the scheduled time. It's why I ran out
of the gaggle so quickly. But we're trying to get through to him today, as
well.

The one thing you have seen is very swift action on the part of the Iraqi
government, including the Prime Minister. You've also had key leaders such
as Ali al Sistani calling for people to realize that this really does sort
of -- at least it fits the al Qaeda profile, which is an attempt to inflame
sectarian violence by hitting a holy site. And you've seen Sunni, Shia and
other leaders throughout the country calling for folks not to engage in
sectarian violence, and, number one, obviously, think about the damage that
has been done in this particular case; and, number two, realize that the
importance in Iraq is to respect the rights of all.

So it's -- I mean, obviously, we strongly condemn what's going on. And
also, I think what happened after the original bombing of the mosque in
Samarra, I don't think the Iraqi government or the United States government
quite understood what was going to happen in terms of the sectarian
reaction. In this case, I think people are acutely aware of what the
dangers may be and, therefore, are moving swiftly to address it as rapidly
as possible so that al Qaeda cannot have the same kind of success, twisted
success it had the first time around, which was in terms of setting off
sectarian bloodshed.

Q Let me follow on that, because I think some American officials have
called this an act of desperation. And I'm wondering how this is seen as an
act of desperation. Does that mean that the terrorists are so concerned
that they're sort of being shut down, and that the surge is so effective
that they're now desperate to make a statement?

MR. SNOW: Well, I think, again -- a couple of things. It does fit a pattern
that we see throughout the region, which is that when you see things moving
towards success, or when you see signs of success, that there are acts of
violence. We saw that, certainly -- we've seen that in Lebanon, once again,
today, tragically. We also saw it earlier in Lebanon. We have seen it on a
number of occasions where, when Israel and the Palestinians seem to be
getting close to a deal, there are kidnapings and acts of violence.

What you have seen in the last couple of months -- it's well documented --
is, increasingly, Iraqis are turning against al Qaeda. And that has been
one of the sort of heartening developments. You've not only seen it in
Anbar Province, but you've seen it elsewhere.

So one of the responses one might expect for al Qaeda at a time like this
-- when the Iraqi people are turning against them as foreign fighters,
essentially invading the country and trying to commit acts of bloodshed
against innocents in order to blow the country apart -- that it would be
one of those acts of desperation once again to try to get the Iraqis to
fight one another, rather than training their sights on al Qaeda.

Q This could actually be read, then, as a sign of success for the American
--

MR. SNOW: I don't think you ever call an act of terrorism and act of
success. What you have to do is to realize that maybe al Qaeda is
understanding that it does not have the kind of freedom of motion or action
that it used to. Not only have there been the apprehensions and killing of
key members of al Qaeda within Iraq, but, again, most significantly, the
Iraqi people themselves -- tribal leaders in Anbar, insurgents and others
-- are now making it clear to al Qaeda that they look upon al Qaeda as the
enemy of peace and security in Iraq and they're going after them.

Q One last question. How is something like this -- this is such a symbolic
site, it's sort of pregnant with meaning -- what kind of possible way of
stopping attacks like this can there ever be?

MR. SNOW: Well, it's a good question, and that's one of the things that
they're going to take a look at in the investigation.

Again, I would -- you don't really know exactly the mechanics of what
happened. You have Iraqi police guarding. Clearly, they have a vested
interest in trying to learn from what happened and to defend holy sites,
Sunni places of worship and Shia holy sites within Iraq. But, again, I
don't -- that's one of those things -- the answer to that question really
does depend, Jim, in significant part upon exactly what happened, and we
can't tell you for sure what happened.

Q But you could have double the number of American troops in there and
you're still not going to stop attacks --

MR. SNOW: Well, you've got to keep in mind, there's a lot of sensitivity
about Americans being on Shia holy sites. And so the Iraqis, for
understandable reasons, have said, we want to be able to protect our sites.
So I'm not sure that that's quite the angle you want to take.

Q How high a risk do you think is there that there will be another wave of
sectarian attacks and could it be as bad as last year?

MR. SNOW: We certainly hope not. I mean, again, you can't say. The one
thing we did learn from last year is that after the February 2006 bombings
-- it didn't happen immediately, but over a period of time, it unleashed a
wave of sectarian violence that set back the progress toward a stable Iraqi
democracy. Now, we learned lessons from it; clearly, the Iraqis did, too.
And, again, I would point you to the very swift reaction on the part of the
Prime Minister and other members of the Iraqi government. So we clearly
want to do everything we can to avoid that kind of fate. I don't want to
get out a crystal ball.

