Text 3628, 913 rader
Skriven 2006-11-13 23:31:08 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (0611134) for Mon, 2006 Nov 13
====================================================

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

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
November 13, 2006

Press Briefing by Tony Snow
White House Conference Center Briefing Room



1:10 P.M. EST

MR. SNOW: Good afternoon. Questions. Tom.

Q Tony, South Korea turned us down, turned down a request that they do more
to help intercept ships that are headed for North Korea with possible arms
on them, or nuclear supplies. What's our reaction to that?

MR. SNOW: Well, I don't think we have a -- the reaction is we are working
with all parties in the six-party talks. The real impetus in this case
ought to be on North Korea to go ahead and abide by the will of the
international community. There has been some expression of willingness to
return to the six-party talks. If, in fact, they abide by its provisions,
this will be a moot article.

Q Is South Korea doing enough?

MR. SNOW: I'm not going to sit here and second-guess the South Koreans.
They're valued allies and they have been stepping up -- as you have
probably noticed, they have taken some steps that they've never taken
before with regard to North Korea and, obviously, they're serious partners
in the six-party talks.

Q Tony, I guess sometime last month we were talking about what might be on
the table as far as solutions in Iraq, and you had ruled out a phased
withdrawal and a partition. I was wondering, A, if either of those came up
this morning? And, B, are they still off the table as a possibility?

MR. SNOW: Number one, I can't tell you any further what went on, other than
what the President has said. But this was not a time -- this was not
proposal shopping by the Iraq Study Group. They're going to have their
proposals; we don't know what they are. It was a conversation, a general
conversation about the situation there. They asked the President questions,
he asked them questions. But there was care taken not to sort of try to
prejudge or also to get a jump on what they're going to do.

As far as phased withdrawal, the President has always said, look, this is
dependent upon the conditions on the ground. And that remains our position.
The President believes that as Commander-in-Chief it is his obligation to
make sure that our forces get the job done so that people don't die in
vain, have not died in vain. And, furthermore, that we have the ability,
when this is all over, to be able to say to moderate Arab states, we have
been here, we have defended your interests; to say to the Iraqi people, we
have kept the faith with you; and to say to terrorists, you failed.

Q So when Carl Levin says "four to six months," I'd like to see troops
start coming home?

MR. SNOW: I think what you need to do is to ask Democratic leaders who are
now grappling with the fact that they're going to have real
responsibilities. The New York Times said over the weekend, its slogans.
Now what you have to do is to have firm proposals for dealing with what's
going on. Senator Levin and others have made comments, but at this point, I
don't think anything has gotten to the proposal stage. We are happy to take
a look at anything that will achieve the goal that we've talked about,
which is an Iraq that can defend itself, sustain itself and govern itself,
to be an ally in the war on terror.

It is also our view that, on the military -- from the military front, all
those decisions ought to be made based on the conditions on the ground.

Q Next question for you. I saw a Newsweek cover story -- you see it all
over the place -- that somehow all these veterans of Bush 41 are coming in
and rescuing Bush 43.

MR. SNOW: As a veteran of Bush 41, I don't think that's the proper way to
look at this. I mean, look, I know that it's one of these things where
people think that the President -- let me just -- rather than trying even
to get into characterizing it, no.

Q Has he directly or indirectly -- President Bush 41 --

Q What's "no"? What do you mean, "no"?

MR. SNOW: No, this is not a -- this is not bringing in people willy-nilly
from the President's administration "to save him." Wrong.

Q And has the President -- 41 -- either directly or indirectly offered his
advice to his son that perhaps people like Eagleburger or Secretary Baker
or anybody else be involved and should be listened to?

MR. SNOW: I have absolutely no idea. But keep in mind, you just mentioned
Secretary Baker and Secretary Eagleburger -- they are part of a
congressionally-appointed committee.

Q Gates -- Dr. Gates?

MR. SNOW: The President picked Bob Gates because he figured that he would
be an effective Secretary of Defense, a sentiment that's been echoed by
people at the Pentagon and in both parties on Capitol Hill. He picked a guy
that he thought would be able to do the job.

Q Tony, when you talk about different strategies in Iraq, and listening to
the Iraq Study Group, would you change your goal? And I know the goal is to
win, or victory -- but can you see yourself changing the definition of what
victory might be?

MR. SNOW: No.

Q Can you talk again about the timetable then? And would the timetable idea
achieve your definition of victory?

