in their own words
 |
|
|
 Subscribe to the WHPC RSS Feed
|
White House Press Gaggle by Tony Snow 4/30/07 (Iraq)
— Monday, April 30, 2007 — Q Tony, are we winning the war? MR. SNOW: Are we winning the war? Q Welcome back. (Laughter.) MR. SNOW: Yes, exactly, welcome back. (Laughter.) You know, April, we're fighting the war, and it's an important thing to understand that the only way to lose the war is to walk away from it, and that this country not only has made a commitment to the people of Iraq, but the people of Iraq have made a commitment in blood and treasure, as well. And we are working to create a situation where that government, in fact, is going to be able to provide for its citizens, not only economically, but most importantly, a democracy that will respect the rights of all, that will protect those rights, and that will be able to stand tall among the community of nations. Q How long should we fight the war before we just turn tail -- MR. SNOW: The notion that somehow the United States walks away and there are no consequences I think is the sort of thing that -- it doesn't make any sense. Think of it this way: The United States walks away, who stands to benefit? Answer, terrorists, al Qaeda, the people who are fighting democracy. One of the reasons -- furthermore, if you are thinking about what goes on within the region, if you are a Middle Eastern power, if you're anybody in the region, and you see this happening, you're going to lose confidence in the United States of America. Let me put it this way: Our allies do not want us simply to leave on a timetable. The Iraqis do not want us to leave. People within the region do not want us to leave, because it does create the possibility of chaos and bloodshed on a horrific scale. And, furthermore, what it will do is make us less secure as a nation. The fact that it is difficult does not mean that we should walk away from it. As a matter of fact, it is difficult precisely because you have a determined enemy, but we will demonstrate the determination to prevail in Iraq and to help the Iraqis prevail. This is the Iraqis' fight; we are there to assist. And we are building capability on the military side, on the security side, on the economic side and on the diplomatic side. That's part of what will happen in the Baghdad conference. So the idea -- again, if we turn tail, to use your formulation, what it means is that we weaken ourselves, and we weaken ourselves not only over there, but on our own soil, as well.
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 5:31 AM  White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 4/26/07 (Iraq) — Thursday, April 26, 2007 — Q Dana, why isn't it working? I mean, General Petraeus talks about -- the security situation is obvious. But what has to happen here is for the political track to kick in. It hasn't. How do you expect the American people to have patience with Maliki again? This is where we were last year. MS. PERINO: Well, I think if you listen to David Petraeus, it's not exactly where we were last year, and that he has said the sectarian violence is down by a third. Q But Maliki has not made that much progress. MS. PERINO: There has been some progress. And granted -- and President -- we recognize that there are many issues, like those three that I just mentioned -- the de-Baathification law, and the oil law, and the provisional regional elections -- provincial elections -- has not moved forward fully, it's not finalized. But there has been progress and steps forward. Q But isn't that the key to all of this? MS. PERINO: It is key. It is absolutely key. But I think that everyone should keep in mind, we have a fully functioning democracy that's been in place for 200 years. Our Congress, it took them five years to pass one energy bill. Q The President told the American people and addressed Maliki in January that the time for this to happen, this political progress, was now. What does that mean? MS. PERINO: And I think that they are starting to make some progress. The oil law has now -- Q How long is now? MS. PERINO: I'm sorry? Q How long is "now"? What does "now" mean? What's the President -- MS. PERINO: The President has said -- well, I think the way that I would look at it is that the President has said, we're going to try the surge to try the -- to quell the violence there in Baghdad so that the government can have a little bit more time. And as I've just told you, General Petraeus said they're just about two months into the surge, and they don't have -- he doesn't have all the troops there that he wants, and it's going to take a while. And as I said yesterday, General Petraeus will provide an assessment towards the fall, and that's, I think, when -- I think that's how I would look at the time frame
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 5:27 AM White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 4/25/07 (Iraq) Q Can we go back once more to the timeline issue. I understand the issue of a timeline for setting a date for withdrawal. But doesn't the President also tell the enemy exactly what to do by saying, we'll know by the end of August, beginning of September whether the surge has worked? Isn't that the same -- here's the plan, here's how you can derail it. MS. PERINO: I can see your point, although I think that what is important is to keep in mind that what the President is saying is that we need to give Baghdad a chance to calm down. And General Petraeus -- obviously, these are closed briefings up there, and if he has a chance to talk to the press, I think that he will and hopefully we can ask him these questions. But the President said last night on Charlie Rose that if our definition of success is no more car bombings, that's not realistic. We know that the enemy realizes that when they can set off a spectacular bomb in a market and kill people, that that grabs people's attention and it's one of the things that they look to in order to foment chaos and to spread their ideology. Q Who is the enemy you speak of? Are these Iraqis? MS. PERINO: We have different folks that we're considering the enemy. Obviously, al Qaeda is in Iraq, and they say that this is the battle. And then there are insurgents -- Q Are there Iraqis that you speak of, when you speak of the enemy? MS. PERINO: I think they are definitely -- obviously, there are Iraqis who are engaging in criminal activity and in sectarian violence. Q Criminal? To defend their own country? MS. PERINO: I think when anyone is killing innocent men, women and children that they -- Q Against an invader and occupier? MS. PERINO: Helen, we are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government, and we are there under the U.N. Security Council resolution.