Q Tony, weren't there some of the same appeals to calm last time around?
How is it different?

MR. SNOW: Yes, there were. But I think also -- there were some of the same
appeals to calm. I think what you do have is, number one, you have an Iraqi
government up and in place. That was not the case in 2006. As you recall,
the Maliki government really didn't get up and rolling until May and June
of 2006. And so you had a vacuum between that February bombing and the
establishment of the government.

Now you also have a significantly enhanced Iraqi security force, you have
an Iraqi police force in place, you not only have a Baghdad security plan,
but I think you also have a much keener understanding on the part of the
Iraqis, again, of what the dangers are. And, therefore, those who are going
to have influence among the Sunnis and those who are going to have
influence among Shia are really taking a more aggressive stand this time,
in terms of saying, let us make sure that this does not become another
occasion for Iraqis to kill Iraqis.

Q Tony, whenever you, or the President, or anyone in the administration is
asked about assessing how the surge is going, you point out not everyone is
there yet, it's going to take a while -- 30 or 60 days. Are we going to see
any softening of the September deadline for a pivotal assessment on how
this is going?

MR. SNOW: You call it a pivotal assessment -- there are going to be regular
assessments of what goes on -- what has been going on in Iraq. And I think
in September you will have the first opportunity to have a little bit of a
metric to see what happens when you have all the forces in place for the
Baghdad security plan. I mean, that I think -- if you want a definitive
judgment, I've warned from the very beginning about expecting some sort of
magical thing to happen in September.

This is a war, and it is the sort of thing where you want to make sure that
the measures that you are taking are producing results. And I think at that
juncture you're going to be able to have a little more granularity, as they
say.

I mean, what we have seen in recent weeks, again, are increasing cases in
which Iraqis are taking the lead in security operations, and also in which
Iraqi citizens are becoming much more actively involved in supporting Iraqi
forces and coalition forces when it comes to taking on acts of violence. I
mean, you had three last week. You had the interception of a female suicide
vest attack; you had four truck bombs in Qadima, which were designed to
unleash a huge amount of violence -- that was interdicted; and finally, in
Mosul, there were two truck bombs that were intercepted on the way to a
target -- it cost a number of Iraqi police forces their lives. But the fact
is you do see some of these things taking place. But nobody has any
delusions about the difficulty of moving forward.

Q What is a realistic time frame for sometime, either thumbs up or thumbs
down on whether this is worth it anymore?

MR. SNOW: The cause of Iraqi democracy is worth it.

Q Tony, back on the Gonzales controversy. When do you say when? It seems to
continue to snowball. Many are saying Alberto Gonzales is more of a
liability now --

MR. SNOW: Whoa, whoa, wait, wait --

Q Wait a minute, no, no, no --

MR. SNOW: -- who is saying it?

Q Please let me finish my question.

MR. SNOW: Okay.

Q Then you also have people who were questioning why not transparency after
this snowball that continues to grow bigger and bigger, transparency under
oath. When will this administration move forward in that direction? Can
this administration allow this controversy to continue --

MR. SNOW: It strikes me that that's a highly slanted way to present what's
going on -- number one, that he's more a liability than an asset. No. The
President does not regard him as a liability. What does happen is that in
the political class, what's happening? They're trying to -- they're going
after Alberto Gonzales. Have they found anything? No. What, in fact, has
gone on is that the Attorney General and the Justice Department have made
extraordinary gestures toward precisely the transparency you asked -- all
the emails have been made public. You get to see the emails, they get to
see the emails. They have offered to make available for questioning anybody
who wants to be there. They are under an obligation to tell the truth.

The fact is all of those gestures have been made. The question you have to
ask yourself is, why won't members of the Senate simply take yes for an
answer? They have the opportunity to be able to ask all the questions and
have access to the documents. This seems to us to be one of these things in
which, if you have -- if you really are trying to get the facts, you'll
accept access to all the key players and all the key documents. If, in
fact, you're looking for something else, such as a media circus, you're
going to adopt a different approach.

Q But transparency under oath would quell the media circus --

MR. SNOW: No, the fact is that anybody who goes and testifies before
Congress has an obligation to tell the truth. That's the law.

