For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
January 18, 2007
Press Briefing by Tony Snow
White House Conference Center Briefing Room
1:12 P.M. EST
MR. SNOW: All right, before we get started, let me just show you a tiny
bit of leg on the State of the Union address, but -- well, maybe it's
just upper ankle, I'm not sure. It's not going to be a typical State of
the Union address in the sense of going at great length through all the
budget items. It's not going to take a comprehensive look at all
portions of the budget.
It will address major issues, including the war on terror, energy,
health care, immigration, and education. When it comes to specific
items, the President will be discussing within those general categories
-- and he'll be talking about more, as well -- I will be of little or no
help today. On the other hand, we hope to get more to you as we
approach the time for delivery of the speech.
Q How long?
MR. SNOW: Don't know yet.
Q Can you elaborate on "not typical"?
MR. SNOW: You know, what typically happens is every department and
every agency gets a line or a mention. There are going to be areas --
there will be areas that do not get extensive discussion that will be
followed in other speeches and events the President delivers in days
after the speech. Rather than -- we're going to have plenty of
opportunities, including the release of the budget the first week of
February. So we'll have chances to talk about a number of things.
Q Can we go back to Maliki, maybe some of the conversations from
earlier today? But I'm trying to get more of a big picture look this.
He apparently made his comments in an interview with a large number of
American reporters. And he did take exception to some of the
characterizations coming out of the White House, whether it be from the
President or others on his behalf. And he seemed upset about some of
the things that are being said. And how do you -- I'm not asking you to
necessarily go point by point with each thing, but how do you respond to
the apparent feeling on his part that some of the statements from here
are not helpful to what he's trying to do?
MR. SNOW: I think he understands that we were being helpful. There's a
disagreement on the handling of the Saddam execution, and that seems to
have been a chief point of friction. On the other hand, he said a
number of other things that have gotten less attention, but are of
perhaps more moment. One of the things he pointed out is that since
October they've arrested 400 members of the Mahdi Army, the Jaish al
Mahdi, and they've kept them in detention. He made it clear that
politicians were not going to have the ability to influence -- that is,
sectarian politics were not going to play a role in the Baghdad security
plan.
To those who have described his being too close to Muqtada al Sadr, he
said, I've met the guy twice in four years, and strongly denied that.
He also made it clear that as far as he's concerned, he wants the
ability to move quickly toward enhancing security. One of the things
that has been described as a point of departure from the administration,
but in fact is not, is his saying that he wants more equipment and
better supplies for his army. I've said that a number of times up here,
and of course he's going to get it. We think that that is a natural
part of building greater capacity on the part of the Iraqi security
force.
In addition yesterday, a couple of other announcements that are probably
worth making -- well, at least three more. Number one, Barham Salih was
pointing out -- who is Kurdish -- made the point that the oil law is
close to completion, and he hopes for a vote on that very soon.
Secondly, you had Ayad Allawi, who was one of the original promoters of
deBaathification talking about the importance of pursuing reforms in the
deBaathification laws so that people who are at lower levels of
government employment when Saddam was in power -- teachers, civil
servants and the like -- can get jobs, can vote, and can have full
participation in society. Also reports that the second of two brigades
making its way from the north toward Baghdad.
So there's a lot of progress in a number of areas. The Prime Minister
obviously sometimes reacts also to the tone of comments that are made in
the United States, but the one thing that's clear is that he understands
on the basis of his conversations with the President and with the
Ambassador, with the combatant commanders, that we're committed to
success in Iraq, and we define -- both sides are defining it the same
way.
Q -- one specific thing, his displeasure with the borrowed time
comment? And he's clearly -- you all in the last week or so have been
trying to walk a fine line. You want to telegraph to both Maliki and to
the American public that patience is not going to last forever. At the
same time, Secretary Rice just made clear and others have made clear we
can't push too hard. So have you gone too far --
MR. SNOW: I don't think so. Take a look -- I think what's interesting
is the volume of action that's taken place in the last couple of weeks,
and interestingly, if you listen to congressional critics, we want these
things to happen, we want political progress, for instance. That's been
cited by a number of critics of the President's proposal. Well, guess
what. Political progress has taken place on, and on arguably the two
most important fronts, which are the hydrocarbon law, sharing oil and
natural gas revenues, and also opening up society, full participation
rights, to people who, in order to be employed when Saddam was in power
had to be members of the Baath party, and therefore have been shut out,
that they are going to have those opportunities, as well.
