in their own words
 |
|
|
 Subscribe to the WHPC RSS Feed
|
White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 3/29/07 (Kyle Sampson)
— Thursday, March 29, 2007 — Jennifer. Q Kyle Sampson testified today, as you know. He said, "I don't think the Attorney General's statement that he was not involved in any discussions of U.S. attorney removals was accurate. I remember discussing with him this process of asking certain U.S. attorneys to resign." What's the White House reaction to that? Do you feel like Attorney General Gonzales needs to get up to the Hill much more quickly to explain himself? MS. PERINO: Well, he's said, as the President has said since we were in Mérida, Mexico, that, yes, the Attorney General has some work to do up on Capitol Hill; that he wasn't satisfied with incomplete or inconsistent information being provided to Capitol Hill. I personally did not get to see Kyle Sampson's testimony. I take your word for it that those are his words, but, yes, the Justice Department has work to do. I think that that is underway. The Attorney General has been not only traveling the country talking to the U.S. attorneys offices to let them know that they have his full faith and confidence, and to keep open lines of communication, and talk with them about how to better improve communication within the department. Q But if this right that the Attorney General actually was involved in the process, which is different from what he has said, would that change the President's support for him? MS. PERINO: I think the key to that is "if," and I know that the Attorney General is going to be testifying in front of Congress, and I think it's best for me to allow the Attorney General to either explain further today, if they choose to, or to wait for his testimony. Q But would the President not want to get in touch with him before April 17th and say, what's the real story here? MS. PERINO: I will find out if they're going to talk beforehand. Obviously it's kind of a long way away, a little bit more than three weeks. Q It's a little longer than you want it to hang there, right? MS. PERINO: Correct, and so I think that we need to -- I'll need to find out if the President is going to talk -- be talking to him beforehand. I'm assuming that they probably would, whether it be specifically about this, or in the context of other meetings.
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 4:50 PM  White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 3/28/07 (Iraqi Bloggers) — Wednesday, March 28, 2007 — 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.
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 4:40 PM White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 3/27/07 (Tony Snow) MS. PERINO: Good afternoon. As I was able to tell you this morning, you know that Tony Snow went into surgery yesterday. He told everyone last Friday that he was going to have this surgery. You remember that he said that the doctors had found a small growth, that they had seen over a series of CAT scans and MRIs, that had been identified on his abdomen. It was in the area where his previous cancer had been located. Tony called us this morning and informed us that despite all of our best hopes and expectations, that his doctors, unfortunately, learned that the growth was cancerous and there has been some metastases, including to the liver. This news has obviously saddened everyone at the White House; from the President and the First Lady, his team, the entire staff, the outpouring has been quite amazing. You heard from the President in the Rose Garden. Of course, all of Tony's family is in our prayers. The President said, Tony should stay strong, and "know a lot of people love you and care for you and will pray for you." And we'll all look forward to the day when Tony can come back and take the podium again. Believe me, we're looking forward to that. I spoke to Tony briefly this morning, around 9:30 a.m. He told me he was up, walking around and comfortable. He will remain in the hospital for several days. That was already part of the plan because it was major surgery that he had. He did not have a lot more detail. I will try to answer your questions as best I can, but the ones that I can't answer I will endeavor to get you the answer, or I'll just have to tell you that we're not going to be able to answer those questions. Some of them are privacy concerns and health related. If you know Tony, then you know that he's a fighter. He plans to take this on with the advice of his doctors. They are in consultation right now, talking about an aggressive treatment to go after the cancer that he said will likely include chemotherapy, but could include other things, as well. And when I have more on that I can provide that to you, as well. All of us -- we gain a lot of strength from his optimism. He told me that he beat this thing before and he intends to beat it again. The other thing that I would say about Tony Snow is that he doesn't skip a beat; he had obviously been paying attention to the news and he was really fired up about the Iraq war supplemental. And I said that I would make sure that I delivered the President's message today, regardless of this. So if you'll bear with me -- I don't know if you were able to see it, given the news this morning, while we were all focused on Tony -- the President did issue a statement of administration policy on the Senate's Iraq war supplemental. And just a couple of points -- I'm going to read it from -- just a little bit just to make sure I fulfill my promise to Tony and make sure that you heard this before we go to questions. The administration strongly opposes the Senate bill. The legislation would substitute congressional mandates for the considered judgment of our military commanders. The bill assumes and forces the failure of the new strategy even before American commanders in the field are able to fully implement their plan. Regardless of the success that our troops are achieving in the field, this bill would require their withdrawal. This and other provisions would place freedom and democracy in Iraq at grave risk, embolden our enemies, and undercut the administration's plans to develop the Iraqi economy. If this legislation were presented to the President, he would veto the bill. The war supplemental should remain focused on the needs of the troops, and should not be used as a vehicle for added non-emergency spending and policy proposals, especially domestic proposals, which should be fully vetted and considered on their own merits. This bill adds billions in unrequested spending that is largely unjustified and non-emergency. And because of the excessive and extraneous non-emergency spending it contains, if this legislation were presented to the President, he would veto the bill. Congress should reject this legislation and promptly send the President a responsible bill that provides the funding and flexibility our troops need, and without holding funding for the troops hostage to unrelated spending.
