Text 4072, 731 rader
Skriven 2007-02-16 23:31:08 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (0702163) for Fri, 2007 Feb 16
====================================================

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

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
February 16, 2007

Press Briefing by Tony Snow
White House Conference Center Briefing Room

Press Briefing


12:26 P.M. EST

MR. SNOW: First, one little readout. The President had a secure video
teleconference this morning with Prime Minister Maliki. It lasted from
about 7:05 a.m. to 7:50 a.m. They discussed progress in implementing the
Baghdad security plan and positive indicators that the plan is coming
together and beginning to have an impact in Baghdad. The Prime Minister
again affirmed that no one is going to be above the law, regardless of
religious affiliation or social status.

The two leaders also talked about the budget that was just passed by the
Iraqi parliament, and in particular, the importance of executing the $10
billion that had been set aside for capital and infrastructure
expenditures, and to make sure that they're also allocated equitably around
the country.

They talked about the situation in Anbar province. They noted that there
are opportunities for the Iraqi government to reinforce Iraqi citizens and
the citizens of Anbar who are actively opposing al Qaeda in Iraq. They
talked about progress on political issues, including an oil law; a final
draft of that could be ready very soon.

And they throughout the meeting affirmed the strong relationship between
the two governments and the need to continue their progress in political,
economic and security realms.

Terrence.

Q Did they also talk about the non-binding resolution that the House --

MR. SNOW: No.

Q There was no political discussion? Well, let me ask you, the President
seems resigned to the fact that the House is going to pass this today. What
is his position on the conditions on funding that the Democrats -- House
Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha -- are beginning to outline?

MR. SNOW: Well, first, I would not characterize the President's mood in
anything as "resignation." That's not the way he approaches things. But he
understands that members of the House are moving forward. And right now
everybody is playing with numbers about how big the margin is going to be
-- we've heard everything from 12 to 60; we'll find out.

What the President is insistent upon is that our forces have the funds they
need and the flexibility required to continue to execute not only the
Baghdad security plan, but the way forward that's designed to secure the
situation in Iraq. And, therefore, anything that is going to tie the hands
of military commanders and deny both the funds and flexibility they're
going to need, he will take a dim view of. But at this point, we're just
going to have to see what Congress proposes. I'm not going to get into
particulars, because while a lot of stuff has been floated, nothing has yet
been proposed or dropped in the hopper.

Q There are some particulars out there that Congressman Murtha has talked
about, like a year's rest between tours --

MR. SNOW: I understand that --

Q Do you think that's tying your hands?

MR. SNOW: As I said, we'll wait until -- as you know, there were also -- I
remember giving similar answers when a whole series of resolutions were
posed, some of which never came to votes on the House and Senate floor. We
know what Representative Murtha has said, but we're just not going to get
into trying to characterize a specific position about a bill that has yet
to see the light of day.

Q So, Tony, the President talked about this resolution Wednesday. Is the
overall feeling that it doesn't make a difference, and what makes a
difference is the funding that's pending down the road?

MR. SNOW: I think, again, we've said all along that people do have to ask
whether they think this is going to -- what impact this is going to have
not only on force morale, but also on the views of people in the region. On
the other hand, it is also absolutely critical -- and we're going to be
defending it -- that the forces in the field, the five brigades that are
going in, the 4,000 Marines into Anbar, the forces necessary to execute the
plan, they need to be funded, they needed to be supported, and the people
in the field now deserve to have the reinforcements necessary to be able to
carry on their mission.

Q So in the President's conversations with Prime Minister Maliki, there was
no concern expressed by the Prime Minister about the lack of political will
shown in Congress?

MR. SNOW: No, the Prime Minister and the President were talking about
what's actually going on, on the ground. And this is something that would
behoove members of Congress to keep an eye on, as well. It's very
interesting because for all the talk about benchmarks, the Prime Minister
is not getting credit for a lot of things that are happening. It looks as
-- as I said, I think there's going to be news in the very near future
about a final draft on the oil law. It is very clear that there has been
aggressive and effective action against Shia and Sunni actors who have been
trying in the past to disturb the peace. It is clear that the Baghdad
security plan not only has been signed off upon, but that Iraqi forces have
made their way into Baghdad and they are now working in concert with U.S.
forces.