You've seen increased military activity, such as the actions on Haifa
Street last week. You also now have the reports on the Mahdi Army ,
which I think reassures a lot of people, in terms of going after Shia
militias. You have the reports of the two brigades moving down from the
north.
So for people who have said, we need to see action on the part of the
Iraqis, you've seen it, and I think it's encouraging.
Q Tony, can I follow on all of this?
MR. SNOW: Sure.
Q The bottom line is that this administration, this President has bet
on Prime Minister Maliki. And if you read these things, you pay
attention to what he is saying on the record, it doesn't sound like he's
on board.
MR. SNOW: Well, David, if you look procedurally, what he's discussing
in terms of troops and in terms of the way forward, I think he is on
board. I don't think that there's any distance when it comes to key
issues -- when it comes to political reconciliation, building capacity
within the security forces, going after those who are threatening
society, regardless. I mean, here is one of the things he says. He
says, "We will not allow any politicians to interfere with this Baghdad
security plan, whether they're Sunnis or Shiites, Arabs or Kurds,
militias or parties, insurgents or terrorists."
That's precisely the sort of thing that both sides can agree upon, and
that Americans have been wanting to hear. I think maybe there's been
some disconnect in the sense that a number of American politicians have
also been saying, we need to see action. You can understand why a head
of state might chafe at that. But on the other hand, what's also
happened I think is reassuring for people who are keeping a close watch
on what's going on because you have seen developments on all the fronts
that people have been discussing for the last week.
Q The President made clear that he told Prime Minister Maliki, you'll
lose the American people if you don't show up and fulfill your end of
the bargain -- is that a fair characterization?
MR. SNOW: Yes.
Q And this is what Prime Minister Maliki said: "The situation would
be much better if the United States had immediately sent our security
forces more adequate weapons and equipment. If they -- the United
States -- had committed themselves more and with greater speed, we would
have had a lot fewer deaths among Iraqi civilians and American
soldiers." Does that sound like a guy who is living up to his end of
the bargain, accepting responsibility?
MR. SNOW: Well, again, if you take a look at what's been going on on
the ground -- David, I'm not going to get into a fight with the Prime
Minister.
Q He's in a fight with you.
MR. SNOW: Well, no, he also has political considerations of his own
that he has to deal with. He's not in a fight with us, and that's the
important thing to realize. If you think about the operational level,
it's not a fight. And the President, in his dealings, has worked very
well with the Prime Minister, and the commanders on the ground and the
commanders to be on the ground also have good working relationships with
him and people who work in his government.
So, I mean, I understand the perception here, but, frankly, we're making
too much out of it.
Q Okay, but just one more on this because I think this is important,
which is, if your job, one -- you and the President -- is to persuade
the American people that we've got a real partner over there, isn't it
troublesome -- troubling to you and to the President that you and others
have to spend time explaining for him, making excuses for him?
MR. SNOW: We're not really making excuses. I mean, what's frustrating
is I've just told you about arrests with the Mahdi Army, the actions on
Haifa Street; the important political breakthroughs that have taken
place; the very clear statement that the law has to be enforced across
all boundaries; the clear statement that, no, he is not working
hand-in-glove with Muqtada al Sadr -- those are all profound statements
that have to do with policy. What you're really discussing is reactions
to statements that have been made at a great remove, and I'm sure that
we'll be able to deal with any concerns that he has.
Q These are statements that he's making for political consumption,
that's your point?
MR. SNOW: No, I'm just saying that when you take a look -- look,
everybody said words alone are not going to win this argument, you've
got to see deeds. Well, look at the deeds. The deeds have been
impressive.
Q Just to follow again -- one more time, the political
considerations, so that the American people can understand sort of
what's going on. Is there a little bit of a wink and a nod that you
understand Prime Minister Maliki has got a domestic political audience,
he understands President Bush has a domestic political audience, but
that after you're done sort of with the wink and a nod, everybody is on
the same page?
MR. SNOW: I'm not sure that there's any winking and nodding. What I'd
ask everybody to do is open their eyes and look at the stuff I've just
drawn your attention to, because --
Q But that's not --
MR. SNOW: No, that is important.
