Text 4281, 653 rader
Skriven 2007-03-28 23:31:04 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (0703285) for Wed, 2007 Mar 28
====================================================

===========================================================================
Press Briefing by Dana Perino
===========================================================================

For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary March 28, 2007

Press Briefing by Dana Perino White House Conference Center Briefing Room

˙ Video (Windows) ˙˙Press Briefings


12:45 P.M. EDT

MS. PERINO: Good afternoon. I'll start with an opening statement, and then
I'll take your questions. As you heard the President today, he talked
about, in his speech to the Cattlemen's Association, the Iraqi war
supplemental. Today Senator Reid responded to the President by saying, "We
should get real with what's going on with the world." Let me just take a
moment to step back and talk about where we are in the world.

On March 8th, the President said -- we said that the President would veto
any bill that tied a timetable or restrictions to the supplemental. So the
Democrats have known for 20 days, nearly three weeks, that their current
bill would never become law. Yet they continued down their current path. A
week ago, they heard from the Secretary of Defense that if the emergency
funding isn't provided by April 15th, our men and women in uniform will
face significant disruptions, and so will their families. Yet they
continued down their current path, and they cobbled together votes by
adding extraneous spending and domestic spending for such things as the
spinach, peanut, and shrimp lobbies.

So they continued down that path. And let me remind you that two months
ago, the National Intelligence Estimate, released on February 2nd,
predicted that withdrawing coalition forces from Iraq within the next 12 to
18 months would not solve Iraq's problems, but would, in fact, lead to
catastrophe.

Democrats in Congress must take responsibility for their votes and their
statements, and stop trying to have it both ways. It is completely
disingenuous to stand up and highlight the intelligence community's
judgment about conditions on the ground in Iraq one month, as Senator Reid
did, but then vote for the precise action that the same experts say would
make the situation catastrophic the next. It is also disingenuous to praise
the Iraq Study Group's report in December, but now support an artificial
timetable for withdrawal.

Secretary Baker, himself, says General Petraeus and our new strategy "ought
to be given a chance." And the Iraq Study Group said of withdrawal, "the
point is not for the United States to set timetables or deadlines for
withdrawal, an approach that we oppose." Have Democrats decided to reject
the judgment of our intelligence community, the Baker-Hamilton report, and
our military experts? If not, then they need to stop undermining the early
progress we are seeing in Iraq, so that they can sound tough without having
to take responsibility for their actions.

Questions. Jennifer.

Q On this Iraq spending bill, does the President really think that majority
votes by both houses of Congress requires no give on his part?

MS. PERINO: Well, that's -- first, let's step back and talk about that
majority, which was a bare majority of 50 votes in the Senate and 218 votes
in the House, which were cobbled together in order to twist arms and buy
votes using domestic spending from all the different lobbies that I
mentioned, plus other ones -- tropical fish -- I forgot to throw that one
in there.

So if we start there, and say that is not, in any way, representative of
large majorities in either side. Of course, the President understands that
there needs to be give-and-take between Congress and the White House when
we're talking about any type of legislation. But they've known for three
weeks what the President's position is regarding arbitrary timetables for
withdrawal, and that is what he said he would veto.

Q Dana, just to follow up on that, then, perhaps a little clarity -- if a
bill were to come back stripped of spinach, peanut, shrimp, tropical fish,
anything else, if it came back stripped entirely of pork, but had
timetables in there, would they still get a veto?

MS. PERINO: I think the President said that if there are arbitrary
timetables for withdrawal that would tie the hands of our commanders on the
ground, then, yes, he said he would veto it.

Q So he doesn't want to be out before 2008?

MS. PERINO: The President would like to see troops home as soon as possible
--

Q We know all that business.

MS. PERINO: -- but the President does not want to tie the generals' hands
on the ground. I'll tell you, the framers of our Constitution had it right
when they realized that you needed to have one Commander-in-Chief in charge
of the war, not 535 generals on Capitol Hill.

Q The President emphasized al Qaeda in Iraq, and if they don't -- we'll
fight them there. Before the war, he indicated -- he not only indicated, he
said that there were no ties with Saddam. Is he responsible for bringing al
Qaeda into Iraq?

