in their own words
 |
|
|
|
 Likely To Impact Our Legislative Agenda (Cell Phone Rings) - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 5/13/09 — Wednesday, May 13, 2009 —  Q Robert, regarding the photos of detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq, you took several questions on this on April 24. You said that it was that DOJ decided it was hopeless to appeal and the administration had entered into an agreement to release the photos. You got a question about whether the President was concerned about if the release might do harm to our troops, and you said his decision was consistent with his goal of keeping the nation and the troops safe. And you said that this is among the many actions that are out of our control. So my question is what has changed to make you think that you have more control, and what has changed about the concerns about the harm to the troops? MR. GIBBS: Well, Chuck, as I said yesterday, the President was concerned about harm to the troops. I think part of my answer in that briefing also was a question about whether or not this was likely to impact our legislative agenda. The President, as you all know, met with his legal team last week because he did not feel comfortable with the release of the photos; primarily believes that -- and I'll go through some of the dates in the court that I did yesterday. This all stems from a FOIA -- first from detainee abuse investigations that were concluded by the end of 2004. There was a FOIA case that started -- the first ruling was in September of 2008. That ruling was appealed I believe in December of 2008. On March 11th, the Second Circuit declined to have the full circuit review the three-judge ruling appealing the decision that was made. The President does not believe that the strongest case regarding the release of these photos was presented to the court, and that was a case based on his concern of what the release of these would do to our national security. He believes that the release of these photos could pose a threat to the men and women we have in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan, and doesn't believe that we made -- doesn't believe that the government made the strongest case possible to the court and asked the legal team to go make that case. Q But what changed to -- you're just stating now that he is concerned that it would do harm, but -- MR. GIBBS: I'm not stating that now. I believe I've always stated that and I stated it as well yesterday. Q On the 24th you stated the opposite, that he had come to the conclusion that this would not cause harm to the troops. MR. GIBBS: I will go back and -- I looked at part of that a few days ago. I have not seen the full -- but I'll be happy to take a look at it. Q The question is, are you concerned that it would cause a backlash against our troops in harm's way? You said that the President has done a lot of back-and-forth in his mind over the course of several weeks about ensuring that this protected those who keep us safe, that it protected our national security. The President came to a determination that the decision that he made was consistent with all those criteria. MR. GIBBS: Well, the President reflected on this case and believes that they have the potential to pose harm to our troops. Q Was he pressured by the military? MR. GIBBS: No. In fact, this was brought up -- his decision was brought up with General Odierno yesterday at the end of their meeting, the meeting that General Odierno and Ambassador Hill had with the President. The President brought this up at the end of the meeting to inform General Odierno of his decision. Obviously, there has been concern. There was certainly concern throughout the process by folks that -- the harm that could be caused by the release. Q Did they make it known to him? MR. GIBBS: I think they have. But I would also say the President believes a couple of other things. Understand that the existence of these investigations are -- and I don't know the exact address, but they're on the DOD website. The President believes that the release of these photos will also provide a disincentive for detainee abuse investigation. The photos don't denote the existence of the investigations -- they're simply part of the potential evidence in the cases that have been finished since 2004. But if in each of these instances somebody looking into detainee abuse takes evidentiary photos in a case that's eventually concluded, this could provide a tremendous disincentive to take those photos and investigate that abuse. I would also add, lastly -- Q Wait, try that once again. I don't follow you. Where's the disincentive? MR. GIBBS: The disincentive is in the notion that every time one of these photos is taken, that it's going to be released. Nothing is added by the release of the photo, right? The existence of the investigation is not increased because of the release of the photo; it's just to provide, in some ways, a sensationalistic portion of that investigation. These are all investigations that were undertaken by the Pentagon and have been concluded. I think if every time somebody took a picture of detainee abuse, if every time that -- if any time any of those pictures were mandatorily going to be necessarily released, despite the fact that they were being investigated, I think that would provide a disincentive to take those pictures and investigate. Q How do you square this -- you use the term "sensationalistic." But how do you square that with your frequent comments about greater transparency? That seems completely at odds. MR. GIBBS: No, Chuck, again, the existence of the detainee abuse cases is not denoted by the photos. They're evidence contained -- or evidence as part of those investigations. The existence of the cases are on the websites, they're on the DOD website. Okay? So the notion that somehow you don't know about these investigations because you haven't seen the photos doesn't make any sense. Q Right, but you agree that you should allow photos, for example, of the troops that were killed in action coming back to Dover Air Force Base. MR. GIBBS: No, again, let's be precise. The President and the Secretary left it up to those involved in those cases for families to determine whether or not they wanted to make the ceremony open to the press or not. Q The point I'm trying to make is that you have -- you're saying -- you have acknowledged that the existence of photographs can be a compelling component of understanding what's going on in any given situation, and in the name of transparency it seems like it would apply here. MR. GIBBS: The President doesn't believe that the release of these photos adds in any way to that. It only adds to pose harm. Q Robert, can you go over the sequence of events that led to his thought process? Because on April 24th, when the Pentagon was explaining its decision to release the photos, it said that -- the spokesman said that there was a feeling that the case has pretty much run its course. And now you're saying that the President feels that there's a strong argument to be made -- MR. GIBBS: Because the argument that the President has asked his legal team to make is not an argument that the previous legal team made in that case. They argued a couple of different things including a law enforcement exception, and a judge ruled that to seek a law enforcement exception you have to disclose the name of the person that would be -- that harm would be derived for in seeking that exception. This is a different argument that the President thinks is compelling. Q When did you decide that it was important to make that argument? Did one of the lawyers come to him and say -- MR. GIBBS: No, he came to the lawyers. Q And when did all of that take place? MR. GIBBS: That was a meeting that was held last week in the Oval Office. Q Robert, if that was such a compelling case why was that not weighed in April then? Because it seems like -- was there a failure here at the White House in the first go-round in April to fully weigh the national security implications? MR. GIBBS: The argument that the President seeks to make is one that hasn't been made before. I'm not going to get into blame for this or that, understanding that there was significant legal momentum in these cases prior to the President entering into office. We are now at a point where it is likely that some stay will be asked to prevent the release of these photos. And I believe the date, that we have until June 8th to appeal -- to seek review of the decision by the Second Circuit. Q Well, on April 24th, you also said, the Department of Justice decided based on the ruling, the court ruling, that it was "hopeless to appeal." Now you're saying it's not hopeless. MR. GIBBS: Well, based on the argument that -- yes, I said that it was hopeless based on the argument that was made during the course of the original FOIA lawsuit, the appeal, the three-judge ruling and the decision to decline the full circuit to make that -- to make those determinations. The President isn't -- what I'm saying to you, Ed, is the President isn't going back to remake the argument that has been made. The President is going -- has asked his legal team to go back and make a new argument based on national security. Q This new argument -- if you're saying basically that this could put troops in further harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan -- former Vice President Cheney, General Hayden, others have made the same argument about releasing the so-called torture memos. Do you have any regrets about putting those memos out -- MR. GIBBS: No -- Q They've made the same argument about them. MR. GIBBS: Well, I'll use the example I've used on this before, Ed. You didn't begin to report on enhanced interrogation techniques at the release of the OLC memos, did you? Q No. MR. GIBBS: Okay. I'm sensing -- Q But you all are saying -- MR. GIBBS: Hold on. I'm also sensing that the graphic that CNN uses to denote what happens when somebody gets waterboarded wasn't likely developed based on reading memos that were released three weeks ago. The existence of enhanced interrogation techniques were noted by the former administration in speeches that they gave. You read about the enhanced interrogation techniques in autobiographies written by members of that former administration. The notion that -- Q So by that argument, our graphics would not also be based on any prisoner photos you might release because we already know that people we're abused in prisons. So why not put them out there -- MR. GIBBS: I'm not sure that you'd do a graphic of a photo. Q Well, a graphic of someone being abused. We all have seen the Abu Ghraib photos. And you were saying about the photos back in April, look, it's already exhausted and essentially these photos are going to come out anyway. MR. GIBBS: Based on the previous legal argument, yes. The previous legal argument denoted that the case had been lost. There's a new legal argument