General Abud, who is the chief commander in Baghdad, is working with
General Petraeus, and you do have the kind of military cooperation and
interaction. When it comes to Anbar province, you're seeing progress there.
You've seen the Iraqis step up with a quarter of their budget this year
being set aside specifically for reconstruction. That was something members
of Congress had asked for. In other words, a lot of the things that people
have been citing as benchmarks are taking place. And, therefore, it is
important to keep an eye on the realities on the ground. But to get back to
your question, Bret, no, believe it or not, they were more concerned about
success in Iraq than the debate on Capitol Hill.

Q Last one for me. Was there a mention of this announcement by the Interior
Ministry about the wounding of al Masri, and do you have any update on
that?

MR. SNOW: Nothing. Nothing.

Q What about al Sadr --

MR. SNOW: It was not brought up, and it was -- poor Kelly. We're going to
have -- chivalry is going to have its moment. (Laughter.) And in any event,
no, there was no discussion of al Masri. Again, we've had so many of these
reports in the past. When we have something factual for you, we'll pass it
on. We don't yet.

Kelly, and then James.

Q On behalf of both Jim and myself -- (laughter) -- did the President talk
about al Sadr at all with Prime Minister Maliki? Any discussion of his
whereabouts or the impact of the changes?

MR. SNOW: No, none of that.

Q None at all?

MR. SNOW: No.

Q That seems surprising, doesn't it, since that --

MR. SNOW: Well, it seems surprising to you guys, but -- again, for the
Prime Minister, here's a guy who has already made the step of staying --
both to the Mahdi army, to Sunni insurgents, to people who have been
misbehaving -- we're coming after you. If you are trying to bring this
government down through acts of violence, if you're operating -- his phrase
is "outside the law" -- we are going to apply the law, no matter who you
are. And we have seen evidence of that in new Baghdad, which is a Shia
neighborhood. We've seen it in Haifa Street. We've seen it in operations
that are ongoing in Baghdad now.

So I really think -- and the Prime Minister has made it very clear that
people who are on board with the unity government need to get on board and
stay on board.

Q Wouldn't the Prime Minister be a good source of information on what al
Sadr may be up to?

MR. SNOW: I just -- you know what, right now the most significant political
figure in Iraq is not Muqtada al Sadr, it's Nouri al Maliki.

Q Kelly and I have a follow. (Laughter.)

MR. SNOW: See, and you guys thought kumbaya was dead.

Q That said, have you learned -- never mind this phone call this morning,
what have you learned in the last 24 hours since we've spoke about al Sadr
and whether he's in Iran -- his being in Iran, if he's there, is a good
thing or a bad thing?

MR. SNOW: Since we've spoken -- no, we haven't actually heard -- we've got
nothing new for you.

Q There's been no intelligence, there's been no questions, you haven't
followed up --

MR. SNOW: Not really, no. The President may have gotten something in his
intel brief today. It didn't come up. Shock-shock, it didn't.

Q And when you say, "shock-shock," that's --

MR. SNOW: I think you've got to understand that Muqtada al Sadr is one
factor who belongs to a party that has 30 members of a parliament of 250
members, and that what you have seen -- if you want to look at the
significant players, take a look at what's gone on in Baghdad, and take a
look at the fact that you've got a security plan that's operating in
districts, including Shia districts, where, at least according to reports,
members of the Mahdi militia put down their arms, and in some cases are
saying, okay, let's let the Baghdad security plan succeed. That is the
significant factor.

Q But that is related to al Sadr -- if they're doing that, that's an
important, significant point.

MR. SNOW: I just -- I've got nothing to give you on that. I mean, we don't
know where he is. We don't know where he is. The reports are that he's in
Iran, but don't know.

Q Tony, we've heard from a number of Americans who are deeply offended by
comments Karl Rove made in defense of the President's immigration policy,
when he told a luncheon, "I don't want my 17-year-old son to pick tomatoes
or make beds in Las Vegas." Does the President want to apologize to
Americans who pick crops --

MR. SNOW: You'd better run that -- I think Karl has argued to others that
that was taken out of context. And rather than --

Q Can you describe what kind of context in which that was --

MR. SNOW: Why don't you give Karl a call.