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 12:05 AM Press Briefing by Dana Perino 3/26/07 (Captured British Sailors) — Tuesday, March 27, 2007 — Q About the British sailors. These are 15 sailors with, perhaps, the U.S.'s closest allies have been taken by the Iranians. And the President hasn't made a statement about it, and even from the podium you all -- both you and Tony have said, we echo what the Brits have said. Is there a deliberate effort to keep a backseat on this, for the White House to not mess up some sort of diplomatic efforts? MS. PERINO: Well, you can be assured that we are in close contact with our British allies. We strongly support the message that Tony Blair sent yesterday, the strong message of the hostage taking being wrong and unjustified. But as far as further comment, I don't have anything for you. Q Is the President not outraged by this? MS. PERINO: We share the same concern and the outrage that Prime Minister Blair has. Q Will we be hearing from the President on it? MS. PERINO: I'll keep you updated.
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 1:15 AM White House Press Briefing by Tony Snow 3/23/06 (US Attorneys) — Friday, March 23, 2007 — Q How much of the Attorney General's story is sort of getting in the way of the President's agenda? He was out in Kansas City to talk about energy, he's going to be talking about energy again next week, and the day -- on Tuesday was the day that the Fred Fielding letter, all of that, dominated the headlines. So how much is that sort of stepping on what the President wants to try and accomplish? MR. SNOW: I think it's stepping on his being able to get you guys to cover it. But it continues to be -- I don't think he's handcuffed at all. We've talked about a number of issues. And we have been encouraged by the bipartisan cooperation on a lot of issues. We talked earlier today, off camera, about immigration. Energy is an issue where there is substantial agreement between both parties on this -- same thing with education. Members of Congress understand that this is a time to deliver for the American people. And that's one of the messages that we've been trying to make clear in terms of this budget supplemental. What's going on today is rhetorical exercise. But you cannot supply the forces in the field with rhetoric. You need to supply them with the funding and the flexibility they need to get the job done. Conversely, a lot of these other issues -- as we've said, the ball is kind of in Congress's court on the issue of U.S. attorneys. We have made clear that we'll provide every fact that they need to make their decisions. And I haven't heard anybody say that there's a fact that they would be denied. And as a result, we think it's a perfectly reasonable and acceptable way to do this and a way that would build confidence with the American public, because I think it would be good for people to see Democrats and Republicans getting together, working together and getting stuff done. So the President, I think, continues to work with members of both parties on these things. I think quite often the challenge is not getting through on Capitol Hill, because there are a lot of people who are committed in either party to these issues, and they're continuing to work them. But if you've got any advice on how we can lead the news with it, I'll accept all suggestions. White House Press Corps | Press Briefing | Tony Snow | News Media | Bush Administration | US Attorneys
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 11:11 PM White House Press Briefing by Tony Snow 3/22/07 (US Attorneys) 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 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 & Order." You've used words like "show trials," "klieg lights," "partisan fishing expedition." It seems like you have been spoiling for a fight, and you've been poisoning the well with that kind of rhetoric at the start, before -- 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. White House Press Corps | Press Briefing | Tony Snow | News Media | Bush Administration | US Attorneys