that's being made. But my sense is, Ed, why do you do a graphic on CNN? Q We're trying to show people what -- explain to people what -- MR. GIBBS: Okay. The President believes that the existence of the photos themselves doesn't actually add to the understanding that detainee abuse happened, was investigated, that actions were taken by those that did indeed or might have undertaken potential abuse of detainees, and that those cases were all dating back to finishing in 2004. The President doesn't believe the release of photos surrounding that investigation does anything to illuminate the existence of that investigation, only to provide some portion of sensationalism. Q But, Robert, is that really his role to decide whether or not it illuminates? That's not the President of the United States' role to decide, well, this information will illuminate for the people and this information isn't -- MR. GIBBS: No, the role of the President in this situation is as Commander-in-Chief, and if he determines that through the release of these photos that they pose a threat to those that serve to protect our freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan through the illumination of whatever, he can make a determination to ask his legal team to go back to court and make a legal argument that he doesn't believe was made and provides the most salient case and most important points for not releasing these photos. Those determinations are indeed made by this President and are being made. (Cell phone rings.) Just put in on vibrate, man, we did this before. (Laughter.) Q I'm sorry. MR. GIBBS: That's all right. It's all right. Q -- time it happened. MR. GIBBS: Third, actually. It happened twice that one day. Go ahead. Q The Bush administration has obviously made the argument that releasing these specific photographs will endanger troops and they did so in a way that he described with -- while seeking the FOIA exemption for law enforcement personnel. The Second Circuit Court ruled against that, saying that it's not -- that exemption is not intended "as an all-purpose damper on global controversy." What is this new argument that the President wants his team to present? MR. GIBBS: That not seeking an exemption for law enforcement -- (cell phone rings.) Give me the phone. (Laughter.) All right. This is -- come here. Let me see this. (Laughter and applause.) This is enhanced interrogation technique. (Laughter.) Q He threw your phone. MR. GIBBS: No, no, somebody caught it, no worries. (Laughter.) I made the determination that -- (laughter) -- the illumination of the sound was distracting to the briefing as the Press Secretary to the President of the United States. Q Here's that mallet you wanted. (Laughter.) (Cell phone rings.) (Laughter.) MR. GIBBS: You, too? You want to do this, too? Here, come on. (Laughter.) Q Gibbs wants to take my phone, but I don't think it's a good idea. (Laughter.) Q No favoritism. Q I'll explain later. (Laughter.) MR. GIBBS: I assume it's your banker, with a suit like that. (Laughter.) Sorry. This is -- cotton candy down the street, it's a circus. The President believes that the specific case surrounding the damage that would be done to our troops and our national security has not fully been developed and put in front of the court to make. That's the case that the legal team will now make. The Department of Justice will seek to look for different avenues; as I said earlier, likely seek a stay. Q With the Supreme Court? MR. GIBBS: Well, you could seek a stay with an additional judge. The June 8 deadline also is for an appeal to the Supreme Court, and that's likely the next -- (cell phone rings.) Golly, guys. Just put them on vibrate. Yes, go ahead. Q The specific avenue that your legal team is going to go, you're not sure if it's going to be going back to the District Court? MR. GIBBS: I don't know. I'll check with -- we'll check with those guys specifically. I think in some ways they're looking at whether it is to go to a lower court, or to go to the Supreme Court. Q And then just to follow up on the new argument. So are there specific -- is there specific case law arguments that the President knows that exist that were not used? Because I find it hard to believe that the Bush administration didn't turn under every rock to try and find an argument -- MR. GIBBS: Well, the President doesn't believe that was the case. And the President, after reviewing the case, believes that we have a compelling argument. Q Could you let us know what those new arguments are? MR. GIBBS: Yes. Q Thank you. Q Is part of his concern here, though, that this would open the flood gates for new calls for an investigation? And what does this mean for his stance on whether more memos should be released and that type of thing? MR. GIBBS: Well, I'm not sure that this case is necessarily analogous and I wouldn't want to draw broad conclusions not based on some specificity. Q What is his current stance on whether there should be an investigation? MR. GIBBS: Well, I think we covered that a few weeks ago. Q We covered it, but -- MR. GIBBS: Well, I should say that it hasn't changed since we last covered it. Q He's sort of gone back and forth on that issue. I mean, he sort of left the door open to it, but then you've signaled -- MR. GIBBS: No, no, no. We'll do this again. The President believes that the determination about whether or not anybody broke the law should be made by those who determine whether or not anybody broke the law, and that, in this case, would be the Department of Justice. Q But should there be any kind of congressional panel looking into this? At one stage, you raised the idea of a 9/11 type of -- MR. GIBBS: Yes, I think the President -- and I have said this before -- the President believes a lot of this is being investigated by the Senate Intelligence Committee; that that's an avenue and a venue that possesses, because of clearances and such, a broad ability to conduct an investigation, and he thinks that an appropriate place for it to be. Yes, sir. Q On the argument that this would -- that release of the photos would be a disincentive into investigations, wouldn't it also be a disincentive into detainee abuse? And on those investigations, we don't -- if they're administrative rather than judicial, we don't know the outcome of a lot of those investigations. MR. GIBBS: On the first part -- I can certainly check with Pentagon on part two. Look, I think you could certainly argue that it hasn't always been the case, because obviously there continue to be cases, regrettably, of detainee abuse. But at the same time, if each and every photo that is taken, regardless of whether that -- regardless of the fact that it doesn't actually add to the notion that these cases are being looked into, the President believes provides that disincentive. On behalf of CBS, Mark. You're now the sole representative for the -- Q Let me get my cell phone out. (Laughter.) MR. GIBBS: Yes, exactly. You want to phone it in? (Laughter.) Q How was this decision on the photos consistent with what he said on his second day in office: "I will hold myself, as President, to a new standard of openness. Information will not be withheld just because I say so." MR. GIBBS: Look at that. I got a "hmm." Because, Mark, the President has, in this case -- welcome back. Q What did I miss? (Laughter.) Q There was a call for you. (Laughter.) MR. GIBBS: Will somebody brief Bill on the new Supreme Court nominee. (Laughter.) Because, again, the President -- as I said to Jake's question, the President made this determination as the Commander-in-Chief; made this determination as somebody who is charged with protecting our men and women in harm's way. That's why this determination was made. That's why he's asked the legal team to go back to court. Q And his statement is for civilian matters, and not for national security matters? MR. GIBBS: No. I think, again, Mark, as I said, I don't think the -- the existence of the photos doesn't denote -- isn't the only thing that denotes the existence of an investigation. The website includes documentation that underscores the potential abuse that was being investigated through the year 2004. The President doesn't believe that the existence publically of the photos adds to that. Q I want to change topics for just I'm sure what will be a brief moment. (Laughter.) MR. GIBBS: Thirty seconds to respond. No, I'm kidding. Q Former SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt today said that when it comes to the government imposing executive compensation restrictions across all -- the whole financial services industry, that it can't work, it won't work, and that the government shouldn't be micromanaging in this way. Why does the President think that it will work now and why is he okay with such micromanaging? MR. GIBBS: Well, I don't necessarily want to buy into the premise of Mr. Levitt in this case. I think the President has talked about -- repeatedly, in previous years as well as this year -- and set up a standard for what makes sense in terms of executive compensation, certainly related to companies or financial institutions receiving extraordinary assistance from the government. Q These are firms that don't receive extraordinary -- MR. GIBBS: I think the President has outlined his thinking on the notion that -- and I don't have the exact figures in front of me, but I think you can see over a several year period, if you go back, executive compensation as it related to the average worker in a business, that has ballooned in only a short period of time; that there is an important interest in ensuring some fairness in this and in giving, as the President has talked about, giving shareholders some say in ultimately the type of compensation that their executives receive. Q Even at hedge funds, private equity firms? MR. GIBBS: Well, I would point you to Treasury for the notion of what they're looking at. Obviously, the say-on-pay provisions that the President has supported are not legally binding, but through the court of public opinion might have an impact on some of that. Yes, sir. Q A couple on the photos, and then on a separate topic. The President has been Commander-in-Chief throughout his presidency, since January 20th. What is it about his role as Commander-in-Chief that occurred to him differently after the White House announced and the Pentagon said it was going to, the Justice Department reaffirmed the decision to release these photos? Are you telling us there was an inadequate weighing of the national security implications before, and there's now been a more intensive one recently? MR. GIBBS: I don't know the exacting of that, except to say that the President has spent a considerable amount of time thinking about the specific instance recently. That's why the meeting was had last week in the Oval Office with his legal team. Q What instigated that more intensive or -- whatever how you describe it -- MR. GIBBS: That's what I seek to check. Q