Thursday, July 26, 2007

Pakistan's Future: Building Democracy, or Fueling Extremism? VIDEO PODCAST

R. Nicholas Burns, Under Secretary for Political Affairs, Statement Before the Senate Committee On Foreign Relations, FULL STREAMING VIDEO, Washington, DC. PODCAST OF THIS ARTICLE
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to appear before the Foreign Relations Committee. I am here today to underscore that successful American engagement with Pakistan serves our vital national security interests. Pakistan, one of our closest partners globally, has been indispensable in our world-wide struggle against radical Islamic terrorist groups. As Afghanistan’s most influential neighbor, Pakistan plays a pivotal role in the prosecution of our war effort. Pakistan is also, of course, a leading Muslim country, whose future will be decisive in the search for stability in South Asia—a region of vastly increased importance to the United States.

At the same time, Pakistan faces enormous internal challenges. While these challenges are its own to manage, we have a clear interest in its future stability, prosperity, and success. We hope the country will become more democratic, and are committed to remaining a close partner as Pakistan makes a full transition to democracy. Our national interests as well as the interests of 160 million Pakistanis depend on it.

As this committee knows well, the history of America’s relations with Pakistan during the last half-century has been especially tumultuous. We had early close cooperation in the 1950s after Pakistan’s independence through SEATO and CENTO, but that gave way to disillusionment in the 1960s. President Nixon engineered a famous “tilt” toward Pakistan, and then his successors tilted away. We partnered closely to defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s, but then parted ways over unwelcome advances in Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program. Our post-9/11 cooperation takes place against this historical backdrop, as President Musharraf chose in 2001 to cast his country’s lot with ours in the fight against terrorist groups.

Indeed, September 11th brought the South Asia region to singular importance in our foreign policy for the very first time, and redefined our relationships there. The last six years have reinforced the dramatically changed nature of the global threats we face and the importance of our cooperation with Pakistan to counter them. South Asia, as a whole, has become central to our security, especially as we help Afghanistan to develop its fragile democracy and nurture institutions of governance in their infancy. Pakistan is critical to these efforts. For Pakistan’s own development, we have pledged and delivered significant economic and military assistance, which I will address in greater detail. And yet we know that despite this clear indication of our commitment to their country, many Pakistanis believe we will again pull back—just as we did numerous times in the past. For this reason, I can think of nothing more important to this relationship at this moment than continued American attention, commitment, and engagement with the Government of Pakistan, as well as with the people of Pakistan. Pakistanis should be assured that we will be a good and reliable friend. But, as a good friend, we will speak frankly and sometimes disagree on vital issues such as the best way to defeat terrorist groups, and the right way to build a democratic state. Our continued partnership will build Pakistan’s confidence that indeed we share its interests. We seek for Pakistan nothing less than the fulfillment of the great promise that its founder, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, envisioned. We Americans should work to help Pakistanis build durable foundations for sustainable democracy, a moderate society, and an open economy that offers prosperity and opportunity for its citizens.

Pakistan as a Counter-Terror Partner

Mr. Chairman, you and the members of the Committee know how important Pakistan has been to our ongoing mission in Afghanistan. While the threat of the Taliban remains, this group of violent extremists no longer subordinates an entire country to its bizarre and cruel policies. Without Pakistani support and cooperation for our current military operations, we would face severe difficulties in supplying, reinforcing, and protecting our troops and those of our allies who are defending the democratically elected Afghan government.

Countering terrorism and violent extremist ideology is a priority in our agenda with Pakistan. Terrorism threatens Pakistani security, too: President Musharraf himself has been the victim of several assassination attempts. And Pakistan does a great deal on this front, having killed or captured more al Qaida operatives than any other country in the world. Since 2001, the Pakistani Government has arrested hundreds of terrorist suspects, turning over to the U.S. such senior al-Qaida figures as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ramzi bin al Shibh, and Abu Zubaida. Pakistan has stationed 100,000 troops on the rough terrain of the Afghanistan border, and more than 600 members of Pakistan's security forces have sacrificed their lives in support of anti-terror efforts. This month, after all efforts at negotiating a peaceful resolution failed, the Pakistani government moved decisively against extremists in Islamabad’s Red Mosque.

Despite these achievements, we know this fight will be long and extremely challenging. We know that the tribal areas of the mountainous border regions inside Pakistan have never been within the effective control of any central government. We know that the regions of North and South Waziristan have become safehavens for violent extremist and terrorist activity. Recent reports of al-Qaida’s activity there underscore the need for Pakistan to continue its efforts, and elevate its efforts, to fight this enemy. In the Tribal Areas we have already seen an increase in violence at the hands of groups who stand in the way of security and peace. To quell the renewed violence in these areas, the Pakistani government has brought in additional troops, strengthened border posts and controls, and helped kill or capture major Taliban figures such as Mullah Obaidullah. It has also expanded its political efforts by working to boost the capacity and will of local tribes to resist and expel extremists in their midst, achieving some successes such as the expulsion of al Qaida-affiliated Uzbeks in and around South Waziristan.

These initiatives apart, we would like to see a more sustained and effective effort by the Pakistani government to defeat terrorist forces on its soil. Al Qaida remains a potent force inside Pakistan, as is the Taliban. Defeating these enemies is essential to our effort to defeat terrorism in South Asia and around the world.

Strengthening Pakistan’s Counter-Terror Capacity

Our assistance to Pakistan has significantly strengthened Pakistan’s capability to combat extremist forces. Assistance comes in two forms: security assistance, which enhances Pakistan’s ability to fight terrorist actors, and bilateral assistance in areas such as governance and economic reform, focused on creating an environment inhospitable to terrorists and violent extremists.

