Text 4260, 898 rader
Skriven 2007-03-22 23:31:34 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (0703224) for Thu, 2007 Mar 22
====================================================

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

For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary March 22, 2007

Press Briefing by Tony Snow White House Conference Center Briefing Room

˙ Video (Windows) ˙˙Press Briefings


12:48 A.M. EDT

MR. SNOW: A couple of things up top. As you probably know, Senator John
Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, have announced that she has a recurrence
of cancer, and that they will still continue a full and vigorous campaign.
First, our thoughts and prayers are with Elizabeth Edwards.

Also, as somebody who has been through this, Elizabeth Edwards is setting a
powerful example for a lot of people, and a good and positive one. She has
been on top of diagnosis and follow-up. When you have cancer it's very
important to keep checking. She's being aggressive. She's living an active
life. And a positive attitude, prayers, and people you love are always a
very good addition to any kind of medicine you have. So for Elizabeth
Edwards, good going; our prayers are with you.

Now to politics. The House of Representatives is considering an emergency
supplemental appropriations bill. The one they're considering has zero
chance of being enacted into law; it's bad legislation; the President is
going to veto it, and Congress will sustain that veto.

The bill is fatally flawed in several ways. Number one, it ties the hands
of our generals. It does so by putting politicians and staffers in charge
of the kinds of things that need to be determined on the battlefield --
everything from deployment schedules to dwell times -- thus denying
commanders the ability to respond quickly and flexibly to the changing
realities on the ground. We think that's inadvisable. It also would
withdraw U.S. troops regardless of conditions on the ground in Iraq if
events did not meet a pre-ordained time schedule being placed forth by
members of Congress. As we've said, that is a formula for failure. Among
other things, it allows an enemy to adopt a "wait it out" strategy, and
also sends the wrong kind of signals to our allies.

In addition, it also imposes a time line on Iraqi forces and would cut them
off at precisely the time that we are trying to build capacity on the part
of the Iraqi forces so they can assume increasing and ultimately total
responsibility for security operations within their own country.

Secondly, it weakens our effort at sustaining the peace. Part of the
President's plan for Iraq and the way forward, involves not merely military
action, but also the ability to create opportunity and hope for Iraqis.
How? By going into neighborhoods and saying, we're going to help build
jobs; we're going to help build civil institutions. We learned in the first
Iraqi plan that, in fact, if you simply create a vacuum -- you have peace,
but you do not have opportunity to follow on -- sooner or later, crime and
terror tends to fill that vacuum.

So the President has announced a number of things. Today he met with
members of provisional reconstruction teams -- actually, leaders who are
going to go there. And it was an extraordinary meeting because you had many
people with significant diplomatic experience -- indeed, many people who
have returned from retirement because they love the idea of helping build
democracy in dangerous parts of Iraq.

These were programs that they ask for volunteers -- the State Department,
the Defense Department, USAID -- and in every case, they were overwhelmed
by the number of people who volunteered, and we got to meet people who are
going to be helping man up the first 10 of these provisional reconstruction
teams in such areas as Baghdad and Ramadi.

Having noted that, this supplemental appropriations bill actually cuts
funding for these very people. For democracy- building efforts, it cuts
that by $40 million. It cuts $100 million out of efforts to build local
governing capacity. It builds -- it cuts jobs programs by $30 million, and
I just mentioned the PRTs -- provisional reconstruction teams -- cuts $33
million out of that, and another $20 million out of programs for the rule
of law.

Now, while cutting this funding for peace and prosperity, here's what this
bill -- and this is a emergency supplemental military bill -- here are some
of the items in there: $60.4 million for salmon fisheries; $74 million for
peanut storage; $100 million for citrus assistance; $120 million for shrimp
and menhaden fishing; $400 million for rural schools; and $500 million for
a firefighting fund that already has an available balance of $831 million.
These may be priorities, but they are not part of an emergency supplemental
for the military.

Finally, this: The clock is ticking. Money is going to run out for our
forces in Iraq sometime next month. The money is running out, and
meanwhile, you have people on Capitol Hill trying to buy or cajole votes
for a bill that's not going to pass. The Speaker is busy working some of
her members and they're also trying to twist some arms.

Our suggestion is, please get this done as rapidly as possible, because day
after day, the money is running out like sands through an hour glass. And
if you want to support our troops, get them the money they need when they
need it.