And did the President come up with this idea of a national security argument, or did someone bring it to him and did he say that's a path I want to go down? MR. GIBBS: As I understand it, the President, in reviewing this, didn't believe that the case that was being made was the most effective on the grounds of national security. Q He was the originator of the idea to take this case back and make the national security argument? MR. GIBBS: The meeting, specifically, was had to bring the legal team in to inform them and others of a change in the way this case would be handled, and the President discussed directly with them the notion that they'd be making a different argument than one that he believed had previously been made. Q The argument being made is his? Okay. Separate topic. The National Rifle Association is going to meet this weekend. And they tout that their membership has increased 30 percent since the President was inaugurated. And they say that's because there is some palpable anxiety, legitimate or otherwise, that people have about their gun rights. I'd like you to address that generally. What does the White House think about that? What's erroneous or misguided about that particular impression out there? And more specifically, Senator Feinstein has committed publicly to bringing the assault weapons ban to the floor of the Senate and pursuing that legislatively this year. If that were to pass through Congress, would the President sign or veto that? MR. GIBBS: I think the President's views on the support of an assault weapons ban, as he said in the campaign, are known. As we've been reminded repeatedly in this room, there's a lot of stuff on the docket, and I think the President, certainly in the recent trip to Mexico, covered his thinking on that. In terms of increased membership at the NRA, I don't -- obviously, I'm not privy to their statistics. I think if you go back and look at the most previous presidential elections, I think the very same people that you might be talking to argued that stances cost Democratic nominees the change of being President of the United States. And I think this President articulated the viewpoint that he was a believer in the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms, and I don't think -- I don't believe that his actions have denoted anything that would give the NRA members cause for concern. Q Just to follow up on the assault weapons ban, you said yesterday you need a legislative vehicle to engage more directly in the question of "don't ask, don't tell." There's going to be a legislative vehicle on the assault weapons ban. If it gets there, what's going to happen? MR. GIBBS: When you change the word "if" to "is," then we'll get into the hypothetica. Q Robert, first, when did the President see these pictures? MR. GIBBS: I know he has seen them. I don't know the first day he saw them. Q Do you know if they're qualitatively different, the content, than what we've seen so far? MR. GIBBS: You mean, as far as the Abu Ghraib -- I personally have not seen the pictures. I can certainly seek to find somebody who has or seek to find -- seek to see the pictures myself. Q One more quick thing. What does the President think that the release of the OLC memos -- what new light did that shed on the debate about which books have been written about? MR. GIBBS: Well, I think any number of things. Obviously that was -- and we're talking about -- in talking about legal scenarios, obviously those avenues and the arguments that could be made, the President and the team believe were exhausted. The President also believed that, as you've heard him say, the most important thing relating to these techniques, in his opinion, was the executive order banning their use. At the same time, I don't think that helped the legal argument. So the President I don't think believed that the release of the memos did -- had an analogous impact that these photos would have. Jeff. Q As you know, during the presidential campaign, then-Senator Obama talked a lot about -- his campaign was based on the idea of improving America's image around the world. How does he believe that that's possible without showing these photographs and sort of cleansing that idea? MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President would believe that the -- making the -- that what's important in dealing with the potential detainee abuse is to investigate that abuse and act accordingly on that investigation, right? I think you could draw an analogy to a murder case. If somebody is involved in that case, is it more important to show the crime -- the picture of the crime scene or deal with the potential that somebody might have killed somebody? I think the President doesn't believe that the release of the photos in and of itself add to the notion that you discussed; that instead what's important for our values and for our image around the world was to understand that if this was taking place, that it be looked into and that it be dealt with. That, in this case, has happened, and it was done without the release of the photos. Q And how will he explain this, whenever he decides to speak on this, if it's at the commencement address, which I doubt, or in the coming days? How do you plan to have him address this personally? Because there obviously is a lot of concern about this from some of his supporters on the left. MR. GIBBS: Well, I doubt that he would do this this evening at Arizona State. I haven't talked about that with him. There may be occasion to take questions in the next few days. We'll have a town hall meeting tomorrow and certainly the topic could come up there. Afghanistan | Interrogation | Iraq | Legislation | Obama Administration | Photos | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Afghanistan, Interrogation, Iraq, Legislation, Photos, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 9:31:00 PM  Around Here - Al Faw Palace Press Gaggle by Robert Gibbs 4/7/09 — Wednesday, April 08, 2009 — MR. GIBBS: There are updates on the schedule even as we speak, so I’ll come back out and do that again. Q Okay. Q I’m sorry, I couldn’t hear that part. MR. GIBBS: There are updates to the schedule, and I’ll come out there -- Q So he may have a face-to-face with Talabani? MR. GIBBS: Yes, yes. Q But still here? Everything here? MR. GIBBS: Somewhere in Camp Victory, yes. Q He’s not going to the Green Zone, right? MR. GIBBS: Right. It will be somewhere -- I don't -- Q Around here. MR. GIBBS: It's not likely to be in that office, but it will be nearby. International Relations | Iraq | President Obama | Press Gaggle | Robert Gibbs | White House Press Corps Labels: International Relations, Iraq, President Obama, Press Gaggle, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 12:20:00 AM Surge of Doubletalk - White House Press Gaggle by Robert Gibbs 2/27/09 — Monday, March 02, 2009 —  Q The former NSC spokesman, Gordon Johndroe, today said that this only was possible -- this plan laid out today was only possible because of the surge, and that in fact this plan is in keeping with basically the rough outlines of what the Bush administration had thought of doing itself. How would you characterize that? And does the President believe the surge was necessary to get to this point?MR. GIBBS: Well, I think as the President said in the campaign, that the security situation has gotten better in the -- over the past couple years in Iraq; the political situation hasn't always followed as quickly. And insofar as the Status of Forces Agreement dictated an end to our involvement in Iraq, there may be certainly some consistency with the SOFA, but I think what the President laid out was something that was -- today was consistent with what he pledged to do in the campaign, to do so in a way that was responsible, do so in a way that was in keeping with his commitment to protect our troops and to speak with commanders on the ground and at the Pentagon in order to make it happen. Obviously we've got a long way to go in Iraq. And I think the President enumerated that a military drawdown is but one of many functions that have to continue to take place in order to have the, as I think the President said, the hard opportunity the Iraqis now have to take their country and govern and protect it effectively. Obviously the President outlined a series of strategies, including renewed diplomatic efforts in the region in order to bring Iraq into sort of the community in the region, but also to ensure that there's continued political improvement with the election scheduled this year, and still some hard decisions that have to be made on things like an oil law. Q Did he call any other ex-Presidents to tell them what was going on? MR. GIBBS: I don't believe he called any ex-Presidents. I know that members of the team -- of our national security team were reaching out to many of their counterparts. Q Why did he call Bush and not Clinton or the senior Bush? What informed this -- MR. GIBBS: Well, again, I think obviously this was something that was a pretty big issue for the most previous President, and because of that, felt it important to call and let him know. Q I'm sorry, but I didn't hear an answer to Anne's specific question of whether President Obama thinks the surge worked. I heard him talk about improved security and I heard him thank the military. But what about the strategy? MR. GIBBS: Well, but remember that -- go back and read the very beginning, the stories of what the surge outlined. The surge was quite clearly an effort to add more troops that would ultimately bring about a change in the political reconciliation and dynamic in the country. And while the security situation did show improvement, we still -- there still lacks some political reconciliation and certainly facets of what would ultimately be the agreements necessary for the country to prosper in the long term. So I think that, again, while the security situation improved, there still is some political improvement that can and must take place in order for Iraq to be stable. Q Just to give it one more try. Does the President think that if were it not for the surge -- does the President think that the surge allowed him to make the decision he did today, made it more likely that it will end successfully? MR. GIBBS: Again, I think the President believed that the surge -- (laughter) -- I mean -- Q Believed that the surge -- MR. GIBBS: Again, the surge helped improve the security situation, as he said, but I think, remember, again -- and again, please go back and read, the goal of the surge was to change the security situation so that a political reconciliation could be brought about. But let me pivot a little bit by saying, and the President said this after the speech in an interview later on, which is, you know, the situation in Iraq and in the region is it's far less important for us to turn back and look backwards -- we could debate about whether we should have been there; the President was on one side and some people were on another; we could debate about how long we stayed; we could debate about the surge; we could debate about recommendations from the Baker-Hamilton commission. But all of that is somewhat moot given the situation of where we are today and what has to happen and what the President believes should happen between now and the end of August of 2010, and ultimately the end of December in 2011. Iraq | President Bush | President Obama | Press Gaggle | Robert Gibbs | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Iraq, President Bush, President Obama, Press Gaggle, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 5:54:00 PM Dana Perino Interview by Juan Williams on The O'Reilly Factor 12/18/08 — Friday, December 19, 2008 — Dana Perino | Iraq | Media Bias | White House Press Secretary Labels: Dana Perino, Iraq, Media Bias, White House Press Secretary