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 12:11 AM White House Press Briefing by Tony Snow 3/21/07 (US Attorneys) — Wednesday, March 21, 2007 — Q On that very point, you have a transcript right here, there's a stenographer every day at this briefing, because you don't want us to run out and say, Tony said this, and someone else says, no, Tony said that. Why do you have a transcript of this briefing every day, and you won't have a transcript of what Karl Rove is going to tell Congress? MR. SNOW: Have you seen a transcript of the conversation you and I had over in the corner the other day? Q We don't have a transcript of that -- MR. SNOW: Do you have a transcript of the conversation we have when you call me up and try to get an answer? Q No, but we report about it, of course, but -- MR. SNOW: The point here is what you're asking for is something that is more -- you're talking about hearings -- these are interviews, and these are fact-finding -- Q Again, you're saying they're interviews, Tony. That's your word. But members of Congress -- like Senator Leahy has said he's been hearing half-truths. He wants testimony. That's why he's talking about subpoenas -- not interviews. You're saying interviews, you keep saying that -- MR. SNOW: Ed, do you understand that an interview still carries with it a legal requirement for telling the truth and that the President -- Q You made that point. MR. SNOW: But that's an important point, because what you've said is a suggestion that somehow in an interview, nobody would be compelled to tell the truth. They will. And furthermore, the President -- Q But they want it under oath. That's what they're saying. And also, if you want -- again, why not a transcript? I don't understand. If you let the American people see exactly what people say -- MR. SNOW: I think the question to ask again -- and I'm going to turn it back around -- you have all this data with you, and you're haggling over a transcript? White House Press Corps | Press Briefing | Tony Snow | News Media | Bush Administration | US Attorneys
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 11:57 PM President Bush Addresses Resignations of U.S. Attorneys 3/20/07 — Tuesday, March 20, 2007 — Q Sir, in at least a few instances, the attorneys that were dismissed were actively investigating Republicans -- in San Diego, in Arizona, in Nevada. By removing them, wouldn't that have possibly impeded or stopped those investigations? And, sir, if I may also ask about the Attorney General. He does not have support among many Republicans and Democrats. Can he still be effective? THE PRESIDENT: Yes, he's got support with me. I support the Attorney General. I told you in Mexico I've got confidence in him; I still do. He's going to go up to Capitol Hill and he's going to explain the very questions you asked. I've heard all these allegations and rumors. And people just need to hear the truth, and they're going to go up and explain the truth. Q In San Diego, Nevada, Arizona, Republicans were the targets of investigations, and those U.S. attorneys were removed. Does that not give the appearance -- THE PRESIDENT: Well, I don't -- it may give the appearance of something, but I think what you need to do is listen to the facts, and let them explain to -- it's precisely why they're going up to testify, so that the American people can hear the truth about why the decision was made. Listen, first of all, these U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. I named them all. And the Justice Department made recommendations, which the White House accepted, that eight of the 93 would no longer serve. And they will go up and make the explanations as to why -- I'm sorry this, frankly, has bubbled to the surface the way it has, for the U.S. attorneys involved. I really am. These are -- I put them in there in the first place; they're decent people. They serve at our pleasure. And yet, now they're being held up into the scrutiny of all this, and it's just -- what I said in my comments, I meant about them. I appreciated their service, and I'm sorry that the situation has gotten to where it's got. But that's Washington, D.C. for you. You know, there's a lot of politics in this town. And I repeat, we would like people to hear the truth. And, Kelly, your question is one I'm confident will be asked of people up there. And the Justice Department will answer that question in open forum for everybody to see. If the Democrats truly do want to move forward and find the right information, they ought to accept what I proposed. And the idea of dragging White House members up there to score political points, or to put the klieg lights out there -- which will harm the President's ability to get good information, Michael -- is -- I really do believe will show the true nature of this debate. And if information is the desire, here's a great way forward. If scoring political points is the desire, then the rejection of this reasonable proposal will really be evident for the American people to see. Listen, thank you all for your interest.