Q That's not what he's saying. Prime Minister Maliki had all these
reporters in yesterday --
MR. SNOW: No, what you guys are focusing on is a description -- his
reaction to rhetoric and what he perceives as the tone of statements in
the United States. What you haven't paid attention to, at least in
these questions, is what he's doing, which seems to be a critical
matter. When it comes -- for instance, there has been all this concern,
why don't you enforce the law when it comes to Mahdi Army? Why don't
you go against the Mahdi Army? He says, oh, we are. By the way, we've
got 400 in detention right now. They've been rounded up since October.
When people say, well, what about moving troops toward Baghdad and
living up to your end of the bargain; the second of two brigades now
making its way toward Baghdad. When it talks -- when people say, will
you go ahead and make those important political steps, whether it be a
hydrocarbon law -- I mean, the hydrocarbon law has been mentioned
repeatedly, deBaathification, and at the same time, he's making very
public statements about the fact that nobody is going to play favorites.
Those are all substantive matters that also, I think, deserve real
attention because they demonstrate what the Iraqi government is doing.
Q One more on this. He seems to be suggesting that if he's properly
armed and properly trained the Iraqi army, gets proper arming and
training, that American troops could be out in four to six months.
MR. SNOW: Well, we'll see what happens on the ground, but the whole
point is that we agree that it's important to arm up and train the
Iraqis. This demonstrates, also, for those who say, well, we're not so
sure that they want to step up, this seems to be the statement of
somebody who does want to assert control and wants control over
security. And I've been making this point a number of times. When
we've seen the Prime Minister, he's not acting as if he wants to sit
back and have Americans do all the work. He understands that as a
sovereign head of state, he needs to be assuming primary control over
key operations, whether they be security or dealing with infrastructure.
And these are the kinds of things you would expect a head of state to
say under such circumstances.
Q So, for the record, there is no rift between President Bush and
Prime Minister Maliki?
MR. SNOW: Correct. Correct.
Q But then how do you react to Prime Minister Maliki saying that some
of the comments from the President himself and the White House have
given a "morale boost to the terrorists"?
MR. SNOW: Again, I'm just not going to comment on that.
Q Okay, what evidence do you have -- does the U.S. government have
any evidence that these 400 militia men are actually in custody?
MR. SNOW: Yes, keep in mind that you do not -- I'm not going to tell
you exactly what evidence --
Q They're not really in jail.
MR. SNOW: Our people are confident that that's the case. Keep in mind
that most of the operations are joint operations.
Q Okay, and are you confident that they're going to be held in
custody and that, in fact, they're not going to be let out soon --
MR. SNOW: Well, that's --
Q -- and that this is actually --
MR. SNOW: I would refer you to your colleagues at The New York Times
who reported today that they've been held continuously in custody and
not been released.
Q -- The New York Times, but he also said that there are American
officials that were concerned that they would be let out again.
MR. SNOW: Yes, they were concerned, but they had also noted that they
had not been at this point. We expect them to be held in detention as
long as appropriate.
Q One last thing on Maliki. He also said there's a crisis in the
American administration in the wake of the elections, and saying at the
same time that you have conservative columnist Robert Novak saying that
there is "sense of impending political doom that clutches Republican
hearts right now."
MR. SNOW: Yes, I think what happens is that a lot of people are looking
for a panic or a failure narrative out of this White House. And it's
just not the case.
The Prime Minister -- again, quite often when you're looking at
political developments from a remove, or you're not directly conversing
on a daily basis, it's easy to see notional or fractional reporting and
to draw a conclusion that maybe there's a certain amount of uncertainty
going on.
The President is absolutely resolute and steadfast in his support of
this government and of the goals of a democracy in Iraq that can stand
up for itself, and really provide a role model for the region and be a
supporter in the war on terror. That remains unchanged, and I think, as
we've said all along, it's going to take -- the facts on the ground
really are going to be the key determinates, and what's happening here
is that you're trying to create a war of words that we're just -- I'm
afraid -- I'm afraid --
Q They're his comments. We're not creating a war of words. The
Prime Minister said this.