Q You mentioned the margin of the vote, 12-6. In the end, does it matter
what the margin is, Tony?

MR. SNOW: The question is what the margin is; does it matter. I don't know.
Again, members -- it's going to be interesting, because members of Congress
have taken their own gamble here. They're gambling on failure -- some
members, at least. The President has a plan for success. It's all aimed at
success. And there's going to be a vote before long where they're going to
have to vote about whether they are going to supply the funds and the
flexibility necessary for success. And, remember, in the case of the
Senate, the success as defined by the guy that they've just appointed as a
top general and the CENTCOM commander, who was also approved, and the man
who is now the Chairman -- the Army Chief of Staff, who also approves of
the plan, there are a whole series of folks who they, in fact, approve for
their new offices who believe that this is vital.

And so, ultimately, members -- this is "a non-binding resolution." But what
we're afraid of is that this is, in fact, going to serve as a precursor for
cutting off our troops.

Q What do you mean, "gambling on failure"?

MR. SNOW: I mean because all of a sudden, it's -- suppose suddenly that you
start to see signs of success. Then are these members going to come out and
say, you know what, we were wrong -- they're going to have another
resolution?

Q Has the President listened to any of the debate? What does he think?

MR. SNOW: I don't think so. He's had a very busy schedule. I'm not sure
that -- the President doesn't have to park in front of C-SPAN and watch the
debate all day. He knows what the views are. And in point of fact, we had
an interesting conversation with members of the Black Caucus yesterday.
We've had discussions this week with the bipartisan leadership, the
bicameral leadership.

The President gets plenty of opportunities to hear the views and also
solicit the views of members of both Houses. He was at the Democratic
retreat, so I don't think there are a whole lot of surprises in terms of
the nature of the debate. And, again, he continues to consult with both
parties.

John.

Q Can you go any further on being a junior constitutional lawyer and say
where you draw the line?

MR. SNOW: No, because, again, you're asking me to draw the line on
legislation that does not yet exist.

Q But it's a pretty simple line to envision in principle. You can --

MR. SNOW: I know, but I'm not going to -- I'll deal with things that appear
in reality.

Q Tony, Afghanistan is again in the news, and the Afghans are happy with
the President's efforts -- he liberated them. But they're not happy with
their President Karzai because Taliban and al Qaeda are trying to bring his
government down. And --

MR. SNOW: They ought to be mad at al Qaeda and the Taliban, is who they
ought to be mad at.

Q (Inaudible) in the area long ago, and he has this very vast experience of
the region. And he was recently in Afghanistan and also in Pakistan. And I
understand according to the news report that he also -- you know, Musharraf
to do more on the efforts. But my question is that was he carrying, really,
any special message from the President in the region?

MR. SNOW: Goyal, I will say it for not the first or the last time: When you
have communications between the President or his designees in confidential
meetings with foreign leaders, we let those remain confidential.

Q Second question is on immigration. Small businesses are under pressure,
and they have no workers because legal workers are not available to do
those jobs, like in restaurant and odd jobs. And they cannot hire the
illegals. How far do you think President will push this new immigration law
in the Congress?

MR. SNOW: Well, actually, your question -- and for those who didn't hear
it, it was that some small businesses are complaining now that they don't
have workers because they're not getting illegal labor. That indicates a
couple of things: number one, that the border security plan is, in fact,
working, that we have greater border security. And we certainly have
indications out of the Department of Homeland Security that that's true.
Number two, interior enforcement -- in other words, saying to employers, if
you're knowingly hiring illegals, we're coming after you. That is working.
It now means that -- so we've demonstrated not only the possibility of
good, sound border security, but also the importance of having a temporary
worker program, because there are jobs, as you can tell, that are not being
filled by Americans, and so you do need to move forward as a next step,
once you develop these things, toward a temporary worker program.