MR. SNOW: Well, again, let's -- we're in an area of high speculation here
where you've had various people floating things without putting anything on
paper, or for that matter, giving us any details about what they're talking
about.

The President made it clear today in his comments after meeting with Prime
Minister Olmert that any decisions made on troop levels, and any decisions
made are going to be based on the conditions on the ground. He also
mentioned that General Pace, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, is also
conducting a thorough-going study to take a look at all options for
achieving our objectives. But the objectives are the same -- an Iraq that
can sustain, govern and defend itself and be an ally in the war on terror.

Q But back to the four to six months that Senator Levin --

MR. SNOW: Well, let's just wait --

Q But these are ideas that aren't just being floated. These are ideas that
they seem to feel pretty strongly about.

MR. SNOW: Well, let's wait until the new session. If somebody has a
concrete proposal -- I tell you, there seems to be this notion that somehow
this is like a board game, where you just sort of neatly sweep all the
pieces off, and then it's all done. And in point of fact, this is a highly
complex situation. It is the central front in the war on terror, and you do
have to win. You not only -- you have to win for reasons that have to do
with our national security, that have to do with the stability of the
region, and that have to do with the overall -- sending the overall message
to terrorists: you lose.

So the President understands the stakes, globally. And there are global
stakes for the outcome in Iraq. And, again, we are eager for any kind of
constructive input. But the ultimate goal still has to be an Iraq that can
sustain, govern and defend itself. And when conditions permit, that's when
you start talking about troop withdrawals.

Q One final one. You talk about -- the President has said, we're winning in
Iraq. You have laid out a strategy for victory. He has said no to
timetables. Why would you now think the strategy for victory would change?
What's changed besides the midterms?

MR. SNOW: I'm not sure that we've said that that would -- you've said that
we would change. We would say that, as we have been all along, we're
interested in ideas. And I've been making that point. The President made it
-- the point two weeks ago at a press conference. The fact is, constantly
you sit around and you try to figure out what's the situation on the
ground, how do you adjust to changing situations. But the goal hasn't
changed.

Q But you still think your strategy for victory is working?

MR. SNOW: The strategy for victory is working, but the strategy for victory
also, as the President said and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, we're not --
it's not getting better fast enough. And so you need to find ways,
militarily and otherwise, to try to improve the situation.

David.

Q I just want to try to clarify this point. Are you saying that the
President is, as we sit here today, opposed to the idea of a phased troop
withdrawal that has behind it the intention of pressuring the Iraqi
government on the idea that U.S. troops are not there for good? For or
against that proposition?

MR. SNOW: Well, why don't we wait until somebody actually proposes it,
other than a couple of sentences --

Q Well, actually, it's more than a couple of sentences. I mean, the
campaign is over --

MR. SNOW: No, it's -- the campaign, that's right, the campaign -- well, the
campaign is over. But Democrats now have to put meat on the bones. And so
all I'm saying, David, is that if there is a proposal that would succeed in
laying out the proper ways of an Iraq that can sustain, govern, and defend
itself -- but the President has also said, and I'll reiterate --

Q -- this is not a new idea.

MR. SNOW: It's an idea that still doesn't have any detail in it. It isn't
fleshed out. It is not something that allows you to have any metric by
which somebody does this. And, furthermore, David, there are more than --
there are a whole series of Democratic proposals. I think before you start
getting into the position of trying to get me to respond, you probably need
to get the Democrats, those doing the speaking, to fix on what they think
the proper counterproposal, if there is one.

Our view is let's figure out how to work together on this. But I'm just not
going to get into the position of going in and responding to things that,
again -- if you can show me --

Q Tony, wait a second. You're casting this off as slogans, quoting The New
York Times. There's a serious idea on the table. It's not just Carl
Levin's, it is others within the Democratic Party. It is a serious idea.
It's one that presumably the Iraq Study Group is studying, and that is the
notion of a phased withdrawal with some benchmarks. Is the President
opposed to that, or supportive of that?

MR. SNOW: Like I said, as I said -- what are the benchmarks?

Q I'm asking you a question --

MR. SNOW: No, no, no, I just made the point that what you have is something
that's nonspecific. So what are the benchmarks? If you -- see, this is why
I'm not going to answer the question as you framed it.

Q I'm asking you a direct question, which is --

MR. SNOW: No, I'm giving you a direct -- let me do it and then you can come
back at me, okay?