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 4:11:00 AM Dana's Shoe-venir - White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 12/16/08 — Tuesday, December 16, 2008 — MS. PERINO: Ann. Q How is your eye? MS. PERINO: Fine. Q Does the President think that, had the gentleman thrown something other than a shoe, or thrown his shoe more accurately, that he was well enough protected, standing as he was, at that news conference? MS. PERINO: Well, it was just a shoe, and the President saw it from his vantage point. He felt fine about it. I think you saw he let the Secret Service know he thought he was okay, and the Secret Service jumped in as quickly as they thought they needed to. And then they were able to back off and let the Prime Minister of a duly -- the duly elected Prime Minister of a sovereign Iraq taking questions from journalists there who never would have been able to do that five years ago. And the President just thinks it was just a -- it was just a shoe. People express themselves in lots of different ways. Obviously he was very angry. I can't think -- I don't -- I can't tell you exactly what the shoe thrower was thinking, but I can tell what the President thought, was that he was fine. And he said immediately -- you saw his reaction was, don't worry about it; it was okay. So we hold no hard feelings about it, and we've really moved on. Q And he's satisfied with the -- satisfied with the protection -- had it been something other than a shoe? MS. PERINO: Look -- yes, he is satisfied that he was well protected by the Secret Service, as he always has been. Q Dana, specifically, does the President -- Q -- in the aftermath concerning the punishment? MS. PERINO: No, the only thing that he's -- what he said publicly is what he said privately to Prime Minister, was, don't worry about it, that he was fine. Q Why not worry about it? Doesn't it reflect the feelings of the people? MS. PERINO: I don't think that you can take one guy throwing his shoe as representative of the people of Iraq. And I will tell you that Prime Minister Maliki and the journalists who were there in the room, who apologized on behalf of the Iraqis, saying this is not how they would treat a guest -- I know that there are people in Iraq who are angry -- angry at their situation. It's been a very rough five years. What we were there talking about, though, is how much progress Iraq has made because of our troops and because of the wonderful work of the Iraqi security forces and their military, and how their economy is coming back. And they've grown in leaps and bounds, and so the country is on its way to becoming a wonderful country that can govern, sustain and defend itself, and they will be an ally of ours in the war on terror. Q But he wasn't a guest. It was occupied. MS. PERINO: No, we're not, Helen. We are absolutely a guest. Q It was occupied. MS. PERINO: We all went there and he signed the agreement, the status of forces agreement. If the Iraqis didn't want us there, we wouldn't have been signing that agreement that allows our troops to operate there for the next three years. Q -- a bunch of people self-picked by us who run the country. MS. PERINO: Are you suggesting that Prime Minister Maliki was not elected by the people of Iraq? That's preposterous. Q Why? MS. PERINO: Because there was an election and they -- he was elected. Q When you have an occupation, can you really have a free election? MS. PERINO: I have never once heard somebody suggest that that was not a free and fair election in Iraq. It was one of the highlights of the last several years that they were able to pull off an election like that, and how many people came out to vote. And absolutely, Prime Minister Maliki is their duly elected Prime Minister. Dana Perino | Democracy | Helen | Iraq | President Bush | Press Briefing | White House Press Corps Labels: Dana Perino, Democracy, Helen, Iraq, President Bush, Press Briefing, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 6:02:00 PM MSNBC Finds a New Host - Presidential Press Conference in Baghdad — Sunday, December 14, 2008 — Iraq | President Bush | Presidential Press Conference | White House Press Corps Labels: Iraq, President Bush, Presidential Press Conference, White House Press Corps
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 6:47:00 PM Iraq Withdrawal Time Horizon - White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 7/21/08 — Monday, July 21, 2008 —  MS. PERINO: Matt.Q Dana, the term "time horizon" has to imply the setting of date, or dates, of some sort in this agreement. How can you say that this is not a change of administration policy when the President had adamantly -- adamantly -- objected to the idea of time lines, time frames, deadline, anything related to time? MS. PERINO: I just think that it's important that you make the distinction, Matt, that for many years, over -- since, I think it was '05, '06, and '07 -- many members of Congress suggested that we pull troops out in 90 days from X date, or, in six months from today we'll have no more combat troops there. Those were arbitrary dates that tied the hands of the commanders, that did not give any consideration to conditions on the ground. The whole reason we are able to have this conversation today with the Iraqis is because conditions on the ground have changed radically, and for the better. And we are willing to talk with them about an aspirational time horizon when we would be able to have them take more security control of their country, as well as see them continue to make gains in their political reconciliation, which we increasingly saw even over the weekend, as the Sunnis agreed to come back and rejoin the government. On the economic side, they just passed a supplemental for their budget. They're increasingly bringing in more revenues and they're paying for much -- almost all of their reconstruction costs. So we're making gains. Let me also mention that I do think that they've made a tremendous effort in the region, in the neighborhood, to improve the diplomatic relations with their neighbors. And you're seeing that through the Kuwaitis, who have now said that they will send an ambassador for the first time in many years; the United Arab Emirates, who agreed to forgive their debt, which was a good step forward; Jordan has said that they would consider opening up their embassy there, amongst others. So all of these tracks have been moving forward. We are not setting an arbitrary date for withdrawal that is a date that is plucked out of thin air. We are going to do this based on conditions. Conditions have improved dramatically, and we want to get it on a trajectory that makes sure that that can continue. Q You're not setting an arbitrary date -- MS. PERINO: That's right. Q -- but dates will be set, nonetheless. MS. PERINO: As I just said, there will be an aspirational time horizon where there might be -- for example, something that says, we believe that by X date the Iraqis should be able to take care -- take over security control of Y province. That could be the type of dates we're talking about. Q But, so then what really is the -- it sounds like a semantical difference. I mean, most Americans are going to look at that -- MS. PERINO: I don't think -- well, if you're making policy and you're the Commander-in-Chief, there's a huge difference between saying that you're going to bring troops home based on -- let me go on -- I don't remember whose legislation it was that would have brought our troops home in 90 days after the passing of the supplemental -- maybe in 2007. But I know that we've gone through several of these fights, and in every -- every time we've been able the beat it back because we think that the best decision-makers on the ground are commanders on the ground, not people in Washington, D.C. plucking dates out of thin air. And we are able to have this conversation with the Iraqis now because of the success we are seeing in Iraq -- that is based on the surge, which was a extremely courageous decision, one of the most unpopular decisions possibly in presidential history, but one that has worked nonetheless. Dana Perino | Iraq | Middle East | President Bush | Press Briefing | White House Press Corps | White House Press Secretary Labels: Dana Perino, Iraq, Middle East, President Bush, Press Briefing, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 5:37:00 PM Job of the White House Press Secretary - White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 5/30/08 — Friday, May 30, 2008 —  MS. PERINO: Martha.Q Can we just talk about what isn't true in the book? I mean, you go to the part about weapons of mass destruction and the big threat wasn't great and gathering as the White House said. And you said that's not true? Was there no exaggeration? Was there no hiding? Was there no spinning about the war? MS. PERINO: Not that I'm aware of. But did we communicate about the war? Yes. And I would point you to the President's speeches -- all the speeches that the President made leading up to it; he made several comprehensive speeches making the case for why Saddam Hussein was a threat, which was, based on the intelligence that we had -- and not only the United States had, but that's what the world had. And in addition to that he talks about -- in his speech especially on February 26, 2003, when he spoke to AEI; it was before I was a part of the press office, so I would encourage you to go back and look at it, as I've had to do myself -- where he talks about that the benefit to a free Iraq would be to the Iraqi people and also to the region, and establishing a change in the Middle East when it comes to freedom and justice and democracy. Q But the order of what was talked about at the time in the buildup to the war was largely about weapons of mass destruction. MS. PERINO: I think that that was -- well, I think you could go back, you could weigh it -- you know, I'm looking at it, what I have seen is a comprehensive case for confronting Saddam Hussein, and that's what the United Nations of course was talking about, specifically weapons of