So what you're really seeing, I think, Goyal, played out in real life is
some of the rationale behind the President's proposal, which involves
border security, it involves employer verification, it involves having a
tamper-proof ID card, which may be the pivot on which everything turns, so
that you know who's here, who came here illegally and who is here now
legally, you're able to track them, you're able to make sure that employers
are following the law. This allows you to create an immigration system that
is credible and, at the same time, is humane in bringing in people who want
to work in America and, over time, also those who want to join the line to
become American citizens, they will have the opportunity to do so, as well.

John.

Q Thank you, Tony. A few inquiries about the reported dissent on the North
Korean treaty within the administration. You spoke yesterday about Elliott
Abrams' emails when I asked you about it. Now, I am told that there are at
least two people within the Executive Office of the President, one at the
same level as Mr. Abrams, one a step higher, who also have the same
questions and doubts about the North Korean treaty.

MR. SNOW: Who are they?

Q Well, I'm not going to say the names -- (inaudible) that there were
others.

MR. SNOW: Not that I'm aware of.

Q All right. Do you expect any resignations over this?

MR. SNOW: No. Again, you talk about an over-hyped story. Elliott asked the
question: Do we have credibility when it comes to -- to make sure that the
North Koreans will earn it if they are delisted as a terror state? And the
answer is, yes, they're going to have to earn it. There is a process by
doing it, and you have to go through certain things, such as, stop being a
sponsor of terrorism.

This was not a political accommodation; this is not a political deal.
They're not going to get it without having gone through -- having performed
precisely the kinds of activities -- whether it be in terms of nuclear arms
and proliferation, or also conventional weapons and sales -- they don't get
delisted until they've done what everybody else would have to do -- for
instance, in the case of Libya. And Elliott made it perfectly clear that
his concerns were satisfied.

This was not a dissent against the proposal. As a matter of fact -- I've
talked to Elliott about this, and I talked to him again this morning about
it. And this has been spun up in the press as Elliott opposing a treaty. He
hadn't even seen it, and he said as much. He said, look, I do the Middle
East. This is not what I do -- this is not my area of expertise, but I
think it's important to know. And once that question was answered, he was
satisfied.

Q All right. Well why do his emails -- his inquiries, wind up in the
newspaper, then?

MR. SNOW: Because somebody broke the law.*

Q Okay. Who?

Q Thank you, Tony. Two questions. Can you recall any other case in American
history where the United States Senate unanimously voted to approve a
general to top command in a war zone and then passed a resolution opposing
what that general has stated that he has been ordered to be there to do?

MR. SNOW: Les, I'm unaware of that, but I don't want that to be definitive
because I don't have full knowledge.

Q You don't know any other generals?

MR. SNOW: No, unless George Washington, I don't know.

Q George Washington was --

MR. SNOW: He ended up paying expenses out of pocket, as you recall. The
Continental Congress, lacking the funds for fulfilling, I believe George
Washington, if you go back and look, was paying for clothing and supplies
for his own men out of his own pocket.

Q But he was reimbursed.

MR. SNOW: Well, no, he took a dollar a year, I believe.

Q No, no, I think you're wrong. (Laughter.)

MR. SNOW: I am wrong. He took no pay. That's correct.

Q No, he just filed expenses, that's what he did. Speaker Pelosi has said
in no uncertain terms that Congress is sending a message to the President
with its debate on the Iraq war. And could you tell us, what message is the
President receiving?

MR. SNOW: I don't know. We get lots of communications from Capitol Hill.
What the President understands is that the war is unpopular, and people
don't like the progress or lack of progress they saw in the latter stages
of last year, where you had 100 American servicemen dying a month, and you
had increased -- much increased violence in Baghdad and the environs.
That's the reason why the President decided to act. So if the message is,
aren't you concerned about what's going on, the answer is, you bet.

And as a result, the President demanded an exhaustive review, not only to
what was going on, but also of possible ways of addressing that, not merely
to tamp down in violence in Baghdad proper, but to create conditions where
the Iraqi government would have the ability to do all the associated things
necessary to have a stable state, which includes political accommodation,
economic growth, and so on. So the President gets that message.

