in their own words
 |
|
|
 Subscribe to the WHPC RSS Feed
|
White House Press Briefing by Tony Snow 5/14/07 (Greenhouse Gas)
— Tuesday, May 15, 2007 — Q Tony, back to energy environment issues. Is the President still philosophically opposed to the notion of national mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions? MR. SNOW: Again, the President's position has been pretty clear on this, and what he's really looking at is effective ways of trying to cut emissions. The market-based approach seems to work. Again, if you take a look at what the United States has done in terms of reducing carbon intensity, we've done a better job than anybody else in the world. So the President's position is still the same. Q So the answer is, no, he's not interested in the approaches such as the allies seem to be interested in -- MR. SNOW: There are going to be conversations I'm sure about a whole variety of approaches. What the President has said all along is, let's figure out ways to engage and also invest in technology, because ultimately what you're really talking about is a change in technology not only in terms of what is affective as an energy source, but also how you utilize it. And that goes everywhere from clean coal to nuclear power to biofuels to hydrogen cells -- the whole bit. So I think rather than trying again to jump into what is an ongoing set of conversations, I'm not going to advance the ball other than to remind you of the aggressive stance the President has taken, and also doing it in terms of outreach. He has discussed it with each of our key allies. And really the question is, do you try to set up a mandatory system, or do you try to set up an innovation-based system? The President prefers innovation.
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 2:18 AM  White House Press Briefing by Tony Snow 5/10/07 (Iraq) — Thursday, May 10, 2007 — Q One last thing about -- in connection with the Vice President's trip. On board Air Force Two yesterday, senior administration officials said of the trip, and the message, "We've got to get this work done. It's game time." -- what does that suggest about the first four years of the war? Is it that the administration is just now saying that that was a scrimmage and now it's game time? What does that mean? MR. SNOW: I think that's simply -- it gets back to what the President is saying. In some ways, there may be perceptions of two different clocks, Baghdad and Washington. The President said, you've got to speed up the clock. It is a matter of realizing that there have been a lot of efforts now. We've been working on this joint way forward in Iraq. You are getting results in a number of areas. We have been talking and working with the Iraqis on political, economic, and other reform. As the President was pointing out, there are very key things that people want and expect to see, because you know it has to happen. If you want success in Iraq, you have got to have political accommodation, you've got to have the oil law, you've got to have constitutional reform, you've got to have the elections, you've got to have de-Baathification. All of those things are necessities; everybody knows it. It is tough to get to those points, but you've got to do it.
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 5:48 AM White House Press Gaggle by Tony Snow 5/9/07 (Kansas Disaster Response) — Wednesday, May 09, 2007 — Q Could I start the questioning to Director Paulison? Is the National Guard stretched too thin to deal with natural disasters in the country? DIRECTOR PAULISON: No, not at all. We have not seen that at all. I talked to the Adjunct General in Kansas yesterday when I was down there. He said he has plenty of equipment for this disaster. I've asked probably at least 20 times, is there anything that you need you don't have; the answer is, no. And that's from the Governor, the General, the Mayor and the City Manager. What he did say was if they had another disaster they might be short of equipment. I said, if you have another disaster you have my personal commitment that we can get equipment from other states -- like we always do; any state having two major disasters is going to run short of equipment. So we have what we call an emergency management disaster compact from all the states around the country where we share equipment from one state to another. That's a good system, it works well. It worked everything from Hurricane Andrew to Katrina to the tornadoes we had in Georgia and Alabama just recently. MR. SNOW: It's also important with regard to this to get the facts straight, because I think there's been a narrative that equipment was not available. It was. The Governor has said so. She has said so on the record. It didn't make it into some newspapers this morning, but she said it yesterday. Q -- available as quickly as they had -- MR. SNOW: It was immediately available. There were no shortages. This is not a case -- you've got to understand that this is not an either/or situation and that there are considerable assets on the ground. Again, Director Paulison can tell you, the National Guard has also assured the Governor and others that if -- now we're talking hypothetical situations -- but in these hypothetical situations they're going to get what they need. But I'll tell you what; this is a situation where extraordinary measures -- FEMA was on the ground almost immediately. And to start asking questions about whether things were not available when FEMA people are literally pulling people out of the rubble is to -- Q -- a National Guard issue. And the Governor made very clear comments on this -- MR. SNOW: What you need to do is to ask the Governor, because the comments -- Q We had an interview with her. MR. SNOW: Okay, then you better look at what she said yesterday. Because when she was asked, was there any shortage in this case, the answer was, no. What she was talking about was a -- she was talking about a buildup in the National Guard, which she has expressed concern about. The President has given the largest commitment to increasing National Guard strength in the history of this country. So set that aside for now. Please resist the temptation to try to create a political fight because there is none. And furthermore, at least be open to taking a look at the facts on the ground and seeing the extraordinary efforts that people made to save lives. Because there is this attempt now to try to make a -- to turn it into a debate about Iraq, which is wholly separate and irrelevant to what happened in the rescue mission in this case. And as a matter of getting the reporting straight, you need to understand that these are separate issues and, therefore, this was not something -- this was not an either/or situation in which people were denied access to equipment.