mass destruction. But there was also a gathering threat in terms of the nexus of working -- for example, paying suicide bombers, paying families of suicide bombers. And you know better than anyone, Martha, about the buildup to this, the reaction to this. The problem that we have is this -- Q There were no suicide bombers in Iraq. MS. PERINO: But paying them in the Palestinian Territories and in Israel. That's something that Saddam Hussein himself said. Q Just a general question, then, Dana. I mean, one of the things he talks about is spinning, exaggeration, I mean, what goes on at the podium -- which is an indictment of you, as well. Do you think there's no spinning? MS. PERINO: You know, it's a term that I don't necessarily use. I come out here, I answer your questions, I answer them to the best of my ability based on the information and the facts that I have. Q Define your job for me. I know Scott in the book says that his job -- he believed his job was to advance the agenda of the President of the United States. MS. PERINO: Sure it is. That's part of it. And my job is to be his spokesperson. But I also, as many of you in this room know -- especially you -- that I work very hard on behalf of the press as well. I defend the press, I advocate for the press and I make sure that all of you have answers as quickly as possible to the best of my ability every single day -- Saturdays and Sundays included. Dana Perino | Iraq | Press Briefing | Scott McClellan | White House Press Corps | White House Press Secretary Labels: Dana Perino, Iraq, Press Briefing, Scott McClellan, White House Press Corps, White House Press Secretary >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 5:04:00 PM Scott McClellan Memoir - Air Force One Press Gaggle by Dana Perino 5/28/08 — Wednesday, May 28, 2008 —  Q Did Scott tell you personally about his concerns that he raised in the book? Because I know you said you're a friend of Scott's.MS. PERINO: Never. Q I'm sorry, what? Q "Never" to have what? I didn't hear it all. MS. PERINO: His question was, had I ever heard such concerns? And I said, "Never." Q The President often talks about, you know, history being the judge. And this is somebody who had a position where they could see more than, certainly, the public does. After some years of reflection, perhaps, looking back, thinking out of the limelight in private and everything, and coming up with his first version of history, isn't it a concern that, for you, for the administration, that the conclusions he's come to are the ones of your critics, essentially, rather than the supporters of the administration? MS. PERINO: I think this is a unique situation. I don't think that this is so much as writing history as rewriting history. And when the President talks about "it will take a while," I think that that is just based on historical fact. I mean, it takes a while for any type of administration to be understood, and I think this is an anomaly. Q Even though you don't -- you don't think there are others out there who maybe also were once supporters of the war, looked at the facts as we knew them at the time, and then to have now come around, as he says in the book, that he doesn't think it was the right decision? That's not a question of intelligence. MS. PERINO: I'm not saying that's not the case, and I don't know. I don't go around and take a survey. But your question was, do I think that other people are going to turn around 180 degrees and become this -- have these expressions of concerns that they did not voice when they were at the White House. And so the question is, what did you really believe? Did you believe what you said at the time, or do you believe what you believe -- say you believe now? And I'm not going to be a judge of that. You all have to figure that out, or he'll have to answer for it for himself. I mean, I'm not going to -- as Jeremy suggested, the question being, would we go line-by-line through the book -- absolutely not. We have a lot more important things to do than that. Q One specific factual thing. Scott suggested in the book that it was very unusual for Karl and for Libby to talk together, and that he was suspicious about that when he saw them talk one time. Was it unusual for those two to talk? MS. PERINO: I found that to be strange. People in the White House have to talk to one another on a variety of different subjects. Who knows what the -- if that conversation -- if a conversation took place. Would it be surprising to me if Karl Rove and Scooter Libby, as the Director of Political Affairs Operation and the Chief of Staff to the Vice President, of whom was very important in our reelection efforts and our political efforts, would it be a surprise that they would have a conversation? Absolutely not. What would be a surprise is if they didn't have conversations. So I don't put much stock in that, but I don't know the facts. And I think he admits in the book that he doesn't either. Air Force One | Dana Perino | Iraq | Karl Rove | Press Gaggle | Scooter Libby | Scott McClellan | White House Press Corps | White House Press Secretary Labels: Air Force One, Dana Perino, Iraq, Karl Rove, Press Gaggle, Scooter Libby, Scott McClellan, White House Press Corps, White House Press Secretary >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 5:07:00 PM NBC News Bias - White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 5/20/08 — Tuesday, May 20, 2008 —  MS. PERINO: Mike.Q On the back-and-forth between you guys and NBC News, one of the issues Ed Gillespie brings up is NBC calling Iraq a civil war for a period, and then Ed notes that it stopped around September of 2007. Then Ed asks in his exchange with NBC, "Will the network publicly declare the civil war has ended, or that it was wrong to declare it in the first place?" I'm wondering if you guys have gotten a response on that matter, and if not, are you still calling for a response from NBC? MS. PERINO: We have not heard back from them on that specific matter. We anxiously await any response that we would get on it. But I think it's quite telling that they have been silent. The reason that we sent the letter yesterday is because we had gotten fed up with the way that the President's policies are being mischaracterized, or the situations on the ground weren't being accurately reflected in the reporting. We had complained before. And it just reached a boiling point when things had boiled over when we believed that NBC News specifically edited out -- intentionally edited out -- something that the President said in response to a question in an interview regarding Iran, and that it mischaracterized the whole interview because of it. As regards the civil war, I remember very distinctly how there was quite the pomp and circumstance when NBC, on the Today Show, decided to declare -- that they were declaring that Iraq was a civil war. But since then, after the surge and things certainly improved in Iraq, NBC has never had a corresponding ceremony to say that Iraq is not in a civil war. I was just curious to find out what they believe. And the same goes with the economy. When we got the numbers just two weeks ago on the GDP for the economic growth, it said that we had grown at 0.6 percent. And yet the anchor that night decided to disavow that number. We're just curious what part of the official government data that's been coming out for years do they not agree with. So we haven't had a response on that. And just another point on this is that President Bush is going to continue to state what United States policy is for the next eight months, and certainly during the six months that there's an election going on. If, for example, if tomorrow President Bush says that he believes that the tax cuts should be made permanent, that doesn't mean he's attacking anybody; he is stating his policy. And we just want to make sure it's really clear that we're not going to allow the President's policies to be dragged into the '08 election unnecessarily and unfairly. Dana Perino | Iraq | Media Bias | NBC | President Bush | Press Briefing | White House Press Corps Labels: Dana Perino, Iraq, Media Bias, NBC, President Bush, Press Briefing, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 8:23:00 PM Press Gaggle by Tony Fratto 4/17/08 (British Prime Minister Gordon Brown) — Thursday, April 17, 2008 —  MR. FRATTO: Any other questions?Q Yes, the Gordon Brown. So last time the President told us, no, he's not angry at Gordon Brown for pulling troops out of Iraq; Gordon Brown has since said, since the fighting erupted around Basra, the clampdown on the Shiite militias -- attempted clampdown, he's going to put those withdrawal plans on hold. Is the President going to say "I told you so" today? MR. FRATTO: No, look -- we think that the British have been very responsible -- (Announcement interruption.) MR. FRATTO: Maybe someone could tell our staff that a gaggle is still ongoing. (Laughter.) No, look, we have a -- we think the British have been very responsible in their operations in Basra. Their support for the Iraqi-led operation a couple weeks ago was impressive, even heroic, flying helicopter runs evacuating injured soldiers from the fighting, was -- under fire -- was very impressive. They're performing their overwatch mission we think with great courage and distinction. And of course we expect that Iraq, Afghanistan and other operations that we're involved with with the U.K. will be discussed today. And so you'll have a chance to hear from the President and the Prime Minister this afternoon on that. Q Does the President have any feelings about Gordon Brown meeting with the -- his would-be successors this morning? Does he feel that's good, a problem? What's his reaction to that? MR. FRATTO: We don't think it's a problem. I haven't asked the President on that, but I can tell you, you know, generally we think it's probably a wise move by the Prime Minister to get to know who -- one of the individuals who will likely be President in a year from now. So it makes sense. We think it's -- we certainly have no objections to it at all. Afghanistan | Gordon Brown | Iraq | President Bush | Press Gaggle | Tony Fratto | United Kingdom | White House Press Corps Labels: Afghanistan, Gordon Brown, Iraq, President Bush, Press Gaggle, Tony Fratto, United Kingdom, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 9:37:00 PM White House Press Briefing by Tony Fratto 4/7/08 (General Petraeus Iraq Testimony) — Monday, April 07, 2008 — Q You acted like the President wouldn't know what Petraeus and Crocker are going to testify. Do you mean he's going to be surprised tomorrow -- MR. FRATTO: No, I hope I didn't leave -- Q -- when they say the surge is working and all? MR. FRATTO: No, I hope I didn't leave that impression. I think he has a good sense of what the thinking of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker is. Obviously they speak on a fairly regular basis and the President is briefed by General Petraeus. And