But the President also understands that as Commander-in-Chief it is his job
and his obligation to keep Americans safe, and also to support the people
who are fighting there right now. The way forward is a matter of providing
reinforcements to people on an entirely different kind of mission, where
their hands are no longer tied by outmoded rules of engagement or political
rules of engagement, but instead are going to be able, along with the
Iraqis, to do the job. So the message he is sending is that he has got a
plan that is designed to secure victory, in terms of an Iraq that is able
to stand up as a democracy and stand strong, and is willing and eager to
move forward with that.

Paula, and then we've got the love birds up here -- (Laughter.)

Q The love birds. (Laughter.)

MR. SNOW: Paula.

Q Congress said it's planning to spend a lot of time on the alternative
minimum tax, and the President has said in the past he wants to look at it,
too, but in the context of revenue neutral tax reform measures. Would the
White House be willing to explore proposals on this that could include
higher taxes to pay for it?

MR. SNOW: The President doesn't believe in tax increases, but here's what
we have with the alternative minimum tax. For the last six years, Congress
has put in a one-year patch. We put in a one-year patch that was more
generous than the ones in the past, because somebody who has not previously
been subject to the alternative minimum tax is not going to be sucked into
it this year. For each of the last six years you've seen people who, in the
past, were not subject to the alternative minimum tax suddenly getting hit
with it. So we've prevented additional people from having to pay it.

We also have created the situation now where members of Congress have 20
months -- 20, two-zero months. This is the most ingenious country on the
face of the earth and, surely, we can find a way to do it.

But the alternative minimum tax is -- it's a cruel tax and it's an
unacceptable tax. It needs to be fixed. We have 20 months to do it. And I
certainly am not going to negotiate against myself or against anybody else
in talking -- the question may be for you to ask, to turn back to those who
are advocating tax increases is, would you consider not raising taxes on
people?

Q May I ask you a question, though -- may I ask a question on your
definition of a tax increase?

MR. SNOW: Yes. It's something where you change the rates on people.

Q Oh, all right. So then the fact that you proposed raising targeted taxes
to pay for your health care standard deduction --

MR. SNOW: We didn't. Again, what -- no, you didn't have targeted taxes.
What you're assuming in that particular case is that people do not ever
respond. What we've said is, what you're going to have under the tax
deduction plan is, you're going to have full tax deductibility up to
$15,000. It means that more than 100 million Americans like that get a tax
cut. It also means that for a slice of maybe 20 to 30, they're going to
have to make a choice about whether they stay in a plan that costs more
than $15,000 a year, but also the people who provide those plans are going
to have to make a choice about whether they think they're going to make
profits by having plans that are subject to taxes, or whether they're going
to be able to get business by coming up with more finely crafted plans that
are going to appeal to people who have now so-called gold plated plans, and
are willing to pay -- to do that $15,000 a year so that they get a full tax
deduction and still get the services they'd received previously.

The fact is, the markets do tend to adjust, as we've seen already with the
prescription drug benefits, where immediately the costs have gone down, and
the number of people who have enrolled are wildly exceeding prior
expectations. Why? Because the market is responding to what they want.

So keep in mind, that is -- that's a different situation, and that's one
that also has a strong element of choice on the part of consumers, and also
on the part of insurance companies.

Q To follow up on the AMT, there was a report in The Wall Street Journal
this morning. Part of the story suggested -- quoted blind officials,
administration officials --

MR. SNOW: Blind officials? (Laughter.)

Q Blind sources -- (laughter) -- sorry. People who weren't named, saying
that --

MR. SNOW: Send the letters to -- (laughter.) Go ahead.

Q -- the President would not object to a tax increase on the wealthy to
help pay --

MR. SNOW: Look, again, the President is not for tax increases. And so what
we've said all along is, you've got 20 months to figure this out. What
happens a lot of times is that people try to do preliminary negotiations
through the press by characterizing what they think the President may or
may not do. It's always interesting, because they never tell you what
they're going to do. The fact is, both sides have an opportunity, so let's
see what people have to propose.