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 11:58 PM White House Press Briefing by Tony Snow 3/19/07 (Topic: Iraq) Q I guess what I'm wondering is, it's now been month after month of the President advocating a policy that poll after poll shows is extremely unpopular. MR. SNOW: Well, I'm not -- I'll let you read the polls. But I think -- look, if somebody has a poll that says, do you want Americans out tomorrow? Do you want to be able to come home tomorrow? The answer is, yes. Of course. Everybody wants them to come home tomorrow. Q It's an unpopular war. We don't have any -- MR. SNOW: Well, all wars are unpopular, Jim. Q You don't think this war is -- at this point, are we debating about what the American people think about this war? MR. SNOW: You know, it's interesting because depending on the questions you ask. Again, if you ask a question, do you think it's important to succeed? Yes. People agree with that. Do they think that you ought to seek victory. If you ask, if the alternative is creating a power vacuum that will encourage terrorists and also creating a launching pad for terror, people don't want that. So, again, a lot of times you can frame questions in different ways. But let's be honest -- people don't like war. But on the other hand, people also don't like terrorists on our shores, they don't like a strengthening capability among members of the international terror network, and the President has to keep all those things in mind. And he does and constantly -- Q But he's as resolute as ever that -- MR. SNOW: Yes. Q -- one day he will be proven correct? MR. SNOW: Yes, he's resolute in making -- again, let me repeat, and this is one of the reasons why this supplemental debate matters -- if the United States demonstrates focus and resolve and determination, it can win, as the President said. And that's why it's important. It also -- you have to send the message to the terrorists that you're focused, determined, and resolved, and you're determined to win; you have to send it to our allies; you have to send it throughout the region. People really do look at this as a showdown between terror and democracy. And, therefore, it is absolutely vital. The failure to finish, the failure to provide resources for reinforcements, and also the mission, is the sort of thing that is going to allow terrorists to sit back and wait, and it also is going to undermine confidence in other allies in the region, in the United States, and that's something that we cannot afford. White House Press Corps | Press Briefing | Tony Snow | News Media | Bush Administration | Iraq
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 12:31 AM Press Briefing by Tony Snow 3/16/07 (Topic: US Attorneys) — Friday, March 16, 2007 — Q Let me just follow, one question, because we've had a number of documents I've seen now which talk about the performances of McKay, of Cummins, of Carol Lam, and used terms that are all positive, if not glowing. So there seems to be a paper trail that indicates that at least some of these eight were doing a fine job. MR. SNOW: Well, no, look, you can -- the world is full of places where you can have positive performance reviews, and there are still places where you think you can improve. But you know what? Again, I want to go back to the key point here, which is, people serve at the pleasure of the President. And that is the important principle that really is involved here. I'm not going to be the fact witness on what goes on at Justice. I'd refer you back to there on that. Q But the issue isn't whether or not they serve at the pleasure of the President, it's when they're removed you either say we want to bring somebody in who is more in line with the administration's goals and policies -- that's different than saying we want to move someone out for bad performance, when the paper trail indicates they were doing a good job. MR. SNOW: Again, I think -- first, there's no inconsistency with saying, look, people are doing a good job, but, on the other hand, there are other priorities that one may need to follow. I'm just not going to get into trying to argue about grading and peer performance reviews. Again, getting back to the principle here, the people serve at the pleasure of the President and if there's a decision to replace them, it's important that they're to be replaced. Q But, Tony, you have said that politics and loyalty didn't play a part in this. MR. SNOW: Yes. And let me -- there's been a lot of conversation about loyalty, so let me -- I don't want to -- I'll just begin with a caveat: I do not know precisely what Kyle Sampson had in mind when he used the term. But let me tell you how the term applies in this White House, which is that, certainly, we all serve at the pleasure of the President; we're loyal to the President in that sense. But the President has charged each one of us to do our jobs -- to do our jobs, to perform the public trust. That also means to follow the principles and the priorities of the administration. When it comes to the administration of justice, the President lays down broad guidelines; when it comes to U.S. attorneys, broad prosecutorial guidelines. Those guidelines may shift from district to district; there are 93 around the country that have different priorities. But if somebody has difficulty or if somebody decides for reasons of conscience or whatever that they disagree with a key priority -- whether it be something like the death penalty or pornography statutes or whatever -- that's certainly a suitable basis for review. But, again, the most important principle here is people do serve at the pleasure of the President. White House Press Corps | Press Briefing | Tony Snow | News Media | Bush Administration | US Attorneys