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 1:52 AM White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 4/23/07 (Alberto Gonzales) — Tuesday, April 24, 2007 — John, go ahead. Q Thank you, Dana. Turning back to the Department of Justice, Congressman Tom Davis, and the Republican members of the House Government Operations Committee, recently wrote the Attorney General asking why former National Security Council advisor Sandy Berger had not been administered a polygraph test about what he took from the National Archives and looked at there -- something Mr. Berger agreed to in his plea bargain agreement two years ago. The Department of Justice wrote back a terse letter, said there was no need to give him a polygraph test. Mr. Davis has publicly complained about his treatment. My question is, the last time I checked, the Attorney General works for the President, reports to him. Is the President aware of this? And would he ask his Attorney General to make this test possible? MS. PERINO: I don't know if the President is aware of it. I do know that it would be inappropriate for the President to get himself involved into an investigation. Q So he has no opinion -- you have no opinion on -- MS. PERINO: I have not talked to the President about it, John. Q All right. Will you? MS. PERINO: I'll see if I can do that.
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 2:49 AM White House Press Gaggle by Dana Perino 4/20/07 (Paul Wolfowitz, Alberto Gonzales, Karl Rove) — Friday, April 20, 2007 — Q Does the President ever get tired of having to express his full confidence in the people around him these days? MS. PERINO: When you're President of the United States and you have this many folks that you are employing, it's a pretty small number that he's had to express full confidence in. All of us who serve at the pleasure of the President, if the moment he doesn't have full confidence in you, you no longer work for him. And we all take that very seriously.
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 6:00 PM White House Press Gaggle by Dana Perino 4/19/07 (Attorney General Gonzales) — Thursday, April 19, 2007 — Q Dana, does Attorney General Gonzales's testimony on Capitol Hill have any bearing whatsoever on his job status? MS. PERINO: As I've said many times, the President has full confidence in the Attorney General. The Attorney General looked forward to the hearing that is taking place right now. Of course, the President has not seen any of that testimony. As I told you, he's had a busy morning, and now we're on our way to Tipp City, Ohio. And I haven't seen any of the testimony, either. But clearly, we would hope that there were no preconceived notions, or canned talking points that the senators had in mind before they had this hearing. They said they wanted to get to the facts, and I'm sure that the Attorney General will be fully responsive to their request. Q So is it fair to say that no matter what the testimony, no matter what the back-and-forth, that the President plans to stick with Attorney General Gonzales? MS. PERINO: I think -- yes. I think the President has full confidence in the Attorney General and whenever that changes for any public servant, we'll let you know, and I see no indication of that.
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 5:57 PM White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 4/18/07 (Virginia Tech) — Wednesday, April 18, 2007 — Goyal. Q Two quick questions. One, as far as the school shooting is concerned, my heart goes out and my condolence for the families. MS. PERINO: Absolutely. Q -- in fact, from Washington to New Delhi, because among the dead at least one Indian student and also a professor from India. MS. PERINO: Yes, professor. Q My question is that now there's a feel among the students not only here, but across the globe, including in India, those who want to come for the higher education here. What do you think the President will have a message for them now? MS. PERINO: I know Sean McCormack got asked this question yesterday at the State Department, and I think it's one that not only people around the world are asking, but I'm sure that parents who are encouraging their children to go to college, and that they have it on their minds, too. Again, I would just try to assure that there people who are working very hard to make sure that places are safe. Unfortunately, there are individuals who, if they are determined to perpetuate violence and to kill people, that they have ways of doing that. And as the facts unfold in this case, we're just learning a lot more about this individual's background and behavior.