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 5:46 AM White House Press Briefing by Tony Snow 5/8/07 (Kansas Disaster Response) — Tuesday, May 08, 2007 — Q Just back to the National Guard for a moment. You said it's a success story, they moved in quickly. But could you have gotten equipment there any sooner were we not in Iraq? I mean, could it have been closer, would there have been units that were closer, equipment closer? MR. SNOW: I don't -- that's a hypothetical question that I'm not sure -- Q It's not hypothetical. MR. SNOW: Well, it is -- let me put it this way. We have no indication that people did not get what they needed as soon as they needed it. Q So they couldn't have moved in sooner had they -- MR. SNOW: Again, things were moved -- again, some of the things -- let me just give you a sense -- Q As quickly as they could now doesn't mean as quickly as they could were they not deployed. MR. SNOW: Let me give you a sense of what's available in the state, because I think -- resources available: I already told you 83,000 National Guard units in the region, 99 bulldozers, 61 loaders, 246 dump trucks, 59 graders, 228 heavy expandable mobility tactical trucks, 2,243 2.5 and 5-ton trucks, 70 palletalized load systems. There's a lot of stuff available. So, again, I think this is one where the equipment was available and everybody was moving as rapidly as possible. Q This morning you said the only thing the Kansas Governor requested was FM radios. Has she, in fact, requested more now? MR. SNOW: I believe so. Let me take a quick look. I think there are a couple of other items that have been requested and supplied. Let's see, the state has requested a mobile command center, an urban search and rescue task force, a mobile office building, 40 two-way radios, and coordination calls between Kansas, Texas and Oklahoma, to determine if they need extra Black Hawks; Kansas has six, Texas and Oklahoma have offered to make available another five to six if necessary. So those are the things that the state has requested, that FEMA has provided. Q And if the Governor repeats her concern that she's expressed for many months about National Guard units to the President, face to face, what will his response be? MR. SNOW: Well, the response will be -- again, what you're doing is you're taking a separate issue about National Guard deployment and how that works into national security concerns, and this particular case. Was there anything she needed that she didn't have? And the answer she gave to Fran was, no. And she praised Mr. Paulison, Administrator Paulison on the swift response. I think you've got to step back and realize that there are plenty of times to talk about this, but the real focal point is the devastation in Greensburg. And I think when you get to a situation like that, I think the President and the Governor and other politicians and citizens, my guess will be sufficiently struck by the enormity of what they see and the incredible devastation. You really -- your natural inclination is, we can talk about these things, but let's get our job done here first.