MS. PERINO: I don't think the President is responsible -- no, absolutely
not. Al Qaeda went to Iraq --

Q Absolutely not?

MS. PERINO: You just have to go back to Zarqawi, and how he set up shop
there in Iraq, and started fomenting the sectarian violence, and he was
successful --

Q And he doesn't think our moves brought them in?

MS. PERINO: -- and we're having to fight that now.

Jessica.

Q This morning you said that if the funds stop for the troops in Iraq, that
will be the fault of the Democrats, not the President. But in point of
fact, it would be the President who is denying this funding from going
through. So does the President really want to halt funds to our troops?

MS. PERINO: Surely there can be no excuse for the Democrats trying to pin
the blame on the President. What he has said --

Q But it's not -- it's the mechanical way this works. It would literally be
the President who's stopping this. Is he comfortable being the person
stopping the funding?

MS. PERINO: The President has said he is going to -- if this bill comes to
him in this form and it ties the generals' hands and does not allow them
the flexibility that they need, that tells General Petraeus, we really like
you, General Petraeus, we really trust in you, we really want you to
complete your mission, but we think it's going to fail, then, yes, the
President would veto it.

And I think that if -- it's really disingenuous to try to have it both
ways. If the Democrats want to end this war and they want to cut off
funding, then they should go ahead and do that. But that's not what they've
done. They've made -- had this charade going for three weeks, they knew the
President was going to veto the bill. We've given them substantial warning
and information, and we've been talking to them about all of our reasons.
And so this cannot be laid at the President's feet. This will be the fault
of the Democrats.

Q In his speech today, the President also quoted from a blogger in Iraq as
an example of positive developments there, people who see positive
developments. Is this really representative of what's going on in Iraq, one
blogger? Is this what the White House is relying on?

MS. PERINO: No, Jessica, you have to look at all the different inputs that
are coming in, and General Petraeus's reports, and from the commanders on
the ground, and your own colleagues' reporting over there. We know that
there are real challenges. Obviously, real challenges remain. We have lots
of violence. But I think what the President was doing was taking an
opportunity to talk about what one person's expression is. But that doesn't
mean that there aren't other people having that same expression. Certainly
nobody can deny what General Petraeus has been saying and reporting.*

Q Dana, Nancy Pelosi said she wishes the President would just take a deep
breath. Any response to that?

MS. PERINO: Well, I think I would go back to the same thing, which is that
-- she also said that each of us -- meaning the Congress and the White
House -- has a constitutional role, and that is true. And the founders of
our country realized that the Commander-in-Chief needed to be the one
having the power to conduct the war, not 535 generals on Capitol Hill. And
so I think that maybe Washington could take a collective deep breath, but
the President has been clearly and calmly explaining that he would veto
this bill if it came to him in this format.

Q You don't feel he's overheated --

MS. PERINO: No, I don't.

Q Democrats say they're reflecting the prevailing opinion of the American
people, and the polls seem to bear them out. What's wrong with doing that?

MS. PERINO: We understand that people want the troops to come home. It's
absolutely clear. We know that war is not popular, it hasn't been, and this
war has not been going well, which is why the President had to have the
Iraq review that he did last fall, that culminated in the new way forward
that he announced on January 10th.

I don't think that the American people want our troops to not have the
funds that they need when they're in harm's way. I don't think the American
people want the generals' hands to be tied behind their backs. I don't
think that they want to mandate failure and legislate failure, which is
what these bills would do.

Elaine.

Q Dana, back on the issue of the bloggers, the unnamed Iraqi bloggers that
the President cited and tried to use to help make his argument for progress
in Iraq -- this is an administration that doesn't respond to anonymous
quotes in established media outlets here in the United States. The
President is citing these anonymous -- two anonymous Iraqi bloggers to help
make the argument --

MS. PERINO: It's one input from many different inputs that are coming in
regarding progress on the ground.

Q Isn't that a little ironic, though?

MS. PERINO: No, I don't think it is. You guys call me with anonymous quotes
that you want me to respond to all of the time, and sometimes I do.
Sometimes I do. I have before.