Now, we hope Congress will go ahead and vote on this stuff, because if you
take a look at the calendar now, the next few weeks, you will notice that I
think a week from Monday, houses of Congress start breaking for their
Easter or spring break, depending on how you want to define it, and you do
not have all of Congress back until the 16th of April, I believe. I think
that's right, isn't it -- 16th of April? In any event, there's a very real
chance that money for the troops will run out while members of Congress are
on vacation. Is that the message you want to send to men and women who are
putting their lives on the line?

So I think it's important to go ahead and move on for this. The President
has made it clear that this needs to be a bill for the military. All the
other stuff can be folded into budget bills which also are being offered
up. This is an emergency supplemental for the troops and military
operations.

It's also a chance -- we've said this before, but we're serious about it --
a chance to work together. We can figure out how to solve the military
piece; all these other things we'd be happy to debate -- in fact, the
debate on those begins almost immediately. So there you have it. And the
Senate also, I must say, has now said it is going to consider precisely the
same bill. So this is basically a wheel-spinning exercise so that people
can make a rhetorical point at a time when the real point is, if you want
to support the troops, let's get the money in the pipeline in time.

Questions.

Q Can I just ask on that, before we go to other things? When you said the
cuts that it makes, is that cuts from existing spending --

MR. SNOW: That's cuts from our request.

Q Oh, from your request.

MR. SNOW: No, these are requests that we had made.

Q Okay. Is the position still that there must be no strings attached, that
all these -- the peanut storage and the rest of it -- need to be out of a
bill like this?

MR. SNOW: Well, I've told you what our position is. And the President -- we
have put out a supplemental -- I mean, a statement of administration
policy. We think that this is inappropriate. What we want to do is to make
sure that the funds have -- that our commanders have the funding and
flexibility they need. That is the paramount consideration.

Q I'd like to ask you about the standoff between Congress and the White
House on the testimony of aides. The Senate Judiciary Committee has now
followed the lead of the House, and they have voted to authorize subpoenas.
What now?

MR. SNOW: That's a good question.

Q Is this headed for the courts?

MR. SNOW: You'd have to ask Congress. I think what the House and Senate
have both done is to go through the step of authorizing subpoenas but not
issuing them. As I have mentioned before, the conversations, at least the
readouts I've gotten from Fred Fielding, about his discussions with members
of Congress, they've been respectful and collegial. And I have noted -- I
think maybe I'm being too optimistic, but I've noted that there's been sort
of a moderation in some of the rhetoric in the last 24 hours.

I think everybody realizes that the end product of this inquiry ought to be
the truth. And we have offered a suggestion that we think allows everybody
to get at the truth and to get all the answers.

The phone lines are still open, and at this point, I'm not aware of any
conversations that Fred may have had. But we certainly are not averse to
hearing from members of Congress, and, if nothing else, explaining more
fully what our position is and why we think it's appropriate.

Q So you're inviting conversation, dialogue, compromise?

MR. SNOW: I'm just saying we're not averse to it. It's certainly
appropriate.

Q If the phones lines are open, what are you willing to compromise on, in
terms of your initial --

MR. SNOW: Well, this is -- this initial position is a significant
compromise in this sense: We could have said no, we're not going to do it,
we're not going to share White House deliberations, and we could have cited
any number of legal precedents.

What we have said instead is that we're going to help you assemble every
document and every -- and make available every individual, both at the
Justice Department and the White House, you need to hear from. And you'll
be able to measure every single data point, every single communication. If
you look at the letter Fred sent, it talks about every communication with
Capitol Hill, with the Justice Department, with anybody on the outside.
That enables you to put together a pretty extraordinary record and try to
assemble the facts.

It also makes available all the people in the decision-making loop in the
Justice Department. They're certainly free to get asked about any
interaction they may have had with the White House. Plus, we have said,
you're going to have an opportunity to interview the key members of the
White House, and get factual answers to your questions.

So that, in fact, is -- the point I was making. I think Ken was -- Ken
Herman was making fun of it, the "extraordinary generous offer" -- but, you
know, it is, and it's one of these things that is designed not in an effort
to have a confrontation with Congress, but to show cooperation and good
will, because we believe it's also important to get all the facts out.