And there have -- we have certainly been having -- we've been having
conversations with people on both sides of the aisle because it is a
problem. Democrats realize it, Republicans realize it, and they want to fix
it. And I think we do have enough time right now where people don't have to
rush and get themselves into a political fight. They've got an opportunity
to try to come up with a calm and rational way to do it. We don't think it
needs to involve tax increases, but we're certainly open to hearing what
other people have to say.

Q Can I just follow up on Jim and Kelly's question about al Sadr? I mean,
wouldn't you concede, Tony, that the skepticism about -- some of the
skepticism about the President's Iraq plan centers on the Prime Minister's
ability to reign in militias, including those followers of Muqtada al Sadr.
So you're saying it should not be viewed as any kind of glaring omission
that the President and the Prime Minister did not talk about al Sadr or his
whereabouts?

MR. SNOW: Yes, because they're talking about success. Am I reading this
wrong? It did not seem to me that the recent stories about al Sadr were
designed to demonstrate strength on his part. I don't -- maybe I read them
wrong, but without getting into the merits of them, the fact is that the
Prime Minister is succeeding and the Iraqi public is building confidence
because he's delivering on what he said.

And all along -- look, everybody -- we've been through this before. It's as
if you want to say, al Sadr is the bad guy, go get him. Al Sadr -- Muqtada
al Sadr is somebody who has got to make a choice. He has got to make a
choice whether he wants to follow a path of peace and accommodation, and to
become a political player, or whether he is going to be somebody who is
part of violent factions outside the government, in which case, the
government, with U.S. help, is going to have to come after him. Those are
choices he has to make.

And so when you're trying to sort of portray this as al Sadr versus
somebody else -- look, this is a guy who is still trying to make choices, I
think, and has to make a choice about where he's going to be.

Q Is he still a significant player?

MR. SNOW: I don't know. I don't know how you assess that. It's a good
question. I'm not sure I have an answer.

Q I just want to follow a little bit on the discussion about messages being
sent with this debate. I was talking to a Democratic staffer today who said
that Republicans and the White House have been skillful in maneuvering the
conversation to supporting the troops, which actually presents a false
choice, because -- or it obscures the more important underpinning, which
is, Democrats are saying bring the troops home now, or short-term, the next
four to six months, and that the White House -- the President's sense is,
no, send more troops as a way to win, that it's no longer about victory,
that there's actually two different discussions going on.

MR. SNOW: So you're saying Democrats are -- that supporters of the
resolution don't believe in victory?

Q No, that they say that -- yes, that that is -- that you're at the wrong
end of public opinion.

MR. SNOW: Oh, I see. So they think that the public thinks -- I just -- I'm
a little confused --

Q I will clarify this.

MR. SNOW: Please do.

Q The Democrats' point is that victory is no longer what's being talked
about, it needs to be -- the question is, can we bring the troops home.

MR. SNOW: No, no I --

Q The American people are not as concerned about victory in Iraq as they
are about bringing the troops home; that's a more pressing issue.

MR. SNOW: Ask the following poll question -- first, ask your Democratic
source: Do you believe if the United States leaves Iraq there will be a
power vacuum, and do you believe into that power vacuum al Qaeda will try
to take over Anbar and it will involve adventurism from abroad, whether it
be from Iran, or elsewhere. If you do have that, and they have access to
billions of dollars a year in oil revenue, and they have the ability to
intimidate neighbors in the Gulf states, does that make us more or less
secure? And, if that is the case, is it worth withdrawing before you have
victory? The President is very clear about this. The stakes of losing and
the stakes of leaving before you have secured victory are simply
unacceptable. And if you ask the American public if they were willing to
accept that, they would say, no.

Q The source says that that -- the American public actually has seen what's
going on as a Civil War, and says that that places the White House at the
wrong end of public opinion.

MR. SNOW: The President understands public opinion and public impatience.
The President also sees intelligence every day, and he has to assess what
the long-term costs are going to be. It is significant to me that you have
a Democratic source who now says it's all about getting out, and not about
success. If that's the case, that is -- it's going to be interesting to see
if that continues to be the way Democrats want to frame this up, because it
will make for a very important and interesting debate. The fact is, success
is absolutely necessary.