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 6:56 PM Press Briefing by Tony Snow 3/15/07 (Topic: Iraq) Q Tony, going to another subject, the Pentagon. Is the President now going to start embracing the words "civil war," to a certain extent as it relates to Iraq? MR. SNOW: What you're talking about is the 90/10 report that came out. That, April, reflects the language that was used in the National Intelligence Estimate. As you'll recall, the National Intelligence Estimate said there are some things that are characteristic of a civil war, some that are not. So this is -- there's not new language, or for that matter, new analysis. Q It's not new language for the NIE, but it's new language for the President -- MR. SNOW: No, no, the President -- what the President is focusing on is succeeding in Iraq. And again, you've got evidence that there has been progress. I don't want to oversell it because it is tough and there's along way to go. We're still busy moving forces into Iraq. We're still working with the Iraqis to develop capability. They've been stepping up and taking on tough decisions. The oil law has been passed by the council ministers; it is going before the legislature. What I'm telling you, April, is there's a lot of stuff going on. And what you're asking about is a phrase used in a National Intelligence Estimate. Q Don't diminish it, because for months you, from that podium, have been dancing around the words, "civil war," and sectarian -- MR. SNOW: Right, but what you are trying to say is that that is a label that is attached as an absolute -- that is being used to describe accurately what's going on. And if you take a look at the NIE, it said it has some characteristics and some that are inconsistent. So we're not going to use the term. Q So you're not going to use the term, the President is not? MR. SNOW: No, but the President -- the National Intelligence Estimate says that there are some characteristics that are consistent and some that aren't. White House Press Corps | Press Briefing | Tony Snow | News Media | Bush Administration | Iraq
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 3:22 AM Press Briefing by Dan Bartlett, Counselor to the President 3/14/07 (Topic: US Attorneys) — Thursday, March 15, 2007 — Q The Congress is upset that they were not properly informed of how the White House did play a role. But the Attorney General knew that the White House was involved, people at the White House -- Harriet Miers, Karl Rove, the President, himself -- knew the White House had played a role. Isn't the White House, then, responsible for not informing Congress properly? MR. BARTLETT: I think it's very important, Kelly, to make a distinction between what we knew and what role we played. And right there, I think is where this can be very complicated, because there's a clear distinction between having approved of a list, and playing a role in the compilation of the seven U.S. attorneys. The White House did not play a specific role in the list of the seven U.S. attorneys. The decision in which it was not given all the information in its totality and context by the Justice Department to members of Congress was because the information that Kyle Sampson had wasn't adequately shared with other members of main Justice who were going up to testify before Congress. It's very important that if they go before Congress that they give a complete and accurate picture of the decisions that were made and why they were made. It's not to say the decisions were wrong -- in fact, we had very good reasons for the very reason why the seven U.S. attorneys were removed. But it is very important that when they go up and testify, and they go to their oversight committees, that those members of Congress have confidence that the information they're receiving is in complete and full context. And in this case, it wasn't. That's why he's accepted the resignation of chief of staff. And he's going to redouble his efforts to regain the confidence of those who are questioning that. And that's something the Attorney General spoke directly to today. Q But wasn't their knowledge beyond Kyle Sampson? People in the White House Counsel's Office understood that they had participated in this process, and Congress was not properly informed of that. MR. BARTLETT: Again, "participated in