he's also briefed by lots of -- Q But he's the President, isn't he calling the policy? I mean, we don't have President Petraeus, do we? We have President -- MR. FRATTO: No, we don't. We have commander Petraeus, who is running the operations on the ground in Iraq and he's closest to the military operations. He knows the capabilities of his forces, the coalition forces, and what the Iraqi security forces can do, and has a good sense of what's needed to complete his mission. And it's a mission that he designed. So we want to look forward to his testimony and hear how he thinks it's going and what the requirements are to complete that mission for the remainder of the year. Q What is the mission? MR. FRATTO: Well, it's pretty clear, says to bring -- is to bring -- Q Are you asking -- to continue the occupation of Iraq? MR. FRATTO: -- security in Iraq, sufficient security, so that the political leadership can continue to make gains. And they've made some very impressive gains, whether it's with the budget and reconstruction funding and the Baathist legislation and provincial elections. These are all very, very important elements of political reconciliation in Iraq. We'd like to see more. We want to see more action on oil revenue law. And so there's more to be done. We're going to keep a very close eye on implementation of the laws that have been passed. But I think it's clear General Petraeus's mission was to reduce violence in Baghdad and in Iraq, more broadly, and I think it's hard to deny -- it would be hard for anybody to deny that he hasn't been successful in that mission. Now, we know that it's a -- the reduction of violence is fragile and it's reversible, but we like the trend and we like what the Iraqi political leadership has shown about their ability to take action. Q And paying off 90,000 Iraqis not to fight? MR. FRATTO: Kathleen. General Petraeus | Helen | Iraq | Middle East | President Bush | Press Briefing | Tony Fratto | White House Press Corps Labels: General Petraeus, Helen, Iraq, Middle East, President Bush, Press Briefing, Tony Fratto, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 10:55:00 PM White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 3/24/08 (4,000 U.S. Military Deaths in Iraq) — Monday, March 24, 2008 —  Q The 4,000 U.S. deaths in Iraq -- does the President regard that as a significant milestone? What's it mean to him?MS. PERINO: President Bush thinks that every single loss is tragic, from the very first several years ago to the ones that sacrificed yesterday. And he's extremely proud of the courageous men and women in uniform and all that they've done to help protect Iraqis, to protect each other and to protect this country. Most of the families of the fallen that he meets with have one request of the President, which is: Do not let my loved one's sacrifice be in vain. And the President assures them that he is committed to staying and fighting and winning. And one of the reasons he's taking such careful deliberation over the next few weeks as we lead up to the April time frame is because he wants to make sure that the gains that we have secured over this past year are cemented and that we lay the foundation for Iraq to have a democracy where they can govern, sustain and defend itself right there in the Middle East. The enemy we face is brutal. They have killed thousands of people around the world, innocent men, women and children. And they have killed our soldiers as well. And the President believes that taking the fight to the enemy is the best way to combat them for our own national security. But he definitely feels the loss. He gets a report about every single soldier who passes away, and he always pauses a moment to think about them and to offer a prayer for their loved ones and their family and friends. Q Aren't there also families of the bereaved who ask him to stop the war? MS. PERINO: There have been, but the vast majority have all asked him not to allow that sacrifice to be in vain. But certainly there are some. Q The "vast majority"? Can you say that with certainty? MS. PERINO: Well, he has said that repeatedly, and that is true for the I think almost nearly a thousand families of the fallen that he's met with. Q Does he take responsibility for a war he started without provocation that led to 4,000 deaths and 30,000 dramatically injured for life? MS. PERINO: Helen, as you know, as he said many times, he was the one responsible for making the decision to go to war. He didn't make it lightly. And as Commander-in-Chief, the hardest thing that you do and that he's done, and that any Commander-in-Chief before him and those in the future, the hardest thing that they will do is decide to commit our men and women to harm's way. Q Did he foresee this kind of catastrophe? MS. PERINO: I think that he knew that the war was going to require sacrifices and that -- Q By who? MS. PERINO: Well, of course by our soldiers. Q There's nobody in his family or this administration in this war. MS. PERINO: Helen, these are all questions we have dealt with before. I've given you an answer in the President's reaction to the 4,000 and I'm going to move on. Dana Perino | Helen | Iraq | President Bush | Press Briefing | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Dana Perino, Helen, Iraq, President Bush, Press Briefing, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 7:57:00 PM White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 3/20/08 (Government by Public Opinion Polls) — Thursday, March 20, 2008 —  Q Dana, can I just follow on our colleague Martha Raddatz's interview with the Vice President? Let's set aside the meaning of the word "so" for a second, and get to something the Vice President then said about fluctuations in the public opinion polls: "You can't be blown off course by fluctuations in public opinion polls." That would suggest that at any point in recent memory that the American public has been behind the war. It's not that there's been fluctuations in polls; it's been different degrees of opposition to the war. So is the Vice President saying it really doesn't matter what the American public thinks about the war?MS. PERINO: No, I don't think that's what he's saying, and obviously I haven't spoken to the Vice President since he's traveling today and was in Kabul visiting with President Karzai at the request of the President. But what he went on to say is that President should not make decisions based on polls. And we fully recognize that people across America are unhappy with the war; possibly they didn't agree with the decision in the first place. They might have been unhappy with the conduct of the war. They might have disagreed with the President's decision to send in more troops, which was a very unpopular decision across the board. But what the President has said is that while people might not like the decisions that he makes, he has to do what he thinks is right for the country, and he cannot try to chase an opinion poll and try to make things better that way. He has to act on what he thinks is right, and that's what he's done. Q So at what point -- I mean, I guess I just -- there is the impression that the Vice President doesn't care about what the American people think in policy like that. Is that a wrong impression? And does the President share that impression? MS. PERINO: I think that is the wrong impression. I think that the Vice President and the President both, together, all of us across the administration, would like for people to support the President's decisions. We realize that that's unrealistic, especially in a time of war -- and in particular this war. And while we're not able to change public opinion, we also have to follow a principle and stand on principle. And you have to ask yourself, what kind of a person do you want in the Oval Office? And America will have this choice to make in November of 2008 -- before I get ahead of myself. So we believe that the President stood on his principle. He hasn't chased public opinion polls. He's aware of them, but he hasn't made decisions because of them, and I think there's a distinction. Just because you don't make decisions based on opinion polls doesn't mean you don't care what people think. We are all Americans. We care deeply about what people think. Helen. Q The American people are being asked to die and pay for this, and you're saying they have no say in this war? MS. PERINO: I didn't say that, Helen. But, Helen, this President was elected -- Q Well, what it amounts to is you saying we have no input at all. MS. PERINO: You had input. The American people have input every four years, and that's the way our system is set up. Q Every four years. MS. PERINO: And we listen to -- Q It sounds familiar. MS. PERINO: -- different points of view. The President, in fact, had many meetings with members of Congress leading up to his decision about the surge. Q Supposed to be a government for the people, of the people, by the people? MS. PERINO: I would submit to you that people across America, if asked what type of a President do you want: one that stands on principle or that one that chases polls? And I think that they would want -- Q What's the principle of going to war against the people who did nothing to us? MS. PERINO: Helen, the President went to war to remove Saddam Hussein. He talked all about this yesterday in his speech. I'll refer you to that. Dana Perino | Dick Cheney | Helen | Iraq | Polls | Press Briefing | Vice President | White House Press Corps Labels: Dana Perino, Dick Cheney, Helen, Iraq, Polls, Press Briefing, Vice President, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 7:34:00 PM White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 3/19/08 (Iraqi Political Reconciliation) — Wednesday, March 19, 2008 —  Q The President had a lot to say about the surge, but he didn't say much about the reason that the surge was put into effect, which was to create some breathing room for political reconciliation, which really hasn't happened. He didn't mention that at all.MS. PERINO: I realize some people think that that hasn't been anything that happened, but I think if you look at the facts, Bill, I think -- Q Well, why didn't he mention it? MS. PERINO: In terms of the political reconciliation that they've had? Q Yes. What is there to brag about? MS. PERINO: Well, they've passed a lot more laws than this Congress has this year, and they've worked very hard. I mean, they're going from a complete dictatorship where they have no trust of one another -- they've never had democracy, and just in January, late January, they finished passing four -- three or four pieces of -- major pieces of legislation. And they're continuing to work on more. Politics is alive and well in Iraq. And just today we hear reports that it's possible that the constitutional process that was working its way through, where Vice President Mahdi had suggested a veto against a provincial powers law that -- it looks like that will