Q No, Tony, because you're interrupting the thought. You're asking me
questions. I'm asking a direct question: There is an idea on the table that
is not willy-nilly, that is not opaque, it is specific. It is the idea of
phased troop withdrawal that Republicans and Democrats have referred to,
that has behind it the notion of pressuring the Iraqi government. Yes,
there are details to be worked out, but it is still a proposition that is a
serious -- oh, you can laugh. I mean, I don't know how many people in the
public think that's a funny idea. The point is this is a serious point, and
you either have a position, or you don't. Is the position of the President
that he has no position on it?

MR. SNOW: No, the position is -- as I think I succeeded in making the point
when I asked you what the benchmarks were and you said you didn't know. You
give me a proposal that's got something to react to. If the conditions on
the ground do not merit withdrawal, the answer is, no.

Furthermore, the Iraqis have plenty of incentive. The idea that somehow you
have added incentive -- these are people who are dying in large numbers.
They understand what the incentives are. And they are the ones going out
and risking their lives to vote, and they are the ones who are committing
blood and treasure to this. They are the ones who have spent every day and
night worrying about it because their very existence depends upon it,
David.

So as far as trying to get me to, again, respond to something that is an
idea -- but it's a caricature of a plan because it doesn't have any meat
and bones on it. When somebody comes back and has benchmarks and that sort
of thing, then we'll be happy to talk.

Q Can I just follow on one separate area, Tony?

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q We hear a lot about the fact that the President believes we're not
succeeding quickly enough. He has replaced the Defense Secretary, he is now
awaiting not only ideas from Democrats, but from an Iraq Study Group, he's
chosen a new Defense Secretary from this group. Is this not an
acknowledgment -- and some straight talk here -- that the policy in Iraq is
broken?

MR. SNOW: No, it's an acknowledgment that you've got a tough situation.
What you've just -- what's interesting is that you tried to insinuate that
Bob Gates was brought in by virtue of his membership in the Iraq Study
Group, which isn't true. Furthermore, as we have -- furthermore --

Q But it is true that he was part of it.

MR. SNOW: He was part of it.

Q That's all I said. So I wasn't insinuating anything.

MR. SNOW: Well, it was -- go back and read the question. It seems to --

Q There are facts on the table I think anybody could look at and make some
judgments --

MR. SNOW: The facts -- the facts are on the table --

Q -- and all we hear is that we're not succeeding quickly enough. The
question is, the American people spoke on this point about the war. Isn't,
in fact, the policy broken? Is that not the concession?

MR. SNOW: You know what's interesting -- no. I think what it is -- no. What
it is a concession of is, the war is hard. The war is very hard. And that
the people who spend morning, noon, and night thinking about this,
constantly do what they can to adjust and to get it right. The policy is to
create an Iraq where the Iraqis have the ability to sustain, govern, and
defend themselves so that they can stand up, so that they will have a
democracy that can stand on its own two legs, can defend itself, will have
the support of its public, will have an economy that offers opportunity,
will have security, will have the ability to demonstrate to terrorists once
and for all that despite all their best shots, it just wasn't going to
work.

Q You concede that we didn't go into Iraq for those reasons, don't you? And
do you think the election had anything to do with us wanting to get out?

MR. SNOW: You know, it's interesting, Helen, if -- there are some polls
that I've seen referred to, but I haven't seen today. I think -- well, let
me back up. If you ask Americans, do you want to win, my guess is, the
answer is going to be yes.

Q No, it isn't the point.

MR. SNOW: No, it is the point.

Q We went in for weapons --

MR. SNOW: No, you just asked -- you just asked if we want to get out. The
answer is yes, we want to get out when we win. That's when we want to get
out.

Q When we win -- but what do we win? I mean, you're going to have to --

MR. SNOW: What we win -- well, I'll tell you --

Q And how much slaughter? Every day we have slaughter.

MR. SNOW: Are you trying to place us in a morally equivalent position to
the al Qaeda terrorists who deliberately are --

Q That's not an argument.

MR. SNOW: Sure it is. No --

Q I'm not saying --

MR. SNOW: No, you're accusing -- are you accusing the Americans of
slaughter? Who are you accusing of slaughter?

Q I'm not accusing -- the best defense is offense. We understand your
tactic here.

MR. SNOW: No, I'm just asking the question because you talked about
slaughter, and it gave the impression that we're engaged in slaughter.

Q Well, how many people are dying every day?