the process" is inaccurate because -- Q I understand what you're saying about they didn't do the names, but they were aware of -- and that's the whole reason we're here. You were aware of this beforehand -- MR. BARTLETT: Well, I think it's important to understand what this is, Kelly, because they did -- the Deputy Attorney General and other members of the Department of Justice went up there and talked about why these people were not -- were let go. The context they wanted to give is from 22 months prior, when there was a conversation between Harriet Miers and Kyle Sampson had talked about after the start of the second term, in 2004, would it make sense to maybe have a clean slate and start with a full range of new U.S. attorneys across-the-board. That was quickly rejected not only by Kyle Sampson at the Department of Justice, but also not viewed as a good idea within the White House. Twenty-two months later, there is a very specific managerial decision made about seven U.S. attorneys. That's in context that the Congress should have known, but it doesn't change the underlying facts of this case. White House Press Corps | Press Briefing | Dan Bartlett | News Media | Bush Administration | US Attorneys
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 1:06 AM Press Briefing by Dan Fisk 3/9/07 — Sunday, March 11, 2007 — Q Dan, the venue -- where are we going tomorrow? It's to the President's ranch, right? MR. FISK: Right. This is going to be a little bit of a different part of the trip. We are going to go out to basically the Uruguayan Camp David. It's called Estancia Anchorena. It is the presidential retreat. It is also a national park, its land donated specifically for the purpose that it would be used by Uruguayan Presidents. It's something that President Vazquez uses on a regular basis. It will make the meetings a little bit more informal. Again, President Vazquez will be hosting the President in one of his homes. And so, again, the idea there is -- you know, we have an issue in which -- or we have a dynamic in which you've got the two Presidents, who had a very good relationship in Washington, wanting to continue those discussions and talk about how we advance those issues that we share in common. Q -- wanted to take him fishing or something? Are they going to go look at fish or anything? (Laughter.) MR. FISK: There has been talk about fishing. As you all know, the President likes to fish and there has been some talk about that. We'll see how tomorrow goes. But President Vazquez does fish at Anchorena. MR. SNOW: We'll let you know if he does. Q Does he mountain bike? Is there anyplace to go bike riding or anything? MR. FISK: I don't know. It's a ranch, it's 3,000 acres, I believe. It's significant. I've not been there, so this will be a first for me.
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 1:26 AM Press Briefing by Tony Snow 3/7/07 (Topic: Lewis Libby) — Thursday, March 08, 2007 — Q I want to know, after the verdict yesterday, because the Vice President's top aide has been convicted of perjury, I think it's a natural question is, think about motive, it raises questions about protecting the Vice President. Does the President feel that any statement/further explanation/discussion with the American people is necessary at this point, outside of the legal proceedings? MR. SNOW: At this point, we are -- our view is that you have an ongoing legal proceeding, and we're very wary of saying anything that may prejudice the rights of Scooter Libby as he proceeds to seek a retrial or an appeal. Q And the questions that are raised among -- MR. SNOW: Well, a lot of questions -- again, you've asked a very -- you've asked a general question about questions. It's difficult for me to -- Q I'm asking about the very many people in this country who, after yesterday, are perhaps looking at this in a different way than they were before, now that there's been a verdict rendered, and that perhaps the President -- and it speaks to so many issues about the administration -- that perhaps the President wants to -- feels like something is necessary. MR. SNOW: Well, again, what you're asking -- if you want to try to identify issues, I think there has been an attempt to try to use this as a great big wheelbarrow in which to dump a whole series of unrelated issues and say, "Ah-ha." And it is what it is; it's a case involving Scooter Libby and his recollections, and we're just not going to comment further on it. Q It doesn't provide any greater insight into the way the administration was addressing critics -- MR. SNOW: If you want insight into the way the administration addresses trouble, I would have you take a look at what's happened with Walter Reed in the last two weeks White House Press Corps | Press Briefing | Tony Snow | News Media | Bush Administration | Lewis Libby