Q Tony, two questions. One, when President was at G8 and I understand he
had an interaction with the Prime Minister of India. Do you think there was
any kind of breakthrough in the civil nuclear -- between the two countries
during their --

MR. SNOW: Goyal, I don't know the answer to that question, but the fact is
when you have interactions of that sort, we also tend not to give you
comprehensive readouts. Again, let me just reiterate, we think that a civil
nuclear agreement is of vital importance. We look upon India as an
important, and an increasingly important ally in this and in a number of
other areas. And we want to see it successfully concluded.

Q Tony, can we go back to Ken's question for a second? Because it sounds
like you're laying the groundwork for September to be recharacterized. I
mean, it's been my impression that it is a critical moment of measure. The
President seemed to accept such a reading in the last time he did a news
conference. Are you saying now, not so much on September?

MR. SNOW: No -- if you go back and look at my comments, I've always warned
against looking upon this as some great moment. I think the term I used
was, like the Wizard of Oz where you go from black and white into color.
This, instead, is -- in a time of war, things happen gradually. What you
are looking for are firm metrics about what is going on. And it is naive to
think, suddenly, boom, you snap a finger and you've got an instant change
in the situation.

On the other hand, it is going to be fair to ask, what has the Baghdad
security plan accomplished? What has it done in terms of security within
Baghdad? How has it affected al Qaeda? And furthermore, what is going on in
some of the other areas which are going to be critical -- political
progress, economic progress, and all those things? Because while we tend to
talk a lot about the military component, it is far more comprehensive than
that.

So what I would suggest is, rather than it's sort of a pivotal moment, it
is the first opportunity to be able to take a look at what happens when
you've got it up and running fully for a period of months, probably a
couple of months, and people then can draw judgments about how best to
proceed.

Q Tony, the President -- Jim is right -- that in the interview with Reuters
a couple of weeks ago, the President, I believe, used the phrase, "critical
moment," for September. Now you're saying it's not a pivotal moment. I
mean, you don't seem on the same page with the President on that. Is it
critical, or not?

MR. SNOW: No, the characterizations -- I'm just -- I think he's talking
about a critical moment because it allows people again to take a look at
what's happened with the security plan. You know, we have a lot of people
saying, the plan hasn't worked. It's not even fully implemented. So I think
we're parsing a little bit here. What I'm saying is if you are looking for
a report that says, okay, the job is all done, we're complete, you're not
going to find that in September. What you are going to find is: Attach
preferred adjective here. You're going to have an opportunity to take a
look at the metrics of what has happened in terms of not only what's gone
on with U.S. forces, but also Iraqi forces, Iraqi police, provisional
reconstruction teams, political progress, economic progress, all of those
things. And that's an absolutely legitimate thing for everybody to look
for.

Q Would you attach an adjective here?

MR. SNOW: No, I'm trying to stay out of the adjectival business.

Q Tony, again, I mean, the President said not just in the Reuters
interview, but in others, that in September we will find out whether it's
working. He's been very blunt --

MR. SNOW: Well, again, you'll be able to see what's going on at that
juncture.

Q -- saying we'll be able to take a look and see -- see what's happening.
He has said we'll know whether it's working in September.

MR. SNOW: Okay, but what I'm -- okay --

Q Is that what you think --

MR. SNOW: No, I think my concern is that the expectations that seem to be
raised is that suddenly in September there -- there may be an expectation
the report says, okay, all the problems are solved. No. But what will
happen in September is that we will have an opportunity to assess what's
going on. Yes, we will have an opportunity to see whether it is working,
whether it is working. That does not mean that we'll have completed all the
work, it will not be completely successful at that juncture -- is working
where you have it in the motion of a present imperfect I think is fine. So
--

Q If I could follow on --

Q Thank you, Professor Snow. (Laughter.)

Q -- the moment, though, for judging -- I understand this is being -- it's
not going to be over then, but is it the right time to judge whether the
new way forward is working?

MR. SNOW: Again, let's see -- we'll have to take a look. I just --

Q But that sounds like backpedaling.

MR. SNOW: No, it's not backpedaling. It's just -- it seems to me to be such
a vast metaphysical question --

Q -- but there is -- wait a minute --

Q But the President has answered that question. The President has --

Q -- hang on. In this town there is --

MR. SNOW: I am hanging. (Laughter.)