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 5:55 PM White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 4/16/07 (Gun Control) — Monday, April 16, 2007 — April. Q Dana, going back to Virginia Tech, what more does this White House think needs to be done as it relates to gun issues? The President says current laws need to be strengthened, anything beyond that -- you had a conference on school violence with guns -- what more needs to be done? MS. PERINO: I would point you back to the fact that President, along with Secretary Spellings, hosted last October -- October 10, 2006 -- a conference on school gun violence after the Amish school shooting and the other shootings that had happened, because the tragedies are the ones that just collectively break America's heart and are ones that we deeply feel, because all of us can imagine what it would be like to have been at your own school, your own college, and to have something happen. And those of us who are parents, or brothers or sisters of people at the schools have to take that into consideration. As far as policy, the President believes that there is a right for people to bear arms, but that all laws must be followed. And certainly bringing a gun into a school dormitory and shooting -- I don't want to say numbers because I know that they're still trying to figure out many people were wounded and possibly killed, but obviously that would be against the law and something that someone should be held accountable for. Q Columbine, Amish school shooting, now this, and a whole host of other gun issues brought into schools -- that's not including guns on the streets and in many urban areas and rural areas. Does there need to be some more restrictions? Does there need to be gun control in this country? MS. PERINO: The President -- as I said, April, if there are changes to the President's policy we will let you know. But we've had a consistent policy of ensuring that the Justice Department is enforcing all of the gun laws that we have on the books and making sure that they're prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Q Lastly, in Texas, if I'm correct, he passed legislation, no age restriction on possession of weapons, if I'm correct. Should there be some kind of federal age limit, as far as the President is concerned, raising the age for gun possession in this country? MS. PERINO: Unfortunately, I'm going to have to go back and look at what the record was in Texas. Maybe Ken Herman could tell us. We'll go to Ken next.
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 5:52 PM White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 4/13/07 (Wolfowitz) — Friday, April 13, 2007 — Les. Q Thank you very much, Dana. If I could follow up this question. Page one of this morning's New York Times reports that Mr. Wolfowitz's tenure as President of the World Bank was, "thrown into turmoil by disclosure that he helped arrange a pay raise for his companion, Shaha Riza, for which he was greeted with, 'booing, cat calls, and cries for his resignation by staff members.'" And I have two questions. Does the President believe it was right or wrong for Mr. Wolfowitz to do this for what the Times terms "his companion"? MS. PERINO: As I said, the President apologized for the matter. He's taken full responsibility for it. I'm sorry, Paul Wolfowitz apologized for the matter, and has talked to his board about it, and there's a review underway. Q What definition of this word, "companion," can the public conclude, other than mistress? Does the President believe that people he nominated to such posts -- MS. PERINO: I'm not going to go there, Les -- not going to do it. Q -- a mistress, rather than getting married? MS. PERINO: Not going to do it. Thanks for trying to push the envelope, but not going to do it. Q You'd like to run away from that? MS. PERINO: Kelly, go ahead.