MR. SNOW: It depends on what the -- does it not depend on -- well, let me
put it this way, Helen, when people are dying because of car bombs it
illustrates the difficulty of the situation and the nature of the people we
are fighting.

Q But isn't our presence the cause of that?

MR. SNOW: No, no. As the President has pointed out many times, this stuff
began long before September 11th. And, furthermore, it had been practiced
throughout the Middle East long before September 11th. But these tactics --

Q In Iran?

MR. SNOW: And furthermore -- no, in Iraq. That's right. They're trying --
in Iraq you had a situation where you had a dictator who was contributing
to the terror network, and who in the process was murdering hundreds of
thousands of his own people.

Q But the President said there was no tie-in with the terrorists.

MR. SNOW: No, he said there was no tie-in with September 11th. There's a
difference.

Q When the President mentioned that Syria needs to get out of Lebanon, is
that a pre-condition for the U.S. to have talks with them?

MR. SNOW: The United States -- I don't know how many times we have to
explain, but we do have diplomatic negotiations with Syria. But we also say
to the Syrians, you have real obligations, you need to respect the Siniora
government. At this point, I don't believe Syria even has an embassy there.

Q We have diplomatic relations, but not ongoing conversations about Iraq.

MR. SNOW: Well, again, the Syrians -- look, the Syrians know what we think,
and we're trying to make it clear to them what they need to do.

Q Tony, could you take us inside the President's meeting with the Iraq
Study Group? Exactly who --

MR. SNOW: No, actually, I can't.

Q No, exactly who was in the room -- okay, who was in the room? Were all 10
members of the Iraq Study Group present? Did Hamilton, did Baker do most of
the questioning? How long did it last?

MR. SNOW: Okay, first, let me step back. You guys keep treating this like a
deposition. It's not. You had the President, the Chief of Staff, the
National Security Advisor, and the Vice President in the room with the
entire Iraq Study Group. And they -- the only readout I've gotten -- and
for understandable reasons, neither side is telling us a whole lot -- is
that they both asked questions, and they had a conversation, and it was a
good discussion. And that's all you're going to get because it's all I've
got.

Q How long did it last?

MR. SNOW: About an hour and fifteen minutes was the scheduled time. I think
they held pretty much to schedule.

Q And you said "good discussion." Is that all you can give us as far as the
level of satisfaction on both sides?

MR. SNOW: That's literally all I can -- unfortunately, I can give you no
more.

Q This morning in the spirit of what I thought was going to be in the
spirit of bipartisanship, the White House put out a one sheet essentially
saying that negotiations with the drug companies was not going to yield any
real results. Even if you got a half of 1 percent, that would be a lot of
money for the American taxpayers. Why would the White House put out
something like that?

MR. SNOW: No, I think, Ellen, what's going on is that there has been this
notion that if you set up one-to-one negotiations with drug companies,
somehow it would be more effective than market competition. As you may
recall when the Medicare prescription drug benefit was first passed, there
were attempts on the other side of the aisle to create a drug benefit
premium of something north of $30 per month. It's now down to $24. The
point we're making is that competition has been incredibly effective in
dropping prices far below what people had expected in the first place, and
it continues to be the most effective. If you create market discipline, and
also market incentives, you're going to find the price going down.

What you may be interested in knowing is that the price is now down 35
percent below what was originally projected. That's even better than a half
percent.

Q Thank you. The new Congress doesn't seem to put a high priority on
immigration reform. Does the President intend to do anything to get an
immigration bill passed early next year?

MR. SNOW: Well, two points, Sarah. I think it's -- one should not prejudge
the incoming Congress. At this point, we've been having lots of
conversations. And I say the same thing, which is give people a chance to
make proposals.

Now, the President wants comprehensive immigration reform, and he certainly
wants to work with both Houses and both parties in doing it. But the
election was last Tuesday night. They haven't even had leadership elections
for either House or either party, let alone an opportunity for people to
set down legislative strategies and priorities for the next congressional
session. So I would hesitate to -- I think it's unfair to the incoming
Congress to try to do prejudgments based on that.

Did you have a second one, or was that --

Q According to the President and the incoming Speaker of the House, the
name of the game is bipartisanship. Is the President willing to jeopardize
by using a device to keep John Bolton at the U.N.?