MR. SNOW: I understand that, but I also -- what I'm telling you is that
you have comments to reporters and you also have actions on the ground,
and those are actions that we support in this -- that demonstrate real
seriousness on the part of the Maliki government.
Q Maliki also said that if there's success in Iraq, this will be a
success that the United States will share. But if there's failure, this
will be a failure for President Bush and for the United States. Do you
agree with that?
MR. SNOW: Well, again, what we've said is if there's failure, it's
going to be failure for the whole world, and there will be real
repercussions. That's why we're determined to succeed.
Q Tony, can I just --
MR. SNOW: Let me move it around. I'll get back to you, David.
Q Tony, you now have a bipartisan Senate resolution that's been
introduced, has a good chance of passage, that says there's not a
national interest to deepen the U.S. involvement in Iraq. Now my
question is, what's the administration's reaction to that? And does the
President see a need to make a stronger case than he made in last week's
speech when he gives the State of the Union speech?
MR. SNOW: Matt, as we've noted all along, the speech was not a one-time
only engagement with the American public. It's worth talking about.
Several other notes. We disagree. We think it's absolutely a matter of
national interest. Furthermore, for those who say that they wish to
succeed in Iraq, we look forward to seeing what their proposals are for
succeeding in Iraq -- and serious proposals, so that you have a
government that is going to be able to sustain itself, to stand up, to
be an ally in the war on terror and an example to others in the region,
a success that is going to say to everyone, the United States is your
friend and ally and you can depend upon us. Those are statements --
that is what you want at the end of all this.
And, so, look, there's a disagreement. And what's also interesting is
that for the most part, other than saying we want to go, we have not
heard any specifics, in terms of how that achieves the goal of trying to
have the kind of Iraq we're talking about. And furthermore, it has
implicit the assumption that the Iraqis right now have everything they
need.
It's our view that they have a lot of what they need, but there is still
a need for more training, there is still a need for more support, and
we're going to provide that. And then when the Iraqis are able to
handle all their affairs, we're going to move out.
Q Doesn't the public and congressional reaction to the troop increase
plan --
MR. SNOW: Well, what's also interesting is the public reaction says we
want to succeed in Iraq, and also, we'd like to see what alternatives
the other side has. And so that's fine. Look, if you've got a better
idea, you have an obligation, you can perform a service to mankind by
letting us know what it is.
Q Doesn't that reaction show that the President has to do a better
job of selling this troop increase plan?
MR. SNOW: No, I think what it shows is -- what, are you trying to hand
out grades on the preliminary discussion? This is the beginning of a
discussion. And it's interesting, because I don't think there are a lot
of people who know what all the parts are. For instance, when people
suddenly -- let me put it this way. As Americans begin to get a sense
of what's going on in Iraq, I have mentioned already, there was a lot of
concern about the Mahdi Army. Here you have the Prime Minister standing
up and saying, no, this guy's not -- I'm not in political tandem with
Muqtada al Sadr, and here's evidence that we've taken up 400 members of
the Mahdi Army, and we continue to go after militias. That's reassuring
to the American people.
When the American people find out that there have been aggressive
actions against terrorists led by Iraqis in Baghdad in recent days,
that's reassuring. When the American people see that the Iraqis -- in
fact they're moving, even despite the chaos that sometimes flares up in
Baghdad and elsewhere, moving toward some of the key elements that are
going to bind their people together, in terms of making available to
people who are members of the Baath party full rights, and at the same
time also sharing oil revenues across the country, including among
people whose own regions do not have oil wealth, those are encouraging
signs. When you find out that two divisions are moving from the north
into Baghdad, in advance of any American battalions being dispatched in
their aid, that's reassuring.
So what Americans have said is, we want signs that these guys are
serious. There are signs now. And we expect people to keep an eye on
it, and we certainly are going to be interested in reporting
developments as we see them both ways.
Yes, Wendell.
Q Two questions on public perceptions. Are you saying that four
years into this war, the American people don't have an accurate picture
of what's going on in Iraq?
MR. SNOW: I think, Wendell, four years into a war, the picture
constantly changes. The picture that we saw in April of 2003 was
different than the one we saw a year ago. If you think a year ago,
Wendell, there was considerable optimism, Democrats and Republicans both
coming back from the region saying, you know, we think things are going
okay. We've had the election. They did not anticipate the, I guess,
eruption of sectarian violence.