And I've heard a lot of Democrats say this. Democrats understand that to
create a vacuum in Iraq would be to invite dangers that are simply
unacceptable to the American public. Let me add further -- when you're
talking about bringing forces in -- but it is an interesting switch. So
what you're saying is, it's no longer support the troops, it's just get
them out.

Q The question is, does the debate about supporting the troops obscure the
real debate that Americans want to have, which is, increase the number
there, or start to bring them home?

MR. SNOW: You know what, we'd love to bring them home. We'd love to bring
them home. We'd love to -- no, let me continue. But what you have is
somebody framing a debate as if the rest of the world didn't exist -- as if
Iran didn't exist, as if al Qaeda didn't exist, as if the terror network
didn't exist, as if the oil fields did not exist, as if this could not set
-- as if Israel didn't exist, as if Hamas, Hezbollah did not exist.

Q His point was that, yes, they understand all that.

MR. SNOW: No, the source -- no, the source's point is to ignore all that
and not --

Q Well, actually, I had the conversation with the source, so the source's
point was -- the source's point was, yes, they're aware, Americans are
aware of all of that; they're looking at it and saying, you know what, we
still want to bring the troops home.

MR. SNOW: You know what, the President -- the President understands that to
operate under those circumstances is to invite bloodshed on a level that is
absolutely appalling, not only in Iraq, but possibly in the United States
of America. And if this offends your source, okay. Your source, I'm sure,
means well, but the President also is absolutely determined to keep this
country safe and do what's best for Americans. That is his job.

Q Tony, one other thing. At the news conference the other day, the
President talked about the Iraq Study Group Report, eventually trying to
get there. What piece of it does he want to --

MR. SNOW: What he was talking about --

Q -- and it talks about talks with Iran and Syria. Is that what he's
talking about?

MR. SNOW: No, what he was talking about is -- he's referred to this on a
number of occasions -- the "over the horizon" force. In other words, at
some point, when you've got a situation in which the Iraqis are able to
take care of the security situation in Baghdad and Anbar and Diyala and
Kirkuk and elsewhere, then you have an opportunity to focus on something
that the Iraqis are doing right now, which is border security, and deal
with the integrity of the borders and use that as a way, ultimately, of
being able to pull out of areas that right now are combat areas, and so let
the Iraqis handle it. That was one of the key findings of Baker-Hamilton.

When it comes to Iran and Syria, look, we continue to have diplomatic
relations with Syria, and the Iranians absolutely know what they need to do
-- to reiterate, we love the Iranian people, and the Iranian people love
the United States. And what's really interesting about this is that we're
offering their government a chance to give them prosperity and a connection
with the international community that they crave but do not presently have.

And the approach that this President has taken is certainly one of trying
to send a strong signal to the Iranians that the international community
really isn't divided here. You've got a Chapter 7 resolution through the
U.N. Security Council. And the better part of valor on the part of the
Iranian government would be to stop pursuing nuclear weapons, come back to
the table, become a partner in fighting terror rather than fomenting it,
and there would be enormous good consequences that would flow from that.

Paula.

Q Could I just follow up on what you said a moment ago about the
alternative minimum tax? Are you saying that you're not setting any
preconditions with Congress --

MR. SNOW: Yes, members of Congress are free to come up with whatever
proposals they want, and we'd like to hear them.

Q Thank you.

MR. SNOW: Okay.

Q Whoa, one more. To just not leave hanging, you said that someone in the
Executive Office of the President, presumably, broke the law. Does the
President share your view on that?

MR. SNOW: I'm just thinking, if you leak an email. I'll have to go back and
double check.

Q But you made a very clear statement that someone in the White House broke
the law.

Q Do you stand by it?

MR. SNOW: That's actually an appropriate question. I'll get back to you.
I'll get you a straight answer on it, Kelly.

Q Tony, can you please clarify about immigration, about what message does
the President have for the small businesses --

Q Thank you.

MR. SNOW: Goyal, I've already said it. I mean, it's, you know, temporary
worker program.

END 1:00 P.M. EST

* The Press Secretary was in error. This instance was not a violation of
the law.
===========================================================================
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/02/20070216-3.html

 * Origin: (1:3634/12)