Q You say the phone lines are open. On the other hand, you have two -- I
understand the White House position, but it's -- on the other side, you
have Justice sort of calcified --

MR. SNOW: I think members are still thinking this through. I don't think
members are all that eager to have a big fight either. We don't want a
fight. So I think one of the things you need to look for in the next couple
of days, or maybe even a few more days, is let people think this through.
This is not something that's going to be decided overnight. You have had
comments from -- you've had some very good quotes from Senator Leahy and
Representative Conyers that are kind of piquant, but at the same time,
you've also had expressions that they don't want to move quickly or
rationally, and I think that's right.

Q You're sounding much more possible --

MR. SNOW: That's because I think --

Q -- compromise --

MR. SNOW: No, I think we've got a really good offer, and I think as people
begin to look at it --

Q It sounded like there's a possibility for some compromise here between
the White House and Capitol Hill.

MR. SNOW: No, we already -- we started with the compromise, and now we want
to get members of Capitol Hill to join us.

Q Arlen Specter suggested another version of the deal today, which is -- he
said, "Testimony that would be open to the public with a limited number of
senators, and with a transcript, but no oath."

MR. SNOW: Well, I don't -- again, our offer is our offer, and we know that
Senator Specter has tried to play a constructive role here.

Q Wait, wait, wait. Is that a, no?

MR. SNOW: Wait, wait, wait -- it's a, no. (Laughter.)

Q But why? You say you're open to compromise, and what way do you indicate
--

MR. SNOW: No, I didn't. I didn't say we were open to compromise. I said, we
opened with a compromise.

Q And there's no further compromise from there? How is this not a showdown
if you're not willing to compromise further?

MR. SNOW: Well, because -- well, wait a minute, the question we're asking
is, will members -- the real question -- let me put it this way: Our goal
is to make sure all the facts get out. Does our proposal allow all the
facts to get out? The answer is, yes. Does our proposal enable Congress to
get at the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? The answer
is, yes. Will the American people be able to have an answer that indicates
precisely what went on in making these decisions and be able to have
confidence that they were appropriate, they were -- within the President's
authority, they were the right thing to do? The answer is, yes.

Q The cameras weren't on this morning. You came and said one of the big
stumbling blocks is you don't want to see Karl Rove with his hand up in
front of a bunch of cameras flashing.

MR. SNOW: You bet.

Q You don't want the --

MR. SNOW: While the cameras are on, I'll say the same thing.

Q So then, your concern is about a public spectacle.

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q So if there's no oath, what's the problem?

MR. SNOW: What do you mean? There's -- you still have the public spectacle.

Q If it's behind closed doors, what's the problem?

MR. SNOW: The thing that we have said all along is, we think that you ought
to have the ability for members of Congress to get information in a way
that also does not create precedence, and is going to have a chilling
effect for presidential advisors to be able to give their full and fair
advice to the President of the United States. We think that the compromise
we shaped enables us to fulfill that obligation to the President, and to
the public in terms of first-rate advice from the White House and the
people working in the White House, and at the same time, allows Congress to
do what it has to do, which is conduct oversight. There is nothing that
says Congress has to have television; it says that Congress does have
oversight responsibilities and needs to get at the facts.

Furthermore, the people who are first and foremost in the decision loop
here, the folks at the Department of Justice, they aren't going to be out.
I mean, they're going to be out, they're going to be testifying, they're
offering all their documentation, as well.

Q They get to be in public, but you want your guys behind closed doors.

MR. SNOW: There are -- in this particular case, the Department of Justice
-- the Congress does have legitimate oversight responsibility for the
Department of Justice. It created the Department of Justice. It does not
have constitutional oversight responsibility over the White House, which is
why by our reaching out, we're doing something that we're not compelled to
do by the Constitution, but we think common sense suggests that we ought to
get the whole story out, which is what we're doing.

Q Tony, you just said a moment ago you don't want a fight, but this morning
you compared this drama, or whatever you want to call it, to "Boston
Legal," "Law _

MR. SNOW: Do you think that some Senate Democrats, when they talk about
crimes, have been poisoning the well? I'll tell you what I was talking
about, Ed. That was a rhetorical question, I apologize -- I know that's a
sore spot. But the fact is, what I was talking about was a spectacle. And I
still hold my characterizations of those things. The question is, do you
want to have a dignified process, one that is going to demonstrate that in
Washington senior political officials of both parties can act like grownups
and get the nation's business done, so that you can conduct a good-faith
inquiry into an issue that's interesting and important to people, and at
the same time, also make that pivot to working on things like funding the
troops.