Q But as a tactic, for him to be -- is there something that prompted that
specific --

MS. PERINO: I'll look into the -- I think that maybe somebody found it
compelling, the President wanted to include it in his speech. And I'll see
if I can get more for you on it, but I don't think it's unusual. Blogs are
new for all of us, and I know that you all look at them, because then you
call me and ask me what we think about the blogs.

Q Dana, two questions. One, is it your contention that there is not support
for a cutoff date in Congress, that the Democrats essentially bought this
with the additional spending?

MS. PERINO: I think that there's no doubt that they had to go out and get
this extra domestic spending in order for them to get the bare majorities
that they got.

Q Second, Senator Levin seems to recognize that the bills will not pass --
or will not be signed into law by the President. But he says, the votes
that Congress has conducted serve to put pressure on the Iraqi government
to live up to its benchmarks, and that helps the President. Do you dispute
that?

MS. PERINO: No, I -- remember, we believe in benchmarks, and we worked with
the Iraqi government on benchmarks. Two examples that we've been talking
about are the oil law and the de-Baathification law. Progress is very slow.
It takes a long time to get something done. But, imagine -- I can't
remember the exact date, but one of the timetables and benchmarks that they
tied this funding to up on Capitol Hill is that they have to have the oil
law passed and finalized by a certain date, three months from now. I can't
imagine Congress being able to finalize any type of legislation -- our
Congress, our fully-functioning Congress that's been in place over 200
years, being able to complete anything in three months. They couldn't even
pass a budget last year. These things are complicated. We do want the
Iraqis to be able to reach consensus and it is a slow-moving progress, but
progress, nonetheless.

Q Not so much the date that Congress has set, the pressure on the U.S.
President serves notice to the Iraqis, Senator Levin is saying --

MS. PERINO: I think that everyone feels the pressure and is fully
incentivized in order to get the situation stabilized in Iraq. I think you
would have to ask no one -- all of the Iraqis, especially the ones in the
government, understand the tremendous pressure that they're under, how
their citizens are living in fear and how they need to get their services
back up, in order -- I mean, there's no one more incentivized than the
Iraqis.

Q Dana, the President -- given the current congressional schedule, the
soonest that they could get to conference on this, if they stick to their
current schedule, would be the 16th of April, which is a day after
Secretary Gates and other people have said that the money will start
running out. Would the President like to see Congress stay, cut their
recess short, in order to resolve this?

MS. PERINO: Look, that's going to be up to members of Congress. The
President has said that he'll be here, he'll be in Washington and is
willing to work. We have that one Easter break, but we'll be back by the
9th. And we think that if Congress wants to work these things out that they
can do that.

I do think it's very real -- and the people -- Senator McConnell, this
morning, had an op-ed in which he said that,"The only ones directly
affected in the short-term by this action would be the American soldiers in
Iraq and their families here at home. By forcing a presidential veto and
delaying the shipment of supplies, they're the ones who lose." And so I
think that Congress ought to take that into consideration.

Q Has he expressed this to the leaders on either side?

MS. PERINO: Yes, the President has talked about how he would veto the bill.

Q But his willingness to stay and work through the recess?

MS. PERINO: The President is going to be here. So it's up to them.

Q He could sign and then they'd have the support --

MS. PERINO: I haven't heard any of that, and that will be up to Congress.
But what the President has said is, let's get this over with. You've made
your political statements; send the bill up here, the President will veto
it, and then we can get about the business of negotiating.

Q But he wouldn't use his power to call them back, would he? Or would he?

MS. PERINO: That's a hypothetical that I have not even -- I didn't even
know he could. I think I kind of knew he could, back from civics class. But
we'll have to check into it and see. But I haven't heard anybody talking
about that.

Q -- then you're holding out --

MS. PERINO: I'm not holding anything out there. You are. But I will check
into it. (Laughter.)

Q Dana, what's the administration's policy over the years of holding out
sweeteners for help on funding and special projects, to get votes from
members of Congress on issues that it wants?

MS. PERINO: I know that there have probably been bills in which those --
when you work with members of Congress, you have to talk those things
through. I don't know about emergency war supplementals, and I would have
-- I'll check into it for you. But I think that this one is separate and
apart.

Q Another question. What happened to the Sam Fox nomination?