MR. SNOW: You know, I think it works both ways. Again, John Bolton has been
incredibly successful as the U.N. Ambassador. Bipartisanship works in two
directions, and it might be worthwhile also for Democrats who previously
had expressed opposition to Mr. Bolton to take a look at his record, and to
take a look at the things he's accomplished, because he's been
extraordinarily accomplished.

George Voinovich, you may recall, at first opposed him, and now supports
him. I think John Bolton's -- who cares what I think. The President thinks
that John Bolton's record is certainly one that amply demonstrates his
fitness for the job, and it's very important to keep him there, and we
continue to support it. That need not be something that opposes
bipartisanship. As a matter of fact, it might provide an opportunity for
both sides to do a little reaching.

Sheryl.

Q Tony, back on Iraq, a couple of questions. First, in an interview
yesterday, Carl Levin said, "The point of this is to signal to the Iraqis
that the open-ended commitment is over, and that they are going to have to
solve their own problems." Does the President believe that the United
States needs to send a signal to the Iraqi government that the open-ended
commitment is over?

MR. SNOW: No, because we've never had an open-ended commitment.

Q Our commitment now is not open-ended?

MR. SNOW: No, our commitment is to get to the point where we achieve
victory.

Q But if the conditions on the ground never change, then it is an
open-ended commitment.

MR. SNOW: Well, that's an awfully dire prediction. Perhaps you -- well, no,
but that's -- I'm just telling you. As far as the Iraqis, we constantly --
we've been working with Iraqis on security, we've been working with them on
political reform, we've been working with them on economic reform. The fact
is, the Iraqis know the importance of it. We've seen Prime Minister Maliki
-- it's as if Prime Minister Maliki's statements in the last few weeks have
gone completely unnoticed.

Here is a man who has been talking about the importance of Iraqis assuming
a much greater role in the security of their country. He has gone -- he has
talked about going after militias; he has talked about going after
sectarian violence; he's talked about creating a nimbler and more able
force not only in the military, but on the police side; he's talked about
reconciliation and he's done a number of important steps on that front;
they had a meeting a couple of weeks ago where he laid out positions on
economic promise. And the fact is that the Iraqis are engaged in this and
they want to make sure that America's commitment comes to an end because
it's their country. They want the opportunity to assert full responsibility
for security, for economics, for politics. And they've been taking steps to
do that and we'll continue the encourage them.

Q So what you're saying is the President has made clear to them that we
don't have an open-ended commitment?

MR. SNOW: The President has never said we did. Never.

Q Let me just follow up a little bit on that. The Democrats have gotten a
lot of air time with their proposal for a phased redeployment. To what
extent has the President or members of the administration been talking with
Republicans over these past few days, to talk about what they want to do,
how they'll react to that resolution, which Democrats are saying they're
going to --

MR. SNOW: Well, again, as far as I know, there has not been much in the way
of conversation about that with Republicans, but I'll find out. I'm not
aware of any. Secondly, let's wait and see what gets proposed. Here we are,
five days out, six days out from an election; we don't have any legislation
drafted up -- going back to the conversation with David -- we don't have
benchmarks. Let's find out what gets proposed before we start trying to
figure out what people's reactions are going to be.

You know, there is still a lot of time, as Democrats begin to make their
own sober assessments of what's required for success and victory in Iraq
and they poll their own members, to find common ground where we work
together toward the goals that we have mentioned many times here. Again, I
think an Iraq that can sustain, govern, and defend itself, an Iraq that
will be an ally in the war on terror, and an Iraq whose free existence as a
democracy will serve as the ultimate refutation of the terrorists' goals,
aspirations, and methods of al Qaeda and others I think is something that
both parties share and we now have to figure out the best way to proceed.

Q Can I ask about tomorrow's automakers meeting? Does the President have
anything in particular he wants to tell --

MR. SNOW: As I said the other day, he's certainly going to express his
support for the American auto industry. And it's important that the auto
industry has, in fact, been looking at innovative ways of coming up -- you
know, hybrids and others -- it's important to have innovation. And he is
also going to listen to their concerns.

Jim.

Q Tony, is there going to be more readout we can get from this morning's
meeting with Olmert? I think you were in the meeting --

MR. SNOW: No, actually, I wasn't. Once again I'm going to disappoint
because it was just the two of them. They kicked us all out of the room and
they had the meeting and they gave their own readout. So you had two heads
of state who clearly trust one another, who clearly value each other's
counsel, and they met together. Now, I know there was a working luncheon
afterward that finished just a couple of minutes ago, but I did not attend
that.