And I got to say, there are a lot of very constructive conversations going
on right now about substantive matters that the President laid out in the
State of the Union address -- education, immigration and energy right up at
the front of that. So I think this is an opportunity to do those things. So
those comments I've made were specifically targeted at the seeming hubbub
designed to get certain White House officials -- usually Karl -- out in
front a camera so that you can sort of create a sensation. What we'd rather
do is just find the truth.

Q Why haven't you moved on the transcript issue, though, then? This morning
you were saying off-camera that you don't need an oath because if someone
says something that's not true, they still could be prosecuted if they lie
to Congress, essentially.

MR. SNOW: Right. Well, again --

Q If there's no transcript, what U.S. attorney can actually go through and
see what they said, if there's no record?

MR. SNOW: I will let you -- you're asking a legal question that I would
refer you either to the Department of Justice or to prosecutors, because
they know the law. As you know, Ed, anybody who testifies before Congress,
anybody that talks before Congress, is under an obligation to tell the
truth, and if they don't, they're liable to legal punishment.

Q If they don't have a record of it, how would a U.S. attorney know how to
prosecute it --

MR. SNOW: U.S. attorneys have been able --

Q -- you trust people's word.

MR. SNOW: I'm not a prosecutor, but I think you'll find that plenty of
prosecutors out there will tell you how to get a conviction without a
transcript.

Q Tony, will this President --

Q -- dodging the oath because of the legal consequences?

MR. SNOW: We're dodging the oath because -- well, I'm not going to say
we're dodging the oath, because that -- (laughter.) Yes, I know, kaboom,
steel trap closes. No, it's -- this is not a notion of dodging. It's
simply, we don't think it's appropriate.

Q Appropriate doesn't set the scene.

MR. SNOW: The scene?

Q People are seeking the truth.

MR. SNOW: That's right, and we're making the truth available. And that's
why we're kind of confused, because it seems that people are more
interested in sort of seeing White House officials with their hands up
being hectored, and I don't think members of Congress --

Q Why do you say that? Why don't you think they really want to know --

MR. SNOW: Why don't you -- okay, I'll tell you why, because there is so
much speculation about this. I opened up the newspapers today, and there
are pictures of Karl Rove, many people saying, we need to -- the purpose
here is to find out what happened, what the truth is.

Q How about that?

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q So Tony, this President for years has used the Constitution as his
backdrop. He said, look, this is my right under the Constitution.

MR. SNOW: Right.

Q This government was founded on a series of checks and balances. Why not,
if you're going to say you're using the Constitution, just apply what she's
using there to what this government was founded upon: checks and balances
--

MR. SNOW: What actually --

Q -- and one legislative body checking another legislative body, and having
a top White House official testify under oath.

MR. SNOW: Well, we are an executive body, not a legislative body. And
secondly, we have, in fact, said, what we're going to do is bend the rules
in favor of Congress on this part, because we are going to give the --

Q There are checks and balances, correct?

MR. SNOW: What we are doing -- yes, but you're mixing --

Q Not necessarily.

MR. SNOW: Well, yes, look, again, there's a legitimate oversight of the
Justice Department and the decisions that went into this, and what we've
said is since there were conversations and communications between the White
House and the Justice Department, you ought to be able to see them all --
every one, every single -- every single communication available to the
American public.

Therefore, that -- you're talking about transparency. That's the kind of
transparency that you don't normally get. So we have made an offer not only
to do that, but to say to members of Congress, you want to talk to our
guys, you can. And they are going to be compelled legally to tell the
truth. But furthermore, the President is going to tell them to tell the
truth because it's in our interest to make sure that the whole truth gets
out.

Q But do you agree that transparency is something that this administration
shuns?

MR. SNOW: No, I don't agree.

Q Okay, when it was time for the Vice President to give up the list of
names of his energy council --

MR. SNOW: Well, as you recall, April, that was, in fact, a separation of
powers case that the Vice President --

Q I understand --

MR. SNOW: -- won precisely because of the checks and balances you've talked
about.

Q But secrecy, secrecy --

MR. SNOW: Well, wait a minute. You can't have it both ways. You've just
talked about constitutional prerogatives --

Q I'm saying how this White House seems to run from transparency.

MR. SNOW: No, we're not running.

Q Then you had the 9/11 Commission, we're having conversations, nothing
under oath. And now this.