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 11:15 PM White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 4/12/07 (RNC Emails) — Thursday, April 12, 2007 — Q But let's take this idea that perhaps the emails could have disappeared, when I think the first thing anybody learns taking a job in America today is that emails never disappear from a workplace computer. MS. PERINO: That is true at the White House for EOP accounts. I can't speak to any other organization, or their policies, although we are trying to work with the RNC to understand their policy. As I said, anyone with those emails here, as I understand it, since 2004, those emails have been separated from an RNC policy which is to automatically delete every 30 days deleted emails. So we have worked to try to be both in coordination and compliance with the Hatch Act, as well as the Presidential Records Act. Q So nobody's dog ate anybody's homework? MS. PERINO: I don't believe so. Q How does that square with what Scott Stanzel was saying this morning, where he was saying that staffers could, so-called, double-delete? MS. PERINO: That is true. When I say that we're trying to find if there were any potential emails that were not captured in that system, if someone had the capability to -- if they wanted to clean out their inbox -- delete a message, and then when your inbox -- when your deleted box fills up, and you decide that you want to clean that up, if you delete that one, as well, where did those emails go? And that's exactly what we're trying to find out. Q A couple minutes ago you were saying that for sure since 2004 it's been archived, though. But I'm trying to understand, with the double-delete, can that override the archiving? MS. PERINO: I think that it might be able to. And I can't speak to any individual's personal email habits, but let me -- I'm not a technical expert, so let me make sure we find that. Q If it could override it, then what you said earlier about it's archived since 2004 may not be true, because it could be double-delete -- some of the emails could be -- MS. PERINO: Let me look into the specific technical pieces of that.
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 11:11 PM White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 4/11/07 (War Czar) — Wednesday, April 11, 2007 — Go ahead, Suzanne. Q Dana, if I could follow. Representative Rahm Emanuel has put out a statement about this, saying, "The Washington Post reports that the White House wants to appoint a war czar to run the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but they can't find anyone to do it -- someone needs to tell Steve Hadley that position is filled -- it's the Commander-in-Chief, unless the decider has become the delegator." Do you see his point? MS. PERINO: Well, I think it's really interesting coming from somebody who works with 217 other members of Congress who think that they are Commanders-in-Chief. The President is the Commander-in-Chief. He has had no trouble attracting very high caliber talent to positions across the administration, even late in the administration. And I think that it is a responsible thing to consider whether or not a restructuring is needed. I think it behooves us to consider a wide variety of opinions and to consult widely to see how we move forward, to make sure that these policies are implemented for the benefit of our men and women who are on the ground fighting for us, as well as the innocent Iraqis and Afghanis who are working to make their democracies work in the heart of the Middle East. Q I think the point he's making, and some other Democrats, is four years after the war, why is the White House now considering a position to put somebody in power, in place that would be able to coordinate between the agencies and have the power to implement the policies? MS. PERINO: I think that's unfair, Suzanne, because I think that there's a lack of understanding of what Meghan O'Sullivan and Stephen Hadley and J.D. Crouch and other members of the National Security Council have been doing. They have been doing this work -- this idea for a restructuring is one that comes at a time that, after six years, when Meghan O'Sullivan has said that it's time for her to move on from public service, that it's natural that we would consider how best to make sure that that office is most effective. And I think that anybody who misunderstands exactly what we are trying to do in this position is only trying to -- I think that it might be a clever sound bite, but I think it was quite a cheap political shot. Q From the Democrats? MS. PERINO: Yes.
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 2:25 PM White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 4/10/07 (Congress) — Tuesday, April 10, 2007 — Go ahead, Sheryl. Q I guess I'm also having trouble understanding this meeting and what the Democrats could get out of it, and what role does the President see himself playing. You said this is not a meeting in order to compromise, it's a meeting to discuss a way forward. Does the President envision himself as some kind of mediator in this effort to -- MS. PERINO: No, I think the President understands that it's incumbent upon him to explain to the members his positions and reasons why. And it's not just the President that thinks that arbitrary timetables are a bad idea. The military advisors do; Prime Minister Maliki today said he thinks it's a bad idea. And -- because really what it does is it just signals to the enemy that we're going to be leaving on this date; sit around and wait a while, and then you can attack us at will. So what the President wants to do is to tell the Congress that once you're back in town, after this two-week break, let's get together and let's get about the business of getting the money for our troops. Q Is it his -- does he envision himself simply giving kind of a private lecture to Congress of the sort that he has been giving publicly? MS. PERINO: The President is not asking to lecture anybody, nor does he want to. We understand that the Congress has a role to play; we understand what that role is. I would hope that they understand what the Commander-in-Chief's role is. And if a meeting can help alleviate some of the tension, then that's what we are for.