Q Because their comments afterward were very heavy on Iran. Do you know how
much was spoken about in terms of the Palestinian situation --

MR. SNOW: Again, I can only refer to what they said. They were in the
meeting, and I was not.

Goyal.

Q Two quick questions, thank you. One, macaca, or alleged racist remarks by
Senator George Allen in Virginia still talk of the town around the country
because that brought the victory for Democrats in the U.S. Senate. What do
you think now President think about those remarks that brought him down --

MR. SNOW: The President has never commented on it, and you get a long
Senate race, you can point to many things. But the fact is Jim Webb has
been elected senator and we wish him luck.

Q Second, quickly, as far as (inaudible) is concerned, you know, New Delhi
is the only capital on the Earth which is a capital and also a state. Now,
the talk of the town in Washington --

MR. SNOW: Well, actually, Vatican City, I believe, is a capital and a
state.

Q Now, Washington, D.C., you think, because that was also a dream of Martin
Luther King -- today we had a ceremony for his memorial -- that D.C. should
also get equal rights and all that? Do you think President will sign the --

MR. SNOW: There's no legislation yet. We'll get to it when it comes.

Q Tony, many of these proposals that are being put forward, both by
Republicans and Democrats with regard to Iraq, includes the notion of the
President calling for a regional conference, including all the countries in
the region -- Syria and Iran -- in order to discuss the nature of the
security, architecture, whatever, proposed in the region. Your position on
this and the administration officials has been that we're already talking
with Syria, and Iran, I think as you put it, already knows what they have
to do. But calling such a conference and bringing them to the table would
be similar to what they've done on the six-party talks with North Korea --
we don't really talk too much -- nevertheless involved in the process
because they are a party in the region.

Would the position on Syria and Iran preclude the possibility of the
President calling for such a conference if, for instance, the Baker group
or the --

MR. SNOW: Let me first say that the President will not make judgments
because the Baker group says something. He'll do things because he thinks
that they are in the nation's best strategic and global interests. And I
will let him make any announcements about how he intends to proceed.

Paula.

Q Last week the President said he directed Secretary Paulson to look into
entitlement solutions. So I wondered, since he did mention tax reform, does
that mean entitlement (inaudible) --

MR. SNOW: Well, first, we've got two pieces on taxes. Obviously we would
like it -- I don't know if it trumps; both are important. But the President
also has made the point that you've got to deal with entitlements. And he
was perfectly happy to do it, because he understands that politically it
has been a lightning rod over the years. And if it means that he can use
these last two years in office as a way of addressing the long-term
structural problems in Social Security and Medicare, then he'd be happy to
do it, because it would be a long-term service, not only to the United
States, but to whomever becomes the next President to the United States
because they won't have to deal with it.

He has also made clear, first -- as a first priority, let's extend the tax
cuts, many of which are destined to expire in the year 2010 or earlier.
Let's go ahead and extend those tax cuts. Obviously, he would like a
simpler tax system, but you've got to set your priorities.

Q May I ask a follow up?

MR. SNOW: Please.

Q The President has sought Secretary Paulson's counsel on this issue. But
as you know, Secretary Paulson is -- also has a very strong environmental
record. So will the President also seek his counsel on the economic impact
of climate change, particularly in light of (inaudible)?

MR. SNOW: Well, first, rather than getting into assessing the Stern Report,
the President has made dealing with climate change a priority for this
administration -- we'll continue to. He's perfectly happy to listen to Hank
Paulson and others on environmental matters.

Q But he's not discussing the Stern Report at all or --

MR. SNOW: He is not, but CEQ members are.

Q Thank you, Tony. In the primary election in Connecticut, the Democratic
Party, as you know, repudiated Senator Lieberman who went on to be the
winner as an independent. And the Democratic Party did not even have a
nominee for the U.S. Senate in Vermont. Yet, they are claiming these two
winners helped them constitute a majority in the Senate. And my question,
doesn't the -- doesn't the President believe this Democrat's claim
everybody theory should and could be tested in court?

MR. SNOW: Lester, as you know, when it comes to the organization of
Congress, people get to decide with whom they will caucus. And the
indications are that Bernard Sanders and Joe Lieberman would caucus with
Democrats. This is not something subject to court order, it is their
personal choice.

Q Yes, but they were not Democrats. They did not win as Democrats, did
they? How can the Democrats claim that they've got a majority if two of
them were not elected as Democrats?