MR. SNOW: Well, wait a minute. The 9/11 Commission, number one, was
authorized by Congress and signed by the President and supported by the
administration. What we were trying to do was, again, to avoid the kind of
precedent that we're talking about now, which is to bring senior aides up
under oath. So what you ended up having were, in fact -- I think they were
categorized as briefings. They used that particular -- they used that
formulation for precisely the same reasons I'm talking about now.

So I don't think this is a matter of transparency. This is a matter of
trying to have -- what do you mean? Condoleezza Rice was on there and she
was facing tough questioning from Richard BenVeniste --

Q But certain people -- the Vice President and the President would not
testify under oath. You had "conversations" at that time. And there's a --

MR. SNOW: Yes. That's perfectly appropriate.

Q You used the word "avoid." There is an avoidance, it seems, of this
administration to sit down and talk on the record, under oath, about
critical issues.

MR. SNOW: What you're saying is that every time somebody wants to try to
mount a charge you ought to be able to get hauled up and testify under
oath, with a presumption of criminality, rather than a presumption of
goodwill. I'm not going to buy that.

Q Was it criminal, 9/11 -- was that criminal?

MR. SNOW: No. What I'm saying is that the 9/11 Commission, we participated
fully.

Q Tony, I spoke to a top Senate Republican aide recently, and he said that
he thinks that this debate over the subpoenas, is a distraction in some
ways from what they believe Democrats are trying to raise taxes by $900
billion this week. Do you guys share that opinion?

MR. SNOW: I'm not going to try to read -- I'm not going to try to assign
motives. We'll have plenty to say about the budget, because you're right,
it has major tax increases and spending hikes, and we don't support what
we've seen of the budget proposals.

First thing we really want to deal with is get the supplemental out of the
way. Democrats have had a tough time. They have learned that governing is a
lot tougher than complaining from the sidelines. And the Senate has yet to
come through with a resolution expressing condemnation. But I also think
that they're beginning to realize that what the President offered, in terms
of constructive cooperation on big issues, that's good for them. We've been
saying this all along, but all of a sudden you realize, you know what,
people want us to do our business. They want us to do it in a way that
actually reflects well on the ability of people who have differing
political views to get important business done. So I don't want to try to
assign motives.

Q You keep mentioning -- there's sort of a pathological obsession with Karl
Rove. Is that accurate to say?

MR. SNOW: I'm not -- again, there's certainly a lot of people who seem to
have Karl on their mind a lot.

David. I'm not -- David.

Q I'm not thinking about Karl, I'm not thinking about Karl at all.

MR. SNOW: Okay, Karl on the mind. David.

Q I'd like to ask a question about the war spending bill. Part of this
debate is the assertion by you and others, and including the President,
that a date certain for withdrawal of troops would lead to chaos,
accelerated violence, regional conflict in Iraq. Why should Americans trust
your assumptions about the outcome of troop withdrawal, based on this
administration's record of assumptions and the way things played out in
Iraq?

MR. SNOW: Okay, don't trust our assumptions, take a look at the record
itself. What you have found is that there's been a determination on the
part of the terror network to try to make a couple of cases: Number one,
you can't rely on the Americans. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri, as
well as Abu Musab al Zarqawi, have tried to make the point that the
Americans, they really can't take the heat, they're going to get out, and
when they get out, you go in and you take over. And that is a case they
make in recruiting, and it is a case they also make in trying to wage acts
of terror against neighboring states and to try to weaken the will of those
who have been supporting us in the war on terror. So don't take our word
for it, take their word for it. And the President read out some of those
back in September.

Secondly, if you try to think strategically about what this says, if you
have a date certain regardless, succeed or fail, what it says to those who
want to commit acts of terror is, put your feet up, go ahead and try to
build up arms strength and go try to do this, that or the other, try to get
yourself organized, wait it out, and when the Americans leave, you hit and
you hit hard. That would make common sense. And I think you're going to
find most military folks agree with it.

What you pointed out, David, is that in a time of war, nobody is a perfect
predictor. But on the other hand, what you have to do is to make sure that
you're not weakening your hand by doing something that almost immediately
could be construed as a rhetorical victory for the enemy, and ultimately as
a strategic victory for the enemy, because you get -- take a look at what
happened as the new Baghdad plan came out. You saw many terror figures
getting out of Baghdad. You saw that there was a change in the attitude and
behavior of a number of people, including perhaps Muqtada al Sadr.