Q Not so much you as everybody else. No matter what side of this issue
you're on in this town, it has become a commonly accepted premise that in
September there will be -- everyone is asking, when are we going to know,
when are we going to know -- well, everyone has been talking about
September. It sounds like you are suggesting something entirely different
right now.

MR. SNOW: No, what I'm saying is in September you'll have an opportunity to
have metrics. I think what we have been saying is you'll have an
opportunity at that juncture to be able to do a sensible analysis of what
happens when you've got all the forces in place for the Baghdad security
plan.

Now, what's going to happen is that some people are going to try to make
the argument, if the job is not done and if they haven't perfected it and
if they haven't achieved all the -- then it's a failure. I want to guard
against that, because I do think that there's an attempt --

Q Guard against, or inoculate --

MR. SNOW: No, I don't think it -- no, because -- this is not inoculation;
it is humanly impossible to solve all this before September. All right?

Q But that's never been the --

MR. SNOW: Well, no, but I think what happens is -- no, I do think --

Q -- in that time.

MR. SNOW: No, I do think sometimes in the political framework -- please,
one at a time, and let me continue to talk. I worry that sometimes that
people are trying to over-hype this so that they're going to try to say, it
all has to be resolved. So let me just try to say, no, we are not backing
away from anything; yes, you will have an opportunity to see whether it is
working, and we will have an opportunity also to judge how things are --
how various programs are succeeding, in terms of the economic piece, the
military piece and so on.

Q But, Tony, more importantly, if it isn't working, it's a time to
reevaluate the current strategy.

MR. SNOW: What happens every day, Bret, as you know, because you've covered
the Pentagon, is that you reevaluate the strategy constantly. And as we
have always said, you try to respond to facts on the ground. For instance,
there may be deployment decisions that people would have made on a charge
several months ago where you're going to move forces around in a different
way within Baghdad, or you're going to deploy to Diyala, or whatever the
case may be.

So in point of fact, you are always adjusting, with the ultimate aim of
trying to succeed. And I think rather than my trying to make
characterizations about not merely what General Petraeus, but also
Ambassador Crocker are going to report, let's just see what they have. And,
obviously, we're going to have interim assessments and we're going to try
to make data available to people so that they can get a fuller sense of
what's going on.

Q Do you think that your perception of September and Capitol Hill's
perception of September jive?

MR. SNOW: I don't know. We'll see. I mean, I think what Capitol Hill wants
to see are signs of progress, and that's what we want to see, too.

Q This idea that you're always adjusting was language that you used a year
ago, and then you rolled out a plan in January for a wholesale change. At
what point -- isn't September the time when we're supposed to understand
maybe not that it's worked, but that this wholesale change is a strategy to
go with, or possibly an alternative --

MR. SNOW: Yes, I think that's safe -- I think that's safe to say, sure.

Q Going back to the U.S. attorneys. If the Democrats give in on the oath,
are you willing to give in on the transcripts? For example, a transcript
could be in the interest of everybody. We all know that if you actually
have a transcript, everybody is on the same page, everybody is going --

MR. SNOW: Again, I'm not going to negotiate against ourselves. The point we
made originally is, there is going to be pretty clear accounting of what
anybody would say behind closed doors, because it is not as if you would
simply have one questioner and one questionee. You would have the person
being questioned surrounded by a phalanx of committee members and staffers,
all of whom would be capable of putting together what we think would be an
accurate record of what went on. But I'm not going to get into negotiating
against ourselves on --

Q But if they're putting together an accurate record of what went on, then
why not have a record-keeper actually put together a record of what went
on?

MR. SNOW: It's a wonderful question, and again, I'm not going to negotiate
with ourselves.

Q Tony, clarify this, because I'm a little confused. I understand this
administration said and the President said, September we'll have a report
card about the surge.

MR. SNOW: Right.

Q Okay, all right. Now, in answer to Ken's question, you said September
will be the first opportunity of a metric -- first meeting, in my mind, a
series --

MR. SNOW: Well, of course. Not only do we hope that this is succeeding, but
-- it is not as if you say, well, okay, final judgment on this. The fact is
what we are hoping is that you will have signs of progress that will allow
us benchmarks as we continue in support of the Iraqi democracy. Do not
think of this as a moment where you pull the plug on the Iraqi security
plan -- the Baghdad security plan.

Q I'm not saying pull the plug -- this was supposed to be some grandiose
moment where the surge activity would -- that's what we've been told until
this point.