MS. PERINO: Sam Fox nomination? Let me -- I've got a couple notes on that.
As you saw, we sent up a withdrawal for Sam Fox's nomination. The President
believes that Mr. Fox is qualified to serve as ambassador to Belgium. He
has a proven record of leadership and a strong willingness to serve our
country. He has a long list of accomplishments, including one of them being
named the St. Louis Citizen of the Year.

Unfortunately, we received word that because of politics, some members of
the Senate would have voted against his nomination, which would have
prevented him from serving in this important position. So we are
disappointed that they made their decision based upon partisan politics
instead of his leadership abilities, and that's why we withdrew the
nomination.

Q The votes weren't there because of his $50,000 contribution to the Swift
Boat group?

MS. PERINO: I don't know what all the reasons were in terms of individual
members making that decision. But we do think that he was qualified to
serve, but we have withdrawn his nomination.

Q Do you think that his involvement with the Swift Boat group should be an
issue, or should have been an issue?

MS. PERINO: I think that you look at his -- no, I don't think it is, and I
think that -- but, of course, members of Congress can make their own
decisions. Senators can look at any nominee and weigh that decision. I
think that weighed -- if you look at that he was Chairman and CEO of the
Harbour Group, Limited, served in key leadership roles in cultural,
education and charitable institutions in St. Louis, on and on -- and again,
St. Louis Citizen of the Year. And so I think that senators have to make
their own decisions, but obviously this is a person who's qualified to
serve as ambassador.

Q Did the White House know about his contribution before they nominated
him?

MS. PERINO: There's no -- I don't believe so. But I know that the President
did not when he nominated him.

Q Would that have had an effect?

MS. PERINO: I don't know.

Q On this topic, did senators threaten to put holds --

MS. PERINO: I don't know. I do know that his nomination would not have
passed today if the vote had been called up.

Q And why not let the vote go ahead?

MS. PERINO: We just decided to withdraw his name.

Q On the speech today, on these bloggers, does the White House know the
identity, or is this just something someone came across --

MS. PERINO: Can I check? I don't know, I'll have to check. It was quoted in
a Wall Street Journal article at some point. I think I let some of you know
that this morning.

Q And just now the White House came upon them?

MS. PERINO: I'm not sure. I don't know if somebody saw it initially. I
don't know. We can try to check into it. We keep records on that.

Q Dana --

MS. PERINO: Goyal, can I go to the back real quick and come back to you?

Q Yes.

MS. PERINO: Okay. Victoria.

Q Yesterday, before the Senate Judiciary Committee, FBI Director Robert
Mueller said, again -- he admitted to mistakes, carelessness, confusion,
lack of training, lack of guidance, and lack of adequate oversight. Is it
time for the President to ask for his resignation and regain the trust of
the American people in the FBI?

MS. PERINO: The President has confidence in FBI Director Mueller. He went
up to the Senate, he answered all of their questions, he took
responsibility as the Director. And I think that that was the appropriate
thing to do. He also talked about all the measures that they've put in
place in order to start addressing some of the issues that were brought up
in those IG investigations.

Q There was also talk among the senators and the Director about the
possibility of some kind of MI-5 organization that, just basically, the FBI
has too much on its plate and that they can't take it on. What does the
administration think about that?

MS. PERINO: I think that those are ideas that are floating out there, but I
don't know of anyone seriously considering --

Q Does the President have a view?

MS. PERINO: I've never talked to him about it. I don't know. I think that
he believes that the FBI is doing a great job in protecting this country,
and I think the facts bear that out.

Q Would the President veto a supplemental bill strictly over a withdrawal
date that is not legally binding?

MS. PERINO: I'm not going to negotiate from this podium. Of course, we're
going to have conversations with Congress, and the President has been clear
that arbitrary timetables that put handcuffs on our generals and tie
funding to conditions on the ground that don't match the conditions on the
ground is what he would be against.

Q A follow-up on that. If the war effort were to literally start running
out of money, doesn't the President have some emergency spending powers
akin to what goes on here when there's a government shutdown? Have you been
looking into that?

MS. PERINO: I'd have to refer you to Department of Defense. I'm not -- or
we can look into it and try to get back to you. I don't know. What I do
know is that the President has listened to Secretary of Defense Bob Gates,
who has said that as of April 15th, the money is going to start running
out.