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 1:25 AM Press Gaggle by Steve Hadley, Dan Bartlett and Tony Snow 3/8/07 (Topic: Iraq) Q Are you in touch with the Republican leadership? MR. BARTLETT: Absolutely. We've stayed closely coordinated with the Republican leadership. It's been a -- it has required almost hour-by-hour communication, because the Democrats' position has changed by the hour. But their latest proposal -- and we'll see if it has enough staying power; we don't think it does, because I think it's in direct contradiction to what they American people want, they don't want 535 members of Congress micro-managing our generals on the ground who are trying to fight a war -- but, yes, we are in close coordination. Q -- yesterday, when the President met with the Democratic leadership? MR. BARTLETT: Not in this type of detail, no. I think it's safe to say even at that hour they didn't have a final solution. Q Last night -- or through the night - MR. SNOW: It must have been. It obviously became known publicly, but it was not a part of the discussion yesterday. MR. BARTLETT: It's one of the few benefits of the 24-hour news cycle, seven days a week, is you can keep up actually with the position of the Democrats. (Laughter.) White House Press Corps | Press Briefing | Tony Snow | News Media | Bush Administration | Walter Reed
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 1:24 AM Press Briefing by Dana Perino 03/06/07 (Topic: Lewis Libby Trial) — Wednesday, March 07, 2007 — Q One more follow on this. And again, what I'm asking you in no way deals with any ongoing legal proceedings. I'm asking you now that the administration has, on one hand, with the Libby trial, questions raised about how the administration decided to go to war, and on the other side right now, with the Walter Reed situation, there's questions about what happened once the administration did go to war. Are you feeling political pressure building in sort of a new and intensified way? MS. PERINO: I'm not sure how you're putting those two things together. In regards to intelligence and prewar intelligence, we have answered those questions repeatedly, and we have taken action to fix what was wrong in the intelligence community in order to make sure that that never happens again. When you're talking about the Walter Reed and the effects from that, I'm not exactly sure how you bring those two together. Q I'm saying there are two news stories right now that are making -- putting the war, not only how we got there, but what happened once we did get there, in terms of various ways the policy that the White House pursued -- the consequences. And I'm wondering if you feel now a new pressure to sort of -- or the President feels a new pressure to look the American people in the eye and explain the fallout, the consequences of what's obviously and naturally going to be raised by these two stories? MS. PERINO: I don't see where -- I understand where you're coming from. I don't see it that way. I think that the President answers to the American people quite regularly, all the time. We're here every day on his behalf, and then you get to ask him questions quite regularly, as well. So the President talks about how we are going to make sure that this never happens again in the intelligence community, as well as taking immediate action to make sure that the problems that were uncovered at Walter Reed are fixed, and not only at Walter Reed, with the DoD commission, but just today he announced a bipartisan non-governmental commission to take a longer view, to make sure that our global war on terror servicemen and women get the care that they need. We can talk about both stories, I just don't know if they fit into the same paragraph. Q They fit into the fallout of the decision to go to war. MS. PERINO: The President has said that the hardest decision that any President ever makes is a decision to send young men and women into war. And again, he's taking action to make sure that the servicemen and women get what they need upon return, if they are wounded, or -- beyond being wounded, but also if they need additional education, if they want to start a business, to make sure that they get back on their feet when they come back to the States. White House Press Corps | Press Briefing | Dana Perino | News Media | Bush Administration | Lewis Libby
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 12:24 AM Press Briefing by Tony Snow 3/5/07 (Topic: Walter Reed) — Tuesday, March 06, 2007 — MR. SNOW: You guys have been -- you've been briefing -- I know, we've got the answer to briefing fatigue. Please, questions. Anybody. Victoria? Q Is it something the President should do, as Commander-in-Chief, to say, the buck stops here and take responsibility for the scandal at Walter Reed? MR. SNOW: Well, in a sense, the President, and also everybody within the chain of command are taking responsibility. It's time to shine a bright light on the entire system and find out where the failings may be, and address them. The people who have served have given us their best; it's time for us to make sure that they get our best when it comes to treatment. You already have ongoing, I think, very swift and definitive action on the part of