What is important is that the American people not only understand the
violence, but they also understand the response and the nature of the
response and the way in which we're building capacity among the Iraqis,
and the assurance that what a lot of Americans want to see, which is
going after the sources of violence -- because I think there's been a
notion that our guys are just wandering around getting shot at rather
than moving aggressively against an enemy, and at the same time, that
the Iraqis are carrying their weight, that they're now devoted $10
billion out of $11 billion of their national surplus to reconstruction.
That's putting their money where their mouth is, talking about the
importance of arming up and being fully equipped and ready, making clear
to everybody that they are not going to be permitting anybody to commit
acts of violence, and nobody gets a free pass just because of their
sectarian belief or affiliation.
All of those are important data points that I'm not sure everybody has
had a chance to take into account, and therefore, we understand this is
going to be important to talk about it a lot.
Q A new Fox poll released today, a substantial majority feels this
plan is the President's last chance for saving Iraq. Does he see it
that way?
MR. SNOW: No, I mean, what the President -- look, you know why?
Because that -- I think the formulation has either a sense of
brinkmanship or desperation that don't reflect the way in which a
Commander-in-Chief approaches operations. What you do is you take a
sober look at what's going on on the ground and figure out how to deal
with it.
Let's see what happens. Look, we fully acknowledge that facts on the
ground are going to be absolutely critical in influencing public
perceptions. People want to see -- they want to see what's happening,
and we don't blame them.
Q Can I follow up on Matt's question? You talked about the State of
the Union, you gave us a list of things the President will talk about.
You didn't mentioned Iraq -- I presume it's --
MR. SNOW: I mentioned the war on terror.
Q -- as part of the war on terror. Is the speech going to be
dominated by Iraq, or is it going to be dominated by the other things
that you just listed?
MR. SNOW: It's going to be dominated by sound policy.
Q Tony, again following up on the State of the Union, which you said
would be not typical.
MR. SNOW: Right.
Q It suggests to me that the President, who will be giving his first
State of the Union to a Congress controlled by Democrats, might be
concerned that Democrats won't be receptive to the kinds of specific
programs that are ordinarily in the State of the Union address, so he'll
get a bad reception there. Is that fair?
MR. SNOW: No, look, we understand that because of politics -- I mean,
people are already prebutting his speech they haven't heard. And
they're developing their responses to policies they haven't seen. So we
understand how that works. You've been through the ritual on State of
the Union night. The fact is that there are going to be a number of
policies here that are going to be good politics because they're good
policies. And they're going to offer opportunities for Democrats and
Republicans to work together on areas where they do have a vested
interest in making this a stronger and better country.
As you recall, just two short weeks ago, as Democrats came to power,
there was a lot of talk about working together and demonstrating that we
can work together. Well, there are going to be a lot of opportunities
within this speech to address stated concerns on the part of both
parties, and therefore, what I would suggest is, give the night of
speech reactions their due, but then let's see what happens as these
ideas begin to present themselves.
Secondly, part of the calculation here is that a lot of times these
speeches, they just go on and on and you lose people. It's better to
spend some time focusing on big issues so that people do get a sense of
your engagement with them, and there will be opportunities to pick up
other topics in much greater detail later on.
I don't know about you, but I've been through it where you sit around
and you tick almost cynically how many different policy proposals or how
many departments or agencies are mentioned. In this case, I think it's
important to give people a sense of an in-depth and thoughtful approach
to a series of key issues.
Q Is it too late for the Democrats and Congress -- you call this the
beginning of the debate on Iraq, but is there anything in any of the
proposals and discussion being talked about now that would prompt the
President to change his decision to increase by 21,000 the troops in
Iraq?
MR. SNOW: Not at this juncture, no. We just haven't seen anything that
addresses it.
Q So far.
MR. SNOW: Yes. And I -- look, we're already committed. Five brigades
are going to Baghdad, 4,000 Marines to Anbar.
Go ahead, Helen.
Q I'd like to revisit a question yesterday. You said that we would
not submit to a referendum from the Iraqis on our military presence.
MR. SNOW: You're talking about a -- I thought you were talking about a
referendum within the United States.
Q No. No, in Iraq.