Let me go to April, and then I'll go to you, Les.

Q On that subject, basically both sides are standing toe-to-toe, looking
eye-to-eye. No one is blinking. Is the President prepared to allow the
troops not to be funded after April 15th? Because he continually talks
about the need for flexibility, the need to fund them for what they need on
the ground.

MS. PERINO: The President -- we stand ready. We have open lines of
communication with Capitol Hill. You can bet that we're in constant
communication. You know that the members have been down -- both sides of
the aisle have been down to talk with the President, and members of our
staff are up there talking to them, and I'm sure there are phone calls
going back and forth.

Q Is there any way the President will bend on all of this pork and allow
some to stay in?

MS. PERINO: Again, I'm not going to negotiate from this podium, or talk
about any specific negotiations that would be ongoing. But we're going to
be talking to Capitol Hill that we need the money for the troops.

Q So, basically, the President is not going to blink?

MS. PERINO: We'll be talking with members of Congress.

Les.

Q Yes. Thank you, Dana. Two questions. What is the President prepared to
offer in the way of help to Great Britain to free the 15 of its armed
forces seized by the Iranians?

MS. PERINO: I do have one update. The President did speak to Tony Blair
today by SVTS. This was a secure video teleconference. That was scheduled
before this incident had occurred, and they did speak today on a variety of
topics, including this one. The President fully backs Tony Blair and our
allies in Britain.

Q Does the President believe that PA President Abbas truly desires to be a
partner for peace, when only weeks ago Abbas and his Fatah party joined the
Hamas terrorist government after signing the Mecca agreement, which does
not call for peace, but for more terrorism, and demands the so-called
"right of return"?

MS. PERINO: Peace in the Middle East is a priority for this administration.
Secretary Rice is in the region. We are talking to them, are talking to the
unity government.

Q She seems to think that this is a development for peace. And I'd like to
know, where does the President stand on what PA President Abbas has done?

MS. PERINO: I do believe that the President believes that President Abbas
has the intention of finding a peaceful solution. And we are encouraged by
Secretary Rice's discussions with them, as one of the things that has come
out of her trip is that they will be meeting -- Abbas and Olmert will be
meeting bi-weekly to have meetings and discussions, and that's encouraging.
We need to have them to have a continuing conversation.

Peter, did you have one?

Q I wanted to come back for a second on the war bill. You said earlier that
you thought the public does not support the kind of conditions that the
House and Senate are talking about, even though the Pew poll just the other
day showed, in fact, strong majority support exactly the kind of bills --
the majority says they want their representative to vote for these bills.
How do you reconcile that?

MS. PERINO: Well, I think it's incumbent upon us to talk about the
consequences of what these bills would do. I know people want the troops to
come home, and I think it is probably attractive to think of a date when we
could come home, that that would be a goal that we could all look forward
to. Unfortunately -- and it is incumbent upon us to talk to people across
the country, to let them know that those timetables are dates when people
can -- our enemies can mark their calendars and sit back, regroup, refit,
relax, and get ready to have a new safe haven from which to launch attacks.
I don't think the American people would be for that.

Q So they support it, but they're just not fully aware of the consequences?

MS. PERINO: I think that the consequences are important. I also think that
if they realize that the troops weren't going to be able to get the funding
that they needed while they're in harm's way, and that their families back
home would also be victims of this problem, that they would not support the
Democrats' position. I think that what we need to do is have us get the
bill up here, let the President do the veto, and then let more discussions
begin on a cleaner bill.

Q Back to the speech, if I may. The President said, quoting the Iraqi
blogger, that displaced people are coming back home and that the markets in
Baghdad in busy. Does the President believe this is what's happening in
Iraq today?

MS. PERINO: I believe General Petraeus has said similar things, and reports
on the ground -- again, amid real challenges. We're under no illusions that
there are -- that things are rosy in Baghdad. Clearly, it is a very, very
tough situation and it remains so. But as General Petraeus has said, they
are beginning to see some signs of improvement based on the plan that he's
implementing, that the Senate sent him to do unanimously, but now says that
they don't want to fund him to do.

Goyal.

Q Dana, two quick questions. First, I agree with President Bush when he
said yesterday that we have to pray for Tony Snow.