the Department of Defense, not only on the personnel side, but the Secretary of Defense has put together a team involving medical professionals, and on a bipartisan basis, to take a look specifically at Walter Reed and Bethesda. Meanwhile, there's an interagency task force working out of the V.A. to take a look at the entire medical system and the care system for veterans. And the President is putting together also a presidential commission that will take an even broader look at the needs, and also possible future needs. So we take a very exhaustive look at this. It is very important to figure out what's wrong, and get it fixed. And the President is committed to that. Q But the President hasn't said in any way, shape, or form, this is my responsibility, this is on me? MR. SNOW: Okay, well, I'll take the rhetorical flourish under advisement. White House Press Corps | Press Briefing | Tony Snow | News Media | Bush Administration | Walter Reed Hospital
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 12:43 AM Press Gaggle by Dana Perino 3/2/07 (Topic: Walter Reed Hospital) — Saturday, March 03, 2007 — Q Dana, the problems at Walter Reed have been festering, according to the reports, for several years. Yet, the General who was relieved yesterday arrived at Walter Reed only six months ago. The President, again, you say is confident this was the right move in removing General Weightman? MS. PERINO: The President has confidence in Secretary Gates, that he made the right decision. For the -- the temporary replacement that they have is General Kiley, and I would expect you would hear from DoD in the coming -- I don't know how soon they'll be able to announce somebody more permanent. But they did announce that that appointment is temporary. Q Was the President unaware of the level of problems until the recent reports? MS. PERINO: I think that that's true. I think that he read the reports, and when he and Secretary Gates talked, they realized that they -- there was a serious problem that needed to be handled quickly. And I think that Secretary Gates has moved forward to improve the situation dramatically and in as quick a time as possible, not only to improve the situation, but to also understand the scope of the problem and then to extend it and see beyond Walter Reed, if there are problems elsewhere. Q How does he feel about having visited there so many times, and having this kind of thing going on at this very place that he's used as a symbol for his concern for the troops? MS. PERINO: Well, I think regardless of whether he'd been there or not, if the veterans aren't getting the care that they need and deserve, and that we owe them, that he's unhappy about that, and he wants to make sure that action is being taken to rectify it. I don't know if he ever visited that particular building, but you're right, we go to Walter Reed often. White House Press Corps | Press Briefing | Dana Perino | News Media | Bush Administration | Walter Reed Hospital
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 12:53 PM Press Gaggle 3/1/07 (Topic: Katrina Recovery) — Friday, March 02, 2007 — Q Can you tell us just a little bit about the first town we're going to, Long Beach? MR. POWELL: We're going to Biloxi and Gulfport, aren't we? Q Long Beach and then Biloxi. I'm just curious what the storm's impact was on Long Beach, what basically -- MR. POWELL: It was huge. It was huge. It just -- Bay Saint Louis, Long Beach, all those areas were wiped out, sort of like a tornado. I'm from West Texas -- it was just wiped clean -- versus, like in New Orleans, where you had a city under water. So they had to -- it's hard to describe how they were devastated. That whole Gulf Coast area, from Ocean Springs and Pascagoula all the way over to Bay Saint Louis. It was huge. White House Press Corps | Press Briefing | Dana Perino | News Media | Bush Administration | Katrina
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 12:14 AM Press Briefing by Tony Snow 2/28/07 (Topic: Iraq) — Thursday, March 01, 2007 — Q There was also a report this morning that two Army combat brigades are being sent to Iraq without desert training -- the Associated Press has a story out today -- and that it's because they're being rushed to Iraq to help get the surge in place. MR. SNOW: Again, let me stress, what happens is, a lot of times you will also do training in theaters, as well as equipping in theater. The generals have made it very clear, and military commanders have made it clear, nobody is going to go into combat activity without proper equipment and training. Period. So if things -- Q But the story flatly says that two brigades are going in without desert training in California. So that doesn't sound like -- MR. SNOW: All right, I understand. Q -- they're getting the training. MR. SNOW: Well, but they can get desert training elsewhere, like in Iraq. White House Press Corps | Press Briefing | Tony Snow | News Media | Bush Administration | Walter Reed
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 12:31 AM
|
|