be withdrawn, which would be a good step. And then you have -- what you have is Iraq actually trying to function as a democracy. And I think some people who are throwing stones ought to look at the primary system in our own country, especially on the Democratic side, where you have two states where -- Florida and Michigan, where they're figuring out whether or not to seat those delegates. Politics happens. And that's what -- it happens in the United States and it's certainly happening in Iraq. It's not a bad thing that they're having debates about their constitution. Q So you think that the Democrats should seat the delegates from Florida and Michigan? (Laughter.) MS. PERINO: I don't really have an opinion, but I'm really interested in the story. (Laughter.) Dana Perino | Iraq | President Bush | Press Briefing | White House Press Corps Labels: Dana Perino, Iraq, President Bush, Press Briefing, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 11:45:00 PM Press Conference by the President 2/28/08 (Al Qaeda and Iraq ) — Thursday, February 28, 2008 —  THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Jonathan.Q Mr. President, do you believe if we have the kind of rapid pull-out from Iraq that Democrats are talking about, that we would be at greater risk of a terrorist attack here at home? And when Senator Obama was asked a similar question, he said, "If al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad." So I'm wondering if -- THE PRESIDENT: That's an interesting comment. If al Qaeda is securing a al Qaeda base -- yes, well, that's exactly what they've been trying to do for the past four years. That's their stated intention, was to create enough chaos and disorder to establish a base from which to either launch attacks or spread a caliphate. And the intent of the surge was to send more Marines into the area that -- where they had proclaimed their desire to set up a base. That was Anbar province. And so, yes, that's one of the challenges we face, is denying al Qaeda a safe haven anywhere. And their intentions -- that's what they said, that they would like to have a base or safe haven in Anbar province. Yes, Bill. Q But -- THE PRESIDENT: No, next turn. Q But the question about -- THE PRESIDENT: Nice try. (Laughter.) Q Mr. President -- THE PRESIDENT: You obviously haven't been here long. Al Qaeda | Democratic Candidates | Iraq | President Bush | Presidential Press Conference | White House Press Corps Labels: Al Qaeda, Democratic Candidates, Iraq, President Bush, Presidential Press Conference, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 8:34:00 PM White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 11/14/07 (Iraq Funding Bill) — Wednesday, November 14, 2007 —  MS. PERINO: Mark.Q Yes, back to the Iraq funding bill, Dana. The legislation that I gather is going to pass this afternoon does not have a binding deadline in it; it's a goal, it sets a goal. The President has said he would like to bring U.S. troops home. And it's also -- MS. PERINO: And actually, the troops are coming -- are starting to come home. Q Well, and that's -- that was the other part of it. So why would you veto something that's basically what he is already doing? MS. PERINO: As I understand it, there is an -- the way we read it, there is an arbitrary date for withdrawal. And I would remind you that it was Senator Reid yesterday who said that if the President doesn't go along with this, then he's not going to get his money. This is not money for the President, this is money for the troops. And we are urging Congress not to play political games. Think about it -- they only have approximately nine legislative days left in their calendar in order to get all of this work done. And I think that I have a slide here. I've had this up here before; I'm going to show you again. There are 12 appropriations bills. They sent one to the President that he signed yesterday, and one that he vetoed. I don't know how many days have passed, legislative days have passed this past year, but they only have nine working days left, and it is unlikely that they'll be able to get all of this work done before that deadline. Q And by "appeasing radical groups," are you talking about MoveOn.org, et cetera? Or are you talking about the large numbers of Americans who tell interviewers and pollsters that they would like troops home as soon as possible? MS. PERINO: I am talking about MoveOn.org and CODEPINK, in particular. I would also say that they have held these same -- similar votes over and over again. Dozens of these votes have been held. And in fact, on the Senate side -- I realize this is a House bill -- but on the Senate side, resolutions were passed earlier this year that said that it is the sense of the Senate that we do not believe a withdrawal date is appropriate for this war. And in case they have missed it, our troops are fulfilling their mission in spectacular fashion. They are working to bring down that violence in Iraq, to establish political reconciliation, to improve the economy. People are starting to return to Baghdad and to their homes. Pulling the rug out from under our troops now is the height of irresponsibility. Congress | Dana Perino | Democrats | Iraq | President Bush | Press Briefing | White House Press Corps Labels: Congress, Dana Perino, Democrats, Iraq, President Bush, Press Briefing, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 5:52:00 PM White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 11/1/07 (Foreign Service Officers) — Thursday, November 01, 2007 — MS. PERINO: I understand that there is concern on behalf of many of the Foreign Service Officers at the State Department. As Secretary Rice has said, if there are volunteers to serve, then no one will have to be directed to go. The President understands that at a time of war it is distressing for some individuals to serve in those areas. The Secretary has the responsibility to make sure that when sending people into those areas that are difficult and dangerous, that they have all the tools that they need and all the protection they need in order to do their job to the best of their ability. Our Foreign Service Officers are the very best in the world. They do their jobs wonderfully. Many of them are serving on the provincial reconstruction teams. And Iraqis are benefiting greatly from all of their service. The President is concerned, but he also has confidence that Secretary Rice will handle this matter in a way that is caring for the people at the Foreign Service, but also ensures that the mission that the United States is on is supplemented by the Foreign Service Officers who took an oath in order to serve their country. Q Does that mean that it is a requirement for them to serve, much like active duty military are compelled to serve? Are you equating those? MS. PERINO: I don't know all the rules that go into the regulations for Foreign Service Officers; I'd have to refer you to the State Department for that. They do serve our country very well; they're in places all around the world. And obviously if there is a need to have additional people in -- from the State Department serving in positions, then Secretary Rice might have to take the measure of directing people to go, but the preference is to have volunteers. And there have been many volunteers that have been serving, and they've done an excellent job in helping build economies over in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to help build institutions; like they're helping for their interior ministry, their defense ministry, their rule of law -- these are the experts and so the President understands that there is concern. Secretary Rice knows there is concern. She has fought very hard on behalf of the State Department employees to have additional resources and to make sure that they are protected while they are over there, and they have a very good track record of doing so. Q One of those employees likened it to a "potential death sentence." Does the President think that's overstatement? MS. PERINO: The President is not going to question anybody's personal feelings about possible service in Iraq. If that's how the individual feels, then that's how he or she feels. The President understands that service in a war zone can be very difficult. It's distressing for the families, but they should be reassured, as well, that Secretary Rice takes this issue very seriously. She's concerned about their safety and that is why she has worked very hard to make sure that they have all the tools that they need and the protections that they need in order to get their job done. Condeleezza Rice | Dana Perino | Iraq | Press Briefing | State Department | White House Press Corps Labels: Condeleezza Rice, Dana Perino, Iraq, Press Briefing, State Department, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 9:42:00 PM White House Press Briefing by Tony Fratto 10/22/07 (S-CHIP Veto) — Monday, October 22, 2007 — MR. FRATTO: Well, I could see that point if that was what the President said, but that's exactly not what the President said. What the President said was is that they have the policy wrong on SCHIP, not that it's too expensive or is -- Q They were asking for too much, though, right? MR. FRATTO: No, they were asking for a policy that was bad. Let me tell you something about the -- what the SCHIP bill that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are proposing, okay. If you look at the eligible communities in this bill, it would result in 57 percent of children in this country and about 53 percent of families with children on public assistance, or at least eligible for public assistance. Now what the President has said is that poor children should come first. Now there are a lot of things you can say about half the families in America. Half of them aren't poor. And so the President has said that the policy is wrong. He didn't say that it's too expensive -- although it is too expensive to spend money on the wrong policy. So what he has said is the policy is wrong. Now, with regard to the supplemental request, children -- the right children, poor children getting their health care, and the needs of our troops can both be accomplished. They're both priorities and we can handle both of those requests. Iraq | President Bush | Press Briefing | S-CHIP | Tony Fratto | Vetoes | White House Press Corps Labels: Iraq, President Bush, Press Briefing, S-CHIP, Tony Fratto, Vetoes, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 8:41:00 PM White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 10/18/07 (Turkey, Iraq and the PKK) — Thursday, October 18, 2007 — MS. PERINO: Well, what we have said is that -- the President said yesterday what we want to see is for Turkey to not send additional troops into that region. The President said yesterday there's a small contingent there that have been there for a few years. That's been a longstanding presence. What you have now is the Americans and the Iraqis working together