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 5:43 AM White House Press Briefing by Tony Snow 5/7/07 (Queen Of England) — Monday, May 07, 2007 — Q Given that, as you said, the Queen doesn't play a political role in Great Britain, was there a particular reason why the President gave such a political speech? MR. SNOW: The President -- was it a political speech, or was it one, in fact, reflecting the closeness and the importance of principle? Q It was a political speech. (Laughter.) MR. SNOW: To you it was. Q I think it was a political speech. It spoke a great deal about the war, the war on terror, the war in Iraq. The Queen's speech reflected something that was not political. When you compare the two, and the tone of the two, one was political and one was not. MR. SNOW: As a matter of fact, if you take a look -- one, two, three, four, five, six, seven -- eight paragraphs, there are nine paragraphs -- I believe one referred to it, and there was nothing directly mentioning Iraq, although there was talk about democracy, liberty, defending liberty against tyranny and terror. It mentions killing the innocent to advance a hateful ideology, whether it's in New York, London, Kabul or Baghdad. You may call that political, but that is, in fact, a reflection of what's going on the world. And we have seen evidence of that. And we've also seen evidence of terrorists to continue to do that sort of thing. You saw the Zawahiri tape over the weekend. Well, what did he talk about? He was celebrating in his own view -- what he said was celebrating terrorism. At one point he said, "Fie on moderation, I thank Allah for the bounty of extremism, militancy and terrorism and everything else we are labeled with." And he talked about that in some considerable detail. What he tried to do is manipulate American political sentiments, a big, long section on Malcolm X that was designed to try to foment hatred within the United States. And he called for a rebellion by minority groups in this country. And at the same time, what he tried to do was to misconstrue democratic debate in this country -- small "d" -- in such a way as to try to take political advantage of statements that Senator Reid has made. So what you have is you have a determined enemy that, in fact, wants to kill Americans. One of the things he expressed some unhappiness about is that he wants to kill 200,000 to 300,000 Americans. Now, again, if you think it is political to make reference to the fact that that is extremism and it is a live force in our lives and is a real consideration, then you so may label it. But on the other hand, there was nothing in here that tried to draw the Queen into any direct political conflicts in this country other than to remind and thank her for the support of the very principles that are the bedrock of the Anglo American system, which have to do with individual liberties, the rule of law and a long chain of events and innovations that stretch back from the Magna Carta to the present.
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 5:41 AM White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 5/4/07 (US Attorneys) — Friday, May 04, 2007 — Q Dana, a Newsweek article reports that a couple of months ago Karl Rove was involved in some meetings where Justice Department officials were preparing for testimony. Did the meeting happen? Was Mr. Rove there? And was it appropriate for him to be there? MS. PERINO: I'm so confused by this, because Kyle -- in the first batch of documents that went out on March 13th, Kyle Sampson's documents included a meeting -- an announcement about a meeting that happened early in March. I'm not going to tell you who the participants are of internal White House meetings, but I will tell you, it is not at all unusual, nor is it inappropriate, for people at the White House to meet with members of the administration before they are going up to testify in front of Congress. And at the urging of the White House -- we were asking the Justice Department to be fully responsive to the Congress so that we could help get them the answers that they need. Q You don't think it creates an appearance of everybody getting their story straight? MS. PERINO: What I think is that -- what it appears is that anytime Karl Rove's name is mentioned is that there's some sort of nefarious action. I will tell you that, having worked on that issue intimately, and the whole time we were in Latin America, we were urging the Justice Department to be responsive to the Congress. That is not unusual, and we would have done that with any agency. Q Yes, but there was a sense at the time that the Justice Department, I believe from the podium it was suggested often that the Justice Department needs to get its -- all of its story in line, straight, and get it in, settled up to the Hill, but that it was the Justice Department's problem to solve, which would be different than having meetings at the White House to talk about any kind of strategy about how you're going to testify. MS. PERINO: Urging members of the administration to make sure that they're responsive to members of Congress is not at all inappropriate. In fact, I think we would be remiss if we hadn't done so. Q That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that there were meetings at the White House about coordinating a strategy for how to deal with it. That's not exactly the kind of -- MS. PERINO: Look, I was at that meeting, and I will tell you that the way you're describing it, in terms of coordinating some sort of message, was not the case. It was encouraging them to make sure that all the information got out quickly so that the members of Congress could have what they needed so that we could move on from that story. Q You were there? MS. PERINO: I was there. Q Was Karl there? MS. PERINO: I'm not going to comment on anybody else; I will speak for myself.