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 2:19 PM White House Press Gaggle by Gordon Johndroe 04/09/07 (Congress) — Monday, April 09, 2007 — Q With the tensions over the Iraq funding bill, how can you make progress on immigration reform, when there are these tensions with the Democrats? MR. JOHNDROE: Well, I think the President is hopeful and confident that we can make progress on a number of issues. Yes, there are a lot of issues that there is disagreement on -- as you mentioned, the Iraq war supplemental funding. But we're having productive conversations with members from both sides of the aisle in both Houses about comprehensive immigration reform, and there are a number of proposals floating around and a number of discussions going on and the President is hopeful and feels confident that we'll be able to get something done on this important issue. Q So does one issue not affect another? MR. JOHNDROE: I think that while sometimes one issue may dominate the headlines of the day, there's a lot of quiet work that goes on underneath the surface so that we can get some legislation done on important issues like immigration or education. And so sometimes some issues are the dominant news-maker, but I think the work is still getting done. Q Is there quiet progress on Social Security? MR. JOHNDROE: I would say there's quiet progress on a number of fronts, but right now, obviously, the priorities are getting the Iraq emergency war supplemental funding done, and today, for the President to highlight the need for comprehensive immigration reform.
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 2:17 PM White House Press Briefing on the Second International Panel on Climate Change 4/6/07 — Friday, April 06, 2007 — Q Do you expect this report to change or alter the administration's position on climate change? CHAIRMAN CONNAUGHTON: This report reinforces it. You have to understand that much of the underlying science has been produced over the last five years, and this report is an effort to summarize and compile that science. The U.S. is a significant contributor to that science, and we have been taking the science on board over the course of the last five years. In fact, we've been releasing reports in advance of this one. We had a few that came out last year, and we have a whole series of them coming out this year. So I think the right word is "reinforcement," I think that is of apiece of what underlined the President's State of the Union announcement this year, which really took the world by, you know, too high to claim of this idea that we can, in fact, displace 20 percent of our petroleum usage with fuels and with vehicles that will dramatically cut the greenhouse gases at the same time. So I think you'll continue to see us advance new policies of a wide variety - these regulatory ones I just mentioned, but also new areas of technological cooperation with key countries like China and India, for example, and try to find low carbon coal. So, again, this groundswell of information is also pushing along a groundswell of additional policies and international cooperation.
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 9:45 AM Press Briefing by Dana Perino 4/2/07 (EPA & Greenhouse Gasses) — Tuesday, April 03, 2007 — Q With the court's decision today, will the President direct the EPA to decide whether greenhouse gases contribute to the changing climate? MS. PERINO: I saw that opinion, that ruling. There were several of them that came out today. We haven't had a chance to review the opinion in full. People at EPA and across the government are going to have to do that. I can't speak to the broader implications of the bill. One thing I can say is part of this case that was being argued was with respect to vehicles and regulating CO2 out of the tailpipe. And one of the ways that you do that is by making cars more efficient, so burning less gas, going more miles. And that's precisely what we have been working to do with our increases in mileage standards for both light trucks, SUVs, and we have asked for that same authority in regards to cars. We don't have that authority now, but the President asked for it two years ago, and then again in his State of the Union. In addition to that, the other way you get there is by mandating alternative fuels and biofuels. And in the President's State of the Union address he said that he wanted to get 35 billion gallons of alternative fuels mandated within 10 years. We call that the 20-in-10 program, which means reducing gasoline consumption by 20 percent in 10 years. The way you get there for our program is to increase CAFE standards and to increase these mandatory alternative fuels. But in regards to this case -- so in that regard, we are regulating the vehicle sector. As far as the broader implications about the case, we're going to have to let EPA take a good look at it, and they're going to have to analyze it and think about what it means for any future policy decisions. Q Well, on a broader face, why did the administration and the EPA refuse to take a position on whether greenhouse gases cause global warming? MS. PERINO: No, we -- that's actually not what the case was saying. We have long said that greenhouse gases are contributing to a warming planet, and that human-generated carbon dioxide is a large contributor to that aspect of it. Q Then it wasn't an EPA policy, which is what this case is about. MS. PERINO: The question was -- it is a legal question of whether or not the federal government has the legal authority to regulate greenhouse gases as a pollutant. And the prior administration said that they thought they had that legal authority, but they did not take action. We questioned whether we did have the legal authority. Now the Supreme Court has settled that matter for us, and we're going to have to take a look and analyze it and see where we go from there.
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 12:10 AM
|
|