MR. SNOW: Like I said, we have tried -- I have tried -- I'm glad you used
that term, because that will explain why I've been very careful about how
we try to characterize this --

Q -- but you can understand why everyone is asking the question.

MR. SNOW: -- because we don't think there are grandiose moments in this.
There are attempts to have sober reflections on what's going on.

Q But, Tony, by its definition, a surge is supposed to be relatively
short-term, right, not on and on and on? If you just have like a mini
report card and September and say, we need another six months, maybe
another six months, it's no longer a surge, right?

MR. SNOW: Well, if you take a look at what Baker-Hamilton had talked -- a
surge is not sort of in and out. What you do is you bring forces to bear
and you try to finish the job.

Q But then doesn't it become an escalation, as the Democrats said at the
beginning of the surge? They said, if you don't put in --

MR. SNOW: Oh, my goodness.

Q Why are you rolling your eyes? Hold on a second. At the beginning, a
surge -- the idea was a temporary increase to stabilize things. Now you're
talking about --

MR. SNOW: No, Ed, what you're saying is -- what we're talking about is,
yes, it will be a temporary increase, but on the other hand, when we get to
September, those forces will have been -- all those forces together will
have been in theater less than three months. So you need to --

Q Some of them have been there since February --

MR. SNOW: Yes, but the point is --

Q -- after the President announced in January.

MR. SNOW: Yes, and it --

Q So not three months. Some of them have actually been there.

MR. SNOW: Yes, but I -- I know. But I'm saying, you talk about the surge.
The surge is not an overnight thing. As you just pointed out, it takes more
than four months to get forces in theater. It takes another couple of
months to get them fully integrated in theater. And therefore, what we're
saying is, now that you've got all the forces in place, really by -- some
of these, the forces will not be fully integrated until July or August. So
what you're going to get is a preliminary look where you are going to be
able to have some metrics about how it works when you've got all the pieces
in place.

Q Just a little inside baseball here. The President talked today about Dan
Bartlett's -- his role in this administration. There's been a lot of
reporting on his influence and access with this President. How big is this
shakeup, for somebody who is outside Washington --

MR. SNOW: It's not -- first, it's not a shakeup. I mean, Dan is a guy who
has decided to move on. Dan Bartlett has one of the most extraordinary
relationships with a politician I've ever seen. He is probably the most
selfless aide I've ever encountered, because he gives the -- he and the
President have a close, personal kind of relationship, I think probably
unlike any aide and any President in quite a long time. And Dan also is
somebody who cares enough about this President to be honest, sometimes
ruthlessly so, but always in a way that's respectful. And he has decided --
he's got three young kids, he's got bills to pay, and having served the
President for 14 years, he needs to move on. But I think he is somebody who
is irreplaceable in that sense.

I think what I would suggest that you take a look at bringing in somebody
of the quality of Ed Gillespie, it gives you a sign that this White House
continues to attract first-rate talent who are willing to support this
President. Now, Ed is obviously not going to have the same kind of tight,
personal relationship with the President, although he's going to have full
access and they are friendly, but that kind of a personal relationship is
not something you can duplicate. On the other hand, Ed also brings enormous
talents and experience to bear, and he's going to make a terrific addition
to the White House.

Q Is part of the job Ed might have is to shore up conservatives who have
lost confidence in this administration?

MR. SNOW: No, but I think it is clear that one of the things we're doing is
reaching out to conservatives and making it clear that we're all on the
same team.

Q On the subpoenas -- how long after a White House official leaves the
White House are they covered by executive --

MR. SNOW: I have no idea. That's a question that you'll float to legal
counsel, but I'm not an attorney.

Q How soon can Congress expect a response on this?

MR. SNOW: Well, first thing we've got to do is take a look at it. So we'll
see. It will be --

Q Does the White House call the shots at this point with Harriet Miers --

MR. SNOW: Again, that's a legal question that -- I think what happens is --
well, I don't know. Get back to us, we'll get you in touch with lawyers. I
don't want to try to pretend to be a junior lawyer, because I'll mess it
up.

Les, and then Peter.