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 5:38 AM White House Press Briefing by Tony Snow 5/3/07 (Iraq) — Thursday, May 03, 2007 — Q Do you, today, have a definition of what an acceptable level of violence would be in Iraq? MR. SNOW: You know, I think what you've managed to do is to try to get your -- we're now playing the adjective game. The fact is, when you talk about an acceptable level, it is something that allows the government to exist independently. If you want to -- the problem is, everybody says, oh, so you accept violence. You like -- violence is okay. No, it's not okay. So in abstract terms, zero violence is acceptable. On the other hand, we know well, and the President has said many times, that it is going to be a tactic of people who want to bring this government down to commit acts of violence, and violence unfortunately, at least for a while, is going to be a fact of Iraqi life. What we're really talking about is trying to create conditions of security so that you can have a functional democracy in Iraq where people can go about their daily lives, where they have confidence in the rule of law and the people who are responsible for protecting them; that you have a legislative system that is protecting rights and at the same time getting on with the business -- economic reconstruction, and so on. So that's really what we're talking about. What you're trying to do is to address the kinds of violence that are designed to destroy Iraq -- for instance, al Qaeda recent attacks that are designed not only to create a lot of bloodshed and to weaken the government, but also to reignite sectarian violence. That has always been the al Qaeda MO. That is something that you're going to have to address. If there is -- and so those are the issues, those that jeopardize the very existence of the government, those are the things that we want to address. Q So he wants to minimize violence to a nuisance? MR. SNOW: What you want to do is to be able to have the government in a position where it can stand by itself. And I think trying to get into definitional matters at this point -- Q In October of 2004, John Kerry said, "We have to get back to the place where we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance." The President said he couldn't disagree more; Cheney called this naive and dangerous, and part of a pre-9/11 mind-set. So does the President now have a pre-9/11 mind-set? MR. SNOW: No, the President does not have a pre-9/11 mind-set. And the fact is -- I'll have to go back and take a look, but my recollection is that there was an attempt to kind of minimize some of the security challenges. But I don't want to put words in Senator Kerry's mouth without looking back at the 2004 debate. It is important to realize that you're going to have to use military force and, especially in conjunction with the Iraqis, to address violence that comes from a whole series of factors -- whether they be old members of the Baath Party, whether they be Iraqi rejectionists, or whether they be foreign fighters coming in and trying to destroy the government.
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 5:52 AM White House Press Briefing by Tony Snow 5/2/07 (Iraq) — Wednesday, May 02, 2007 — Q Tony, is it politically persuasive to say the enemy is al Qaeda and not getting in between sectarian groups? MR. SNOW: The characterizations here are not part of a sales pitch, they're an attempt to try to reflect what's going on on the ground. General Petraeus, when he does this, is laying out what he sees. Now, it's entirely conceivable that a month from now you'll have sectarian problems. We hope not. But again, I think you're trying to use a political lens for statements that really are designed simply to say, look, we have shifting realities on the ground. The President laid out plenty of evidence for that last week. And so has MNFI on a pretty regular basis. They try to do what they can to make the statistics known and the data available to everybody. So it's not an attempt to try to change the characterization for political reasons.
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 5:34 AM White House Press Gaggle by Dana Perino 5/1/07 (Iraq) — Tuesday, May 01, 2007 — Q Is there any, shall we say, reluctance on the President's part to actually go through the veto today, being that it's the fourth anniversary of the "mission accomplished" banner, his speech -- MS. PERINO: Obviously, that is -- even thought the Democrats won't say so on the record, it is a trumped-up political stunt that is the height of cynicism and it's very disturbing to think that they possibly held up this money for the troops and the troops' families and the resources they need to try some PR stunt on this day. The President realizes that today is the fourth anniversary of the day he gave a speech on the USS Abraham Lincoln. As I said last Thursday in the briefing, that speech has been widely misconstrued, and I encourage people to go back and read it. The President did say we had a long and difficult road ahead of us. We're moving from a dictatorship to democracy. But in addition to that, the President has since said that we did not anticipate the amount of sectarian violence that would happen in the year of 2006, especially fomented by al Qaeda with the Samarra mosque bombing in February of 2006. The President said where there have been mistakes, those mistakes -- that responsibility for those mistakes rests with him. And so today is the President's opportunity to go and thank the commanders for all of their work, to highlight their successes, to talk about the new strategy that the President has underway, being implemented by General David Petraeus. And he is proud of the work that they've done, the terrorist plots that they have thwarted. And he also is going to remind them about the consequences of success and the consequences of failure.
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 5:33 AM
|
|