What you have seen, is, in fact, there -- people take seriously the focused
application of American force. And as a result, they behave differently.
And even though it is -- certainly, as Helen was just pointing out, not
perfect in Iraq, there has been some improvement, and we hope it continues
to improve. So those are the kind of considerations that go into that.

Q Tony, I want to go back to the offer on the U.S. attorneys. I'm not clear
about something now. Is the White House offer on that, is that
non-negotiable?

MR. SNOW: We're not negotiating. This is our offer. This is our position.

Q Okay, so there will be no negotiating on that offer, is that correct?

MR. SNOW: Not that I'm aware of. But the other thing we can do -- see, what
happens is, a lot of times, people are trying to characterize the offer,
but haven't looked at it. And if your concern as a member of Congress is,
will I get all the facts? We're going to answer your question. We're going
to tell you what all the facts are. We're going to let you draw a full and
fair conclusion about what's going on.

And therefore, if that is the real aim of a congressional investigation, to
find out what happened and to be able to assess it, and if necessary, take
action. We're going to give them everything they need.

Q Can I just follow up? I mean, "not that I'm aware of" is not a -- is
really not a line in the sand. I mean, are you --

MR. SNOW: Okay, line in the sand. That's a -- that's our position.

Q Democrats are defying the President in the standoff over the firing of
U.S. attorneys. They're also showing a readiness to defy the President over
Iraq war emergency funding. Now, with all this bad blood that's developing,
what are the chances for this President to stave off lame-duck status and
push his -- get his agenda unstuck?

MR. SNOW: Well, I'd turn it around. Congress has to pass something. They
haven't done it yet -- haven't been able to pass an anti-war resolution. I
think this is an opportunity for them to show they can get something done.

Now, they know for a fact -- this may be defiance, but it's a kind of
defiance that doesn't help you, because they know for a fact that these
bills aren't going to become law. They still have to -- they still have to
put together a law that will get passed.

So the question is, is it so important to you to make a rhetorical point
with a law that will never see the light of day, that you are willing to
risk the fact that the money is going to run out on the troops while you're
still doing this? Or do you want to, in fact, demonstrate real support for
the troops? I don't think that is a sign of White House weakness.

Furthermore, politicians in this town -- you know, they've got a pretty
good sense of how the business works. And they also have the ability quite
often to set aside whatever disagreements they may have on some issues to
work together on others. Look at No Child Left Behind. You had Ted Kennedy
and George W. Bush working together. There are a number of issues on which
the President has made common cause with Democrats and Republicans, and
frankly, what we're offering is a good deal for both parties on really
serious issues.

Now, if the American public sees that all Congress can do -- all that's
going to happen in Washington is squabbling over things while the funding
runs out for troops -- while we don't get things done on energy
independence, while we don't reauthorize No Child Left Behind, while we
don't move on immigration -- they're going to say, why did we bring you
here? There's a powerful incentive for members of Congress to work with us,
and a powerful incentive for us to work with them so we get important stuff
done. And again, I've been in a lot of these meetings, and they have, for
the most part, been very respectful and constructive, and I do think things
are going to get done.

So I would -- I would avoid trying to read too much into

a day's news.

A friend of mine, years ago, said, Washington is a town where the urgent
overwhelms the important. And quite often we get a sense of urgency about
the news of the day, and we forget that ultimately the people brought
members of Congress and the President here to do work, and not to squabble.

Q Tony, Iraq -- the Maliki government, according to an official of the
Ministry of National Dialogue, has been holding indirect discussions with
insurgents for the past three months. Is our government aware of that?

MR. SNOW: I don't know. And I apologize, I had told you I was going to try
to get an answer. You were kind enough to email me before. I will get you
an answer on that. I think I probably know what it is, but I don't want to
guess.

Q Tony, there's been a lot of congressional hearings on global warming, as
you know. And one other proposal that keeps coming up is this idea of a
moratorium on your coal-fired power plants because they emit a lot of
carbon. And the answer or the proposal is to hold the moratorium until you
have the technology to capture and store. You have put a lot of faith in
technology. Is there any willingness to consider this idea?