MS. PERINO: Yes, I think we all do.

Q The question is, that as far as Iranian issue is concerned, number of
countries who were warned not to do business with the Iranian government,
that they are still doing business, as far as -- (inaudible) -- they are
dealing with Iran.

MS. PERINO: What's your question?

Q Number of countries who were warned by the United States not to do
business with Iran, but they are still doing business with Iran.

MS. PERINO: I'll have to refer you to State Department. I don't know,
Goyal.

Q And second, as far as the immigration bill is concerned, which was
sponsored by the President and Secretary of Homeland Security also
supported the bill. And recent raids in Senator Kennedy's home town or home
state -- where the Secretary was accused by Senator Kennedy that maybe
there were ill treatment of the workers there or something. But Secretary
was defending his move, as far as illegal immigration is concerned. My
question is that as far as the small business community is concerned, and
illegal immigrants, they are in fear that they cannot find any workers now,
because of those ongoing raids.

MS. PERINO: Well, workplace enforcement is an important part of immigration
reform. I will make sure -- everyone should go ahead and take a look at the
ombudsman column from Sunday's Washington Post, in which they talked about
those stories, because a lot of them were -- a lot of the stories that came
out of that were not based on the facts. And I think that ICE -- the
Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency over at Department of Homeland
Security has tried to correct those.

On immigration reform, absolutely, we have to continue to work closely with
members of Congress. We need to get a bill so that we can have a temporary
worker program.

Q How close President is moving on this bill in the --

MS. PERINO: We want to get it done before August. That's what the President
said.

Q You said the Department of Justice continues looking for new documents,
if they need to release more. In some of those documents that have been
released, there have been non-White House addresses, email addresses, that
people have written from. Is there a policy from the White House that tells
employees that if they're doing White House business, it should be with
their White House email? Or are people always free to use an outside
address for business?

MS. PERINO: No -- and I talked a little bit about this yesterday, that
there are certain individuals, limited individuals, that have
responsibilities that may straddle both worlds, both White House and then
have interface with political organizations. And so in those cases, they've
been given these emails in which -- in order to avoid any possible
potential violations of the Hatch Act, they use those emails. Of course,
people are encouraged, on official White House business, to use their
official White House accounts. Sometimes there might be a gray area and
people have to make a judgment call.

Q And since this came to light, has anybody inside the White House, like
yesterday, issued a new directive, reminding people to use their White
House emails?

MS. PERINO: I don't know -- I don't know of any new directive, but it is
what we ask people to do.

Paula.

Q Dana, on the war supplemental, besides the extraneous funding provisions,
there's also amendments that would include minimum wage and small business
tax breaks. Is that now at a level, pertaining to the small business
relief, that the administration would support if it were separated out?

MS. PERINO: I'm not going to comment specifically. I do know that those
measures were included, and we're continuing to have discussions with the
Hill. Obviously, the tax relief, along with the minimum wage increase, was
what we had looked for in terms of our principles.

Q Any update on Tony Snow?

MS. PERINO: I don't have an update on Tony Snow. I tried to reach him
before I came over here. I wasn't able because he was on the phone with
Secretary Rice. (Laughter.) We know he is up and about and at least talking
to Secretary Rice.

And I really want to thank each and every one of you, and your colleagues,
for all the outpouring of support. He really feels it. And I talked to him
last night -- well, yesterday afternoon about 4:30 p.m., and he said he was
up, walking around. He was not in any pain, that he was in consultations
with his doctors, and that his family was -- he was surrounded by family.
And so I think he's in good spirits.

Q Let's get a bus and all go over there. That will work. (Laughter.)

Q He'd love that.

MS. PERINO: That was Roger's idea yesterday.

Okay, thank you.

END 1:12 P.M. EDT

*Omar and Mohammed Fadhil write an English-language blog, IraqTheModel.com,
from Baghdad. These two brothers, who are both dentists, met with President
Bush in the Oval Office on December 9, 2004. Their writings have been
widely sited in news outlets like the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times
and Investor's Business Daily. On March 5, 2007, they authored an op-ed in
the Wall Street Journal entitled "Notes from Baghdad."
===========================================================================
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/03/20070328-5.html

 * Origin: (1:3634/12)