Q You're a very funny man.

Q Is that Geneva Convention? (Laughter.)

MR. SNOW: No, that's April's. April carries that. I just -- I don't see
anything here that has to do with party composition and the proper
selection.

Q Is that Mao's Little Red Book? (Laughter.)

MR. SNOW: Oh, watch it. This is the Constitution -- with a flag on it. That
was --

Q One follow up. The New York Post quoted the Democrats' potential House
Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel as having claimed that "the Vice
President is both nuts" and a phrase indicating male offspring of a female
canine. (Laughter.) Will the President have no reaction if this kind of
insulting of his Vice President continues on Ways and Means?

You don't want to -- it's so horrifying what he said that you don't want to
respond?

MR. SNOW: No, the story is so old I was trying to remember what I'd said
about it originally. It's about a week and a half old, Les.

Q No, no, no, that was another insult that Rangel --

MR. SNOW: No, these -- in any event, no, I'm not going to comment, but
thank you.

Q So there's been a lot of talk about a conflict of interest between the
President and Democrats getting some votes in Congress. How much concern is
there at the White House that Republicans in Congress may have very little
interest in getting stuff done because it may not, at least politically,
benefit them to have successes --

MR. SNOW: I don't think so. I think -- look, Republicans have obviously an
interest in working with the President on a whole series of issues. There
are going to be issues on which some Republicans and some Democrats are
going to disagree. But on the other hand, I do think that there are
powerful motives for the Democrats to demonstrate that they can govern in a
constructive manner. And certainly, as the leader of the Republican Party,
the President also is going to be working with Republicans to get action on
those items.

Q I understand he'll be working with them, but what's their incentive to
work with him?

MR. SNOW: I don't think you gain a lot, especially on the Republican side
when you've got a President in power, by not working to get things
accomplished.

Q On the automakers' meeting tomorrow, you talked about a discussion about
the interest of American automakers. How do you define American automakers
these days? Is it just the big three?

MR. SNOW: That's a very good question. We will have the big three, but as
you know, Daimler also has a big role in Chrysler.

Q But beyond that you have Japanese-based companies who, frankly, are the
growth part of the industry here. They have tens of thousands of jobs in
the United States. They've made tens of thousands of vehicles here, largely
in the South. Are they now the American auto industry?

MR. SNOW: I believe when we're talking about American auto companies, we're
talking about those that are headquartered here and for many years have
played a vital role in our economy.

Q Is there something about the free market that's not working for them
anymore?

MR. SNOW: You're going to have to ask somebody else.

Q Tony, after the President met with the Democratic leaders in the House
and Senate, did he say anything to the extent that since you have thoughts
about a reduction of troops in Iraq, bring me something back in such and
such a time? Did he give the times?

MR. SNOW: No, and I don't think it would be appropriate for the President
to try issue timetables to Democratic leaders.

Q But (inaudible) expect this now --

MR. SNOW: They understand. And, look, they're going to need some time,
April, to sort through these things, as well. It's a new world for them
because they have criticized the President's policies. But now is a time
for them to develop, if they think so, detailed alternatives of their own,
or to try to reach out and work with the President.

The President has put together goals that I think are very difficult to
disagree with -- an Iraq that can sustain, govern and defend itself, that
can be an ally in the war on terror, that can send a signal not only to
terrorists, but also to people in the region that the United States will be
steadfast and finish the job with the Iraqi people and help the Iraqi
people to stand up. All of those are important things. And I just -- I
think that they are probably goals that most Democratic leaders, if not
all, would share. And we'll just have to see how the conversations develop.

Q Another question. What did the President have to say about the fact that
he has Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi in his office, and now Nancy Pelosi is
backing Murtha?

MR. SNOW: I don't think he had anything to say about it.

Q Does he find it curious at all?

MR. SNOW: Again, it just -- if he didn't say anything about it, I'm not
going to sit around and try to do the mind meld. It's not going to work.

Q Tony, a question, again, on Iraq, and then a housekeeping matter. Given
that the President has a lot of very smart people thinking about Iraq,
trying to figure out what the best course of action is there, how hopeful
is he that the Baker group can come up with a plausible and workable way
forward?