MR. SNOW: Paula, I don't know. What you are asking is, are we going to stop
generating electricity or -- the President -- let me refrain it, but try to
be responsive. The President has put a lot of money into clean coal
technology. We think that it is absolutely important because, you're right,
coal-fired plants right now are polluters. China is building one a week.
And we think it's important, for the sake of the United States and the rest
of the world, to help clean up the environment by having a clean-coal
technology that has the capability, effectively, of reducing greenhouse
emissions to zero. And it is a priority item. And take a look -- it's been
a priority item for the President for a long time.

The President has also talked about nuclear power as also a non-polluting
form of energy that we think holds a great deal of promise, for allowing
people to keep their jobs and have their clean air, too. So what we're
trying to avoid are attempts to force people into a false tradeoff, which
is, you've got to give up your job to have clean air. We don't think you
have to do that. We think that you can keep the economy going at full-speed
and, at the same time, continue to clean the air -- which is why,
incidentally, the United States has a better record in cleaning the air
than any other major industrialized country, the EU. It's because we
continue using technology -- and not just because of government dicta;
people like you and everybody else, we like clean air. It's something that
everybody wants.

And there are profits aplenty to be made by folks who figure out how to
generate energy and do important economic activity without pollution.

Q Are you then saying that there are jobs to be made in technology, rather
than job losses?

MR. SNOW: Yes, which is precisely why Congress ought to pass the
President's energy plan, because, if you take a look at it, what we're
really trying to do, for instance, is generate technological capability
when it comes to biofuels, biodiesel, ethanol and other fuels that, in
fact, are not only renewable, but clean.

Q Tony, you've expressed concern about Democrats running around with
transcripts, say, of Karl Rove's interview and in front of cameras and
creating a public spectacle. How could it possibly be a public spectacle if
oaths are taken privately, behind closed doors?

MR. SNOW: Well, again, you're -- there are two different issues. Number
one, what we're trying to do is to say, we don't like the precedent of also
treating this like -- these ought to be interviews. This should not be a
deposition; this should not have a feel of a trial. These are people who
are going to come here and give you the facts you need. Furthermore,
everybody knows that the way the law is written, you're compelled to tell
the truth. So we see that as an unnecessary add-on and one that we don't
think adds anything to the content that members of Congress are going to
receive.

Let me reiterate the key point. Members of Congress are going to get every
shred of information they need. We think it's a good thing; we want them to
know the truth, and we've come up with a way that we think not only befits
the dignity of the White House, but also could give people a refreshing
sense that, hey, we can look at a tough issue without engaging in trench
warfare.

Q Can you tell us, when did the Department of Justice brief you on the gap
in the emails? Was it after or before --

MR. SNOW: I have actually not been briefed by the Department of Justice.
And I would suggest --

Q That they told you --

MR. SNOW: No, I actually have not spoken directly with DOJ. But I'm glad
you asked. You really need to ask them about it. The answer we have gotten
is that the documents that have been provided are fully responsive to the
request from Congress. But if you want a detailed answer, you really need
to go there.

Q No, that's not what I'm looking for. I'm looking for a time line of when
you got the answer that you've gotten, whether it was before or after the
story broke in the press.

MR. SNOW: Well, it would have been yesterday, so it probably would have
been after. Yes, it would have been after.

Q Can I just follow with a clarification of what you're saying?

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q With the offer that's been given to Congress -- because Congress is
asking for additional documents from the White House voluntarily -- is the
President interested, separate and apart from the interviews, in producing
those documents from the White House to external sources? In other words,
would that take the temperature down --

MR. SNOW: We already have it in writing. I'll just read -- what it says
here is, we would provide communications between the White House and
persons outside the White House concerning the request for resignations of
the U.S. attorneys in question, and communications between the White House
and members of Congress concerning those requests.

Q I'm just asking, is that only active if they accept the offer, or will he
do that as --

MR. SNOW: I think at this point -- look, what you're asking us to do is
negotiate against ourselves. We made our position clear. If --

Q No, no, no --

MR. SNOW: This is the offer. I'm not qualifying the offer.

Q I'm just following on what you were saying about the production of the
Justice documents was designed to be helpful and voluntary because it was
everything that Justice had, to be responsive to the request. There's an
additional request: We'd like to see information from the White House. And
the President has said, I'd like to do that -- this is what I'm offering;
I'd like to do that. But he's not going to do that voluntarily, separate
and apart from the deal. In other words, you could gather all that now,
give it to them, and maybe it would help.

MR. SNOW: Maybe. I'll take it under advisement. Thank you.