with the Turks to work together against the PKK, a terrorist organization, which we would like to see eradicated in the region as well. What was very positive was that Prime Minister Maliki send his Vice President, Hashimi, to Turkey yesterday in order to work with them. That's where you see -- that's what a good neighbor does. In the world of international politics, you want neighbors to be talking with one another and working together to solve problems. So I think that that is an encouraging sign, and we have asked Turkey to refrain from doing anything more. Q Can I follow on that? MS. PERINO: You want to follow? Okay. Q Turkey's justice minister says the President is basically being hypocritical by opposing Turkish military action in northern Iraq. He says the same justification the U.S. used to go after al Qaeda in Afghanistan is the justification that Turkey would use to go after the PKK in northern Iraq. MS. PERINO: I haven't seen the justice minister's comments. What I can say is that we have Ambassador Crocker, our ambassador in Iraq, and our ambassador into Turkey, as well as General Petraeus working closely with the Turks to help solve the problem. And also you have the Iraqis participating, as well. We think that's the way to help solve this issue. I understand that he's making a point about terrorists attacking their country, that this is something that the Iraqis and the Americans have said that they would help the Turks help eradicate, and to end the PKK terrorist influence in that region. And so we'll continue to try to work it that way. We don't think that a larger-scale incursion is necessary to help solve the problem. Q I think the point he's making is two-fold; one is a point of rights, and the other is that the efforts by the U.S. and Iraq have not solved the problem yet, and so Turkey -- MS. PERINO: Well, I think that we saw yesterday the Iraqis saying that they are going to work with the Turks, and they will redouble their efforts to help them. And I think that's the appropriate way to help solve this. Dana Perino | Iraq | Middle East | PKK | Press Briefing | Turkey | White House Press Corps Labels: Dana Perino, Iraq, Middle East, PKK, Press Briefing, Turkey, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 8:22:00 PM Air Force One Press Gaggle by Tony Fratto 10/15/07 (Armenian Genocide Resolution) — Monday, October 15, 2007 — MR. FRATTO: I don't have -- I don't know anything about plans for a phone call. But there should be no question of the President's views on this issue and the damage that this resolution can do to our U.S. foreign policy interests. This isn't just a view that's expressed by the administration; this is a view that's been expressed by at least, I believe eight former Secretaries of State on a bipartisan basis, a number of former Defense Secretaries, by our Turkish allies, by independent experts, that this is an important time for U.S.-Turkish relations, and we would strongly encourage the Speaker not to bring this to a vote, and should it come to a vote, we will strongly encourage members not to support it. This is not the best way to deal with this issue. It is, admittedly, a tragic historical event, which has been well documented, but there are better ways to deal with this issue than -- the most important outcome that I think everyone would like to see are improved Turkish and Armenian relations. And so we encourage the Turks and Armenian authorities to resolve this issue between themselves, and not for the U.S. House of Representatives to insert itself and make this -- make the prospects for resolving the issue more difficult. We should be trying to make it less difficult. Air Force One | Armenia | Genocide | Iraq | Middle East Labels: Air Force One, Armenia, Genocide, Iraq, Middle East, Press Gaggle, Resolutions, Tony Fratto, Turkey, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 8:41:00 PM White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 10/2/07 (Iraq War Tax and S-CHIP) — Tuesday, October 02, 2007 — MS. PERINO: Well, we've always known that Democrats seem to revert to type and they are willing to raise taxes on just about anything. There's no need to increase taxes. The President has shown how if we prioritize and if we get the spending bills done in a clean way, we can actually have a surplus in our budget by 2012. We don't see any need to raise the taxes. Q But when you talk about priorities, tomorrow we're expecting the President is going to veto the S-CHIP bill over saving $30 billion, and meanwhile you're spending hundreds of billions of dollars in the war in Iraq -- MS. PERINO: But the President -- the President's first and foremost responsibility is making sure that Americans are safe, including children are safe. And, frankly, that's Congress's main responsibility, as well. And that's where the priorities are. I think that anyone -- I think it's apples and oranges to try to compare S-CHIP to funding for the troops. Q Well, they're all in the same federal budget, you do have to pick priorities on what you're spending money on, don't you? MS. PERINO: What the President wants is for S-CHIP to revert back to what is the original intent of the law, which is that the neediest children should be taken care of first. That's not what the law that they sent to the President does -- well, we don't have it yet, we'll get it soon -- but that's not what that law does. I would also say that, in a time when Democrats are very concerned, supposedly, about people being worried about how they're going to pay for their mortgage, that raising taxes on them doesn't seem like the wisest fiscal policy. In a time when they think that they want to increase funding for children's health care, they're actually wanting to pay for it with a cigarette tax, which includes -- people who smoke are usually -- the majority are in the low-income bracket. And so they're raising taxes on something to pay for a middle-class entitlement. It's just completely irresponsible. Stop the madness on Capitol Hill. Q And yet 70 percent of the public in the latest poll yesterday, an ABC/Washington Post poll, supports that increase in the S-CHIP, but opposes the $190 billion in war funding spending. MS. PERINO: Well, you know, I don't know how all those questions were asked in the poll, and you might want to take a look at that and be a little bit skeptical. But I think that people would agree that we -- well, and also what I said yesterday: Republicans often taken on really unpopular positions because it does sound great to say that you're going to spend a lot more on children's health care, but when you start digging deeper and realize that they've got a funding cliff, that basically in 2011, there's no money left for the S-CHIP program. They don't fund it sustainably. And on this idea of raising taxes on the American people right now to fund a war, well, does that sunset? Do they wait for al Qaeda to wave a white flag and then those taxes are going to go away? Does anyone seriously believe that the Democrats are going to end these new taxes that they're asking the American people to pay at a time when it's not necessary to pay them? I just think it's completely fiscally irresponsible, and the President won't go along with it. Bret. Q Dana, can I follow -- Q Who's paying for this war? Q On that line, Representative Obey said today that Democrats will not pass a supplemental spending bill for the Iraq war until next year, in an effort to pressure the President to change course. All of this, they say, is designed that if you don't want the taxes, end the war. What's the response to all that? MS. PERINO: Well, they're asking -- I don't know exactly what they're asking for; I can't think like they do. But what they're -- I think what they want is for all the troops to come home. And if it's an immediate end to the war that they want, they've already proven several times that they're not going to be able to get that law passed. So if you look also out on the Senate side, I think it was the Gregg-Murray resolutions from last year that said, no matter what your position is on the war, we're not going to risk not funding the troops. And I can't imagine that the Senate is going to go back on their word. And many of these members of Congress went to Iraq over the recess, during August, and I would find it hard to believe that they would tell these troops that they're not going to provide them the funding. Dana Perino | Iraq | Press Briefing | S-CHIP | Taxes | White House Press Corps Labels: Dana Perino, Iraq, Press Briefing, S-CHIP, Taxes, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 6:41:00 PM White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 9/25/07 (President Bush on Iraq to Democratic Candidates) — Tuesday, September 25, 2007 — MS. PERINO: I don't know. I didn't sit in on any of the interviews. Let me tell you what I do know in terms of how I know that the President thinks, which is heading into the last 16 months of the administration he realizes that there are going to be -- when you're out on the campaign trail, he knows just as well as anybody else that you're often asked very definitive questions, yes or no answers are demanded, people want to start establishing their policies and their views. And -- for example, one of the things he did on the FISA Court issue, on Terrorist Surveillance Program, is he knows that whoever becomes President next January -- January of '09, that when they sit down in the Oval Office, they are going to realize that that program is necessary. And in order to make it more -- for lack of a better word -- politically acceptable to have such a program that is extremely necessary for our security, as Director Hayden and McConnell have said, he said, well, let's move it to -- let's put it back over in the FISA Court area; we worked with them to do that. And that way, the President felt that anyone who is on the campaign trial, if they were asked about the surveillance program, that they wouldn't have to take such a definitive view on it and be locked into a position before they get into the Oval Office. And to the extent that he's thinking about long-term needs, to have security -- for our own national security, to have us have a presence there in the Middle East, he is thinking about that. I don't know about back channels, in terms of communications. He has talked about that, somewhat more openly -- obviously, now, increasingly openly. And I think that anyone who will listen, I think that the President and the Vice President would make the case that we need to think very carefully, as you're headed into an election season, where the questions come fast and furious and answers are demanded, and to avoid people locking themselves into too rigid a position. I think that's what the point of those quotes are. Labels: Dana Perino, Democratic Candidates, Iraq, President Bush, Press Briefing, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 7:09:00 PM
|
|