Q Yes, thank you, Tony. Two questions. The Los Angeles Times and The
Washington Post both report that Dr. James Holsinger, the President's
nominee for Surgeon General, has been denounced by homosexual activists, as
well as by presidential candidates Edwards and Clinton, because in 1991,
Dr. Holsinger wrote that sex between people of the same sex, especially
men, could lead to many sexual -- serious health problems. And given the
medical accuracy of the doctor's statement, what is the President's
reaction to such attacks on this physician who is his nominee?

MR. SNOW: You know what? I haven't asked him about that, so I don't know.

Q Wait a minute. The National Organization of Parents and Friends of
Ex-Gays and Gays has issued a statement that the denunciations of Dr.
Holsinger are bigoted. The President, in supporting him, would not disagree
with this, would he?

MR. SNOW: Again, I'm not going to speculate on that, Les.

Q As you know, Secretary Leavitt is going to hold court on this report. Can
I ask you a question on one facet of it?

MR. SNOW: Yes, if I can answer it.

Q All right, thanks. It's called a report on issues raised by the Virginia
Tech tragedy, but one issue that is not covered that has been raised is the
issue of changes in gun laws. Why didn't they take that up at all in --
there's a lot of calls for communications and training and better
information sharing.

MR. SNOW: Well, actually, there is discussion in there of gun laws, and
specifically trying to do background checks.

Q Right, but that's --

MR. SNOW: So what you're asking is, should this -- why did they not
consider gun control?

Q Yes.

MR. SNOW: Because that really wasn't within the purview of what they
decided that they were going to look at. I mean, it's pretty clear the list
of things that they're going to take a look at, which is to examine the
system, figure out where there were flaws that, in fact, could have
prevented this from taking place, and therefore -- for instance, in terms
of information, you had some people really inhibited in such a way that you
couldn't pass on information that might be relevant and could have saved
some lives.

So I think what they were doing is taking a look at the laws as they now
stand and where, in fact, there may have been misunderstandings or
unnecessary barriers to try and make this situation better. Some of those
other issues, for instance, gun control, that tends to be an issue for
Virginia, and I know that the Governor of Virginia has got his own separate
inquiry.

Q What would the President accept regarding immigration reform? And does he
think he will get an immigration bill this year?

MR. SNOW: Sarah, can I just please beg one and all to stop asking us how
we're going to negotiate things? I mean, it's -- the idea of somehow I'm
going to negotiate from the podium, I'm not going to do it. We certainly
hope and expect that we'll get immigration reform this year. We think it's
an important issue, we think it's an important problem, we think we've come
up with a serious solution to that problem. We look forward to input not
only from senators, but eventually from members of the House. But
certainly, I am not going to sit up here and bargain about it.

Q Tony, just a clarification on the bombing in Iraq today. The military
spokesman in Baghdad is on the record as saying this was an inside job by
the Iraqi police and the Iraqi army. You were saying, if I understand you
correctly, that you're not sure about that. So which is --

MR. SNOW: No, what I'm saying is, you've got to let the investigation be
completed. I'm not trying to cast dispersions on them. The fact is, when we
came in here, we had not received a full accounting, and people are taking
a look at it. If it's an inside job, then obviously, you attack it in a
certain way and you try to figure out what's going on. I think what I said
is, you try to ascertain the facts on the ground and respond appropriately,
and that remains the case.

Q Tony, a question on Iran. As far as Iran is concerned, one, they have not
given up their nuclear program, and two, they are not only supporting
terrorism in Iraq, but also now there's a report Iran is supporting
terrorism in Afghanistan. So where do you think President is stands now?
What steps he can take now because it's not going to go --

MR. SNOW: Well, first, one thing we have said is that it is unacceptable
for Iran to continue supporting terror, whether it be in Iraq, or recent
reports, and Secretary Gates confirmed it not so long ago, a lot of Iranian
weaponry making its way into Afghanistan.

We also believe that the best way to proceed is through diplomatic means.
That was a topic of conversation at some length with our partners at the G8
summit. And we continue to try to find ways to put pressure on the
government of Iran so that it not only suspends its progress, or what we
think is progress toward a nuclear program, but also plays a constructive
role within the region.

Q Tony, is the watch the President displayed today the same watch from
Albania?

MR. SNOW: Yes, it is -- actually, it is. (Laughter.) It is -- yes, he --
thank you for saying that. He pointed it out to us in the Oval today. That
is, in fact, the watch that he was wearing in Albania.

END 1:44 P.M. EDT
===========================================================================
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/06/20070613-7.html

 * Origin: (1:3634/12)