MR. SNOW: Oh, well, the Iraqis can do whatever they want politically.
I'm sorry, I completely misunderstood that question.
Q Well, I want to continue this question. Even if you said, no, you
wouldn't. The President also has said that he would ignore the polls
and what Congress says. Does he really think that he can run a war
alone?
MR. SNOW: No. And the President doesn't ignore the polls, but he also
doesn't ignore his obligations as Commander-in-Chief. And most of all,
he does not --
Q Well, what supersedes the other.
MR. SNOW: No. There will be times when a President sometimes has to
show political courage in trying to defend national security because --
and that has happened at a number of junctures in this nation's history.
And the President is going to do everything in his power to keep this
country secure, and also to prevent a threat, a stated threat, from
gathering strength so that future Presidents will not have to deal with
even worse crises in the future.
So, as Commander-in-Chief, his most solemn obligation is to protect this
country, and that's how he sees it. Now, when it comes to maintaining
public support for a war, approaching four years in, that is always a
difficult prospect. We understand that. And we continue to talk about
it. And we think when the American people not only receive a
presentation of what's going on in Iraq and how it fits into the larger
war on terror, but also the simple question, if not this, what -- I
think it not only sets the basis for --
Q It's not "if what," it's to get out. That's the "what."
MR. SNOW: No, no, I'm afraid not, because if you leave and create a
vacuum you really do --
Q There are people there, they've lived there 5,000 years.
MR. SNOW: Yes, I'll rehearse the -- you understand the geopolitical
argument.
Q Tony, getting back to the speech, if the approach the President is
going to take is not based on the new political reality, why have you
all decided from a communications standpoint to take this way, to use
this way to address the main issues?
MR. SNOW: I just think some of the old State of the Union formulas have
kind of run their course, and it's important to take a look -- you may
be right, Peter. It may be that it's important to emphasize the areas
where you can work together. And so, in that sense, maybe it does
reflect a little bit of the political reality. But also, just as a
presentational point of view, we want people to watch. And quite often
what happened with previous speeches is you would have these recitations
with one or two lines, you couldn't really dig into it or you would try
to enunciate big themes, and then you would somehow get lost in reams of
detail later on.
I think it's important to give a sense of how this government, with
Democrats and Republicans, can, in fact -- he's going to lay a way
forward for Democrats and Republicans to work together on the issues
that are atop the stated concerns for all Americans -- health care,
education, energy, immigration. Those are all atop everybody's lists --
war on terror. So if you talk about those in a way that gives both
parties an opportunity to work together and achieve success, that's a
good and important thing.
Go ahead, Sarah.
Q Tony, for the first time, the United States has agreed to bilateral
talks with North Korea if North Korea agrees to give up its nuclear
weapons program. Would it be better to put all issues on the table
before negotiations begin?
MR. SNOW: Well, the premise of your question is wrong. In the
September 19, 2005 agreement, one of the things that's in there is the
possibility of bilateral negotiations within the context of the
six-party talks. We have not had bilateral talks. What you had over
the week -- this week in Berlin were talks with Chris Hill and a North
Korean representative as preparations for the six-party talks. Chris is
then moving on to Beijing and Seoul and also Tokyo. So he's going to be
meeting with heads of state in Japan, South Korea, and also China.
All the parties of the six-party talks -- we'll speak with the Russians
at some other venue, I'm sure -- at this particular point are in the
loop. They know that he's been having these conversations. But this is
not bilateral -- number one, this is not an instance of bilateral
negotiations on the side. And secondly, bilateral relations between the
North Koreans and the United States has always been part of the
agreement laid out in that September 19th accord.
So if the North Koreans return to the table without preconditions, then
you've got the opportunity to move forward.
Q Thank you.
MR. SNOW: You're welcome. Les.
Q Yes, Tony, thank you. Two questions. Senator Bernie Sanders of
Vermont and Congressman Maurice Hinchy of New York have just introduced
companion bills called the "Media Ownership Reform Act," which are an
attempt to revive the "fairness doctrine" for TV and radio with no such
government control proposed for newspapers, magazines or wire services.
My question, does the President believe that we should revive the
so-called "fairness doctrine" which was repealed during the Reagan
administration?
MR. SNOW: You know, Les, we'll take that up if it becomes a real issue.