MR. SNOW: Again, the Baker group, they're going to come up with ideas. I
think people are way overstating not only the nature of the meetings today,
but it's as if you're saying the President wants to outsource this problem
to the Baker commission. It's not how it works. He's the
Commander-in-Chief. And he certainly will evaluate any ideas they have. And
as we've said, the President has been very aggressive in seeking out
opinion throughout. I know that we don't always have it brought up, and we
don't talk about it maybe as much as you'd like, but the President has had
a number of people in, very smart people who have devoted their lives to
the study of the region and to various groups and to sects within Iraq and
throughout the region.

So I think -- the President still understands that it is his job to be
Commander-in-Chief and to make the best decisions he can on the basis of
the best information and ideas available.

Q I guess what I'm saying is, so he's had all these people in to consult,
and we're still where we are in a situation where he, himself, says, we're
not making enough progress there fast enough. So --

MR. SNOW: Right, so you --

Q -- does he think the Baker report is going to change anything?

MR. SNOW: Don't know. We're going to have to see. Do you? I mean, there's
-- no, I mean, I know it's a rhetorical question fired back, but we don't
know what they're going to say. I mean, it's very difficult to try to
assess a report that we haven't seen, and for good reason, the members of
the commission have not shared with the President or anyone else.

Q And then a really quick housekeeping matter?

MR. SNOW: Okay, then we've got to -- okay, yes.

Q You said earlier, "This is not bringing in people willy-nilly" from his
present administration to save him. I think you meant his father's.

MR. SNOW: From his father's administration. Thank you very much, yes.

Q Tony, is the President willing to entertain proposals on Iraq that would
involve sort of downgrading the centrality of his democracy agenda in order
to bring about equal results?

MR. SNOW: No. In other words -- in other words --

Q If he thought that it could speed up the process that he said is taking
too long, of bringing order and stability to Iraq --

MR. SNOW: No. Again, I don't -- you're assuming that there's order and
stability without a democracy that can sustain --

Q I'm not assuming anything. I'm just asking --

MR. SNOW: Well, no, you have to be assuming that. And so I don't quite know
where the question leads. I mean, what --

Q I'm just asking if there's a proposal on the table that involves --

MR. SNOW: Well, what would that be? If you can give me something more
specific I can be more helpful. And I apologize. I just -- I don't know
exactly what that means.

Q I'm not trying to get you to weigh in on the specific proposal. I'm just
asking if that is something that --

MR. SNOW: But, again, if I don't have a specific proposal and a
characterization to respond to, those are treacherous waters. I'd much
rather have something specific to respond to because then I can give you an
accurate answer.

Q Does the emergence of the Baker group indicate that Condoleezza Rice's
influence has been diminished?

MR. SNOW: No. Keep in mind the Baker-Hamilton commission was formed by an
act of Congress. This is simply carrying out the provisions of an act of
Congress. No, it has no effect at all on the influence, responsibilities,
or the valued advice of the Secretary of State.

Q Would Alcee Hastings strike you as an appropriate chairman of the House
Intelligence Committee?

MR. SNOW: We're going to let House members select their own chairmen.

Q Tony, with all the changes going on right now, and the President
admitting that he's not happy with the situation in Iraq, can this White
House still stand by the statement that we are winning in Iraq?

MR. SNOW: The fact is, April, we would like progress to be moving more
quickly. That's obvious. But on the other hand, when you see what has been
going on with the Prime Minister stepping up and assuming more
responsibility, working now, shaking up the government, because he also
wants to get better results, the fact is, yes, you're moving forward on
this. And in the failure narrative that quite often gets written is one
that, as you know, has been deeply distressing to many of the men and women
who are fighting over there because they at least have a different picture.
Some of it has been portrayed in recent days in press reports.

But this is hard. It's a war. And there are going to be time when you have
a great deal of motion in the direction of victory, and there are going to
be times when you have setbacks. And there's just no way to get around it.

Q You're not saying victory just for the sake of keeping morale up? You're
saying victory because we are winning?

MR. SNOW: We're saying victory because we are -- we are winning, but on the
other hand, we have not won.

Q Is it still the President's policy, though, that a democratic outcome in
Iraq is the only acceptable outcome? Is that correct?

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q Are you briefing tomorrow?

MR. SNOW: Oh, no -- thank you, Helen. We will not be gaggling or briefing
tomorrow because of everybody shipping off -- I know, you're -- it's
disappointing. But we will see you on the other side of the world on
whatever day it will be.

Thank you.

END 1:48 P.M. EST

===========================================================================
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/11/20061113-4.html

 * Origin: (1:3634/12)