Q But you're saying he's not doing that.

MR. SNOW: I don't know, that's not --

Q I'm asking the question, you have not --

MR. SNOW: No. No. No.

Q Okay. The second question I have is, do you have anything new on when Mr.
Gonzales might appear, to help his case, on the Hill?

MR. SNOW: I think that's -- I believe -- I don't think he schedules
himself. I believe that Houses of Congress do that.

Q So there's nothing new on that. And the second element of that is, would
it be helpful if the Attorney General came to this room or the Justice
Department and actually just sat and took every question he could get?

MR. SNOW: You're going to have to ask the Attorney General how he --

Q I'm asking whether you think --

MR. SNOW: I know, but that's -- I'm not speaking for the Attorney General,
I'm speaking for the President.

Q Tony, two quick questions. One, as far as human rights in China is
concerned, people fighting for democracy are being jailed, and (inaudible)
is fighting here, according to Washington Times. What are we doing as far
as human rights and democracy in China?

MR. SNOW: Well, Goyal, you know our commitment to human rights and
democracy remains strong throughout the globe.

Q And second, as far as the Iranian nuclear issue is concerned, again the
President of Iran has said that those who are against our nuclear program
will be punished severely. What --

MR. SNOW: Well, I think what you've found, with the success of the
international community working together with North Korea, getting the
North Koreans to return to the six-party talks, allowing IAEA inspectors
in, they've certainly promised a number of things, including shutting down
Yongbyon in the near future. This is the approach we're taking, which is
why we've been in discussions. The P5 plus one have already come up with
agreement on a U.N. Security Council resolution, a follow-on resolution
with regard to Iran. We're talking it over with the full Security Council.

That's really the way you deal with this. We understand that there are some
people in Iran who are going to issue public statements. Our public
statement to Iran is simple: we're here to help the Iranian people. We're
here to help the Iranian people get nuclear power if they want it, to help
them get greater closer economic and cultural ties. The one thing that we
also think is in Iran's interest is not to have a nuclear weapons program.

So that's really -- our position remains very clear on that. But it's one,
really, of outreach of the Iranian people.

Q I have one more just quickly. As far as this drugs and homelessness is
concerned, including in the Asian community, this week there was a
spiritual leader from India -- in Centreville, Virginia. What he said that
he congratulated President Bush also, but he said that what I am requesting
him is that education is the key to get all these problems, including
people who get into terrorism and all that, and also -- one Indian medical
doctor who's also homeless here and Oprah also had a special program on
homeless. So when President do you think --

MR. SNOW: The President made it clear recently, when he spoke on Wall
Street, and also every time he advocates for No Child Left Behind that
education is vital. Is it the cure-all? No. But it is certainly an
important element in separating those who succeed from those who do not --
not only economically, but in terms of their personal lives.

But having said that, there are any -- what you've raised are a whole
series of complex issues that you can't raise -- that you're not going to
solve with a simple federal program. But education is an absolutely vital
element.

Q Tony?

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q Thank you, Tony. Two questions. The Washington Times published Purdue law
professor, Louis Beres, and Israeli Major General Isaac Ben-Israel's
statement that Israel has the right guaranteed to all states to act
preemptively when faced with nuclear assault. And my question: Does the
President agree or disagree with their writing that this is affirmed in
international law?

MR. SNOW: The President is not commenting on op-ed pieces. Next.

Q They all -- well --

MR. SNOW: I know -- I know, it's a good question. And it's -- you know,
it's got great concern, but you know what? You ask me questions like this,
I can't give you answers. And you know what? Why do you do this? Give me a
question that -- rather than asking an argumentative question about
something that raises a provocative issue, or give me a head's up, and I'll
try to do it. But we go through this. I love you. But you've got to help me
out here. (Laughter.) I mean, it's just -- you know.

Q But these were statements by these --

MR. SNOW: I know, and you think the President should respond to every
statement made in every newspaper in the United States of America?

Q No, I just want to know. If you don't want to respond, that's fine. Could
I just follow this up with the second part of it? They also write that the
right to such preemptive action is also affirmed in the September 20, 2002
American policy codification of the national security strategy of the
United States. Are they wrong in this?

MR. SNOW: No, we have a national security strategy, and I'm glad that they
have read it.

Q Thank you.

END 1:26 P.M. EDT
===========================================================================
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/03/20070322-4.html

 * Origin: (1:3634/12)