Q Okay. President Kennedy's Assistant Secretary of Commerce, Bill
Ruder, said, "We had a massive strategy to use the 'fairness doctrine'
to challenge and harass the right-wing broadcasters and hoped the
challenge would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and
decide it was too expensive to continue. And my question, do you
remember that statement reported by The Washington Times on September 5,
1993?
MR. SNOW: No. Although I do have some memories of the Kennedy
administration, that particular utterance does not rise to thought.
Q That was from an article headlined, "Return of the Fairness Demon,"
and the byline was, Tony Snow.
MR. SNOW: All right, thank you. (Laughter.)
Q Thank you.
MR. SNOW: I guess my research -- played "gotcha". That's great.
(Laughter.)
Q Will the speech next week be traditional length, or is going to
also be shorter in an attempt to get people to maybe watch?
MR. SNOW: I don't know. We're still working it out. I honestly don't
have an answer for you on that.
Q Tony, in the list of priorities for the speech, you mentioned
energy, but you didn't mention environment. So I'm just wondering, with
respect to your policy, does that mean that this administration believes
in incentives to try to lessen dependence on foreign oil or to develop
alternative fuels, but no penalty if you don't, particularly with
respect to environmental impact?
MR. SNOW: I'm about to bang my head on the microphone again. Let me
just try to make it clear one more time. Energy and environmental
policy are linked up, for the simple reason that the President has
talked about getting rid of an addiction to oil, addressing an addiction
to oil, and looking for alternative sources of energy, which themselves
do not contribute to greenhouse gases or to global warming or to climate
change. And he will talk about that. And the way you do is you
encourage innovation. And there are plenty of opportunities out there
to encourage people to do the right things. Carrots tend to work better
than sticks.
But I'm not going to get into the details of what the President is going
to propose, but it is certainly no secret that this President believes
deeply in the importance of trying to innovate our way out of a
situation where we've been dependent on an oil source that can render us
insecure. So what he's really trying to do is to balance the needs of
security and, at the same time, also the environment. And you can
expect him to make that linkage in the speech.
Q Two other quick subjects. On China, the White House has expressed
concern that China tested a satellite-killing weapon. Was this a
provocative move by China? What's the White House response?
MR. SNOW: Don't know that, but we are concerned about it, and we've
made it known.
Q What about these 55 lawmakers, most of the Republicans yesterday
came out on behalf of these Border Patrol agents and are saying that
they want a pardon, they want the President to pardon these Border
Patrol agents who have gone to jail. What's the White House reaction to
that?
MR. SNOW: Well, the White House reaction is, we would encourage
everybody to take a look at the fact record in the case, because there
have been a number of things that have been alleged that simply aren't
true.
You had a situation in which a fellow was pulled over; one of the agents
hit him in the chest with a rifle butt after he finally got out. He had
resisted slowing down. He had his hands in the air. When an agent
slipped, the guy started running away. They fired 15 shots at him, then
they departed the scene. And a lot of the allegations about a scuffle
and discovering drugs at the scene and all that, they're simply not
supported by the fact record of the case.
So what we would encourage members to do -- and I think the prosecutor,
Johnny Sutton, is going to be making some media appearances today, is to
take a look at what the facts are, because what members have been
talking about, and the things that have inflamed passions, are not
consistent with what was presented at trial, under oath, and certainly
not consistent with what 12 members of a jury agreed to unanimously in
that case.
So I think there's kind of a caricature, both of the situation and of
our justice system, to think that people would be cavalier about folks
who had behaved heroically. I will not characterize what's going on.
These gentlemen still have legal avenues and legal redress. But I do
think maybe the best way to address the concerns of those members is to
take a look at the fact record in this case.
Q If not a pardon, will the President at least meet with these
lawmakers to hear these concerns? Will the President get involved
himself?
MR. SNOW: I don't know about that. I mean, the President has heard the
concerns. One of the things that we think is important is that the
lawmakers, as they look at the case, need to look at the facts of the
case. This is somewhere where, in a very real way, people have created
a narrative that is simply not supported by, again, what was presented
under oath at the trial. And if they took a look at that, my sense is
that they would take a much different approach to this particular
incident.
Q Thank you.
MR. SNOW: Thank you.
END 1:46 P.M. EST
|