Our military and border security assistance has allowed Pakistan to establish a permanent presence in previously unpatrolled sections of the rugged Pakistan-Afghan border for the first time. We have provided equipment such as helicopters and radios to make these forces more effective, and we have also provided training. We work closely with the Department of Defense, with our Pakistani counterparts, and with Congress to keep these border forces appropriately equipped and properly trained to conduct counter-terror operations effectively.

Mr. Chairman, counter-terror operations in the border areas of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas take place in a uniquely ungoverned environment. In recent days there has been increased attention on more aggressive actions, which we welcome, on the part of the Pakistani government to deal with these problems, and we would frankly like Pakistan to do even more here. The Committee Members will all be aware that President Musharraf has tried a number of methods to enlist counter-terror cooperation from local tribal groups, most notably with the North Waziristan Agreement. That agreement was designed to empower local tribes to fight al Qaida directly, in order to reduce incidents of Pakistani Army forces fighting against their fellow citizens inadvertently. Apart from the successful expulsion of Uzbek terrorists, the tribes proved too often unable or unwilling to control the al Qaida elements within their territories. This agreement has not worked well for the Pakistani Government, nor has it worked well for us. As a result, the Pakistani government has recently reinserted its forces into the tribal areas. We would like to see the top al Qaida and Taliban leaders, who we believe intentionally use Pakistan as a safehaven, brought to justice. Long term denial of these areas to terrorists will require local cooperation, and Pakistan will have to find a more effective and successful way to do so.

We want to see Pakistan use all tools at its disposal to choke the flow of funds to terrorist groups. We are particularly concerned about terrorist groups exploiting charitable donations, and by their tactic of re-forming under new names to evade international prohibitions on donations to terrorist organizations. We urge the Government of Pakistan to work with us to accelerate our joint efforts to prevent financing of banned terrorist organizations. We urge Pakistan to pass an Anti-Money Laundering bill that meets international standards, and to establish a Financial Intelligence Unit within the State Bank of Pakistan.

The Long-Term: Development to Counter Terrorism

Beyond these specific counter-terror efforts, we seek to diminish the effectiveness of terrorists in the Tribal Areas and elsewhere by changing the economic opportunities available to the desperately poor and chronically ungoverned. PresidentMusharraf shares with the USG a recognition that we cannot counter terrorism and other forms of violent extremism by military means alone; we must create an environment inhospitable to future terrorism. To this end, we have a major program of economic assistance to Pakistan, our fifth-largest aid program worldwide. This year, we worked with Congress to provide $843 million for economic and security assistance to Pakistan, including expanded efforts in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). We tailor our development assistance in Pakistan to build sustainable growth, improve living standards, and promote good governance, responsible citizenship, and foreign investment.

During President Bush’s visit to Islamabad in March 2006, President Musharraf asked for a substantial U.S. effort to help implement the FATA Sustainable Development Plan. In February, we briefed the Congress on our multi-year plan to assist Musharraf’s effort. We plan to seek $150 million per year for five years--a total of $750 million from FY 2007 to FY 2011. These funds will be used to assist the Government of Pakistan to improve livelihoods and employment, improve access to health and education, improve infrastructure and roads, and assist the government to improve communications with the people of the Tribal Areas on the programs planned and delivered. We believe this initiative will help eliminate extremist safe havens on the Afghan border and reduce the appeal of extremist ideology.

The Tribal Areas are some of the poorest regions in all of Pakistan. Domestic extremists inside Pakistan rely heavily on a large population of young men lacking access to a modern education and to quality employment. Economic and educational reform can play a significant role in Pakistan’s domestic anti-extremist efforts. We believe this Pakistani strategy, supported by the U.S. and other international donors, has the potential to make these areas less hospitable over the long term to al-Qaida, the Taliban, and other extremist groups, while improving the quality of life for citizens there. We also intend to support the local security force, the Frontier Corps, by developing its capacity to extend the rule of law throughout the Tribal Areas. Our funding will be used to boost the capacity of the local governmental agencies to implement these funds over a 5-year period.

Mr. Chairman, President Bush has also announced his intention to jumpstart the creation of Reconstruction Opportunity Zones as a critical part of our broader counterterrorism strategy, designed to connect isolated regions to the global economy and create greater employment opportunities in territories prone to extremism. Through these zones, located in the border regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan, we hope to encourage investment and economic development by granting duty-free entry to the United States for certain goods produced on both sides of the border. We hope that new investment will, in turn, create employment alternatives for working-age young men who may otherwise be drawn into terrorism, narcotics trafficking, or other illicit activities. We expect the zones to be a focal point for interconnected efforts by the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan as well as the international donor community to build better roads and other infrastructure improvements, and to remove bureaucratic barriers to investment and export. We want to work with Congress to pass the legislation necessary to create this trade preference program so that we can utilize this important economic tool in our fight against terrorism.

Progress on Counter-Proliferation

Mr. Chairman, in the last three years we have seen some progress by Pakistan in disabling the A.Q. Khan proliferation network and taking steps to deny its reconstitution. A.Q. Khan did enormous damage to international efforts to restrain the spread of nuclear technology. The government of Pakistan has direct responsibility to help us undo that damage and ensure it does not happen again. During President Bush’s visit to Pakistan in 2006, President Musharraf committed that Pakistan would take a leading role in international efforts to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, their delivery systems, and related technology and expertise. We welcome the action Pakistan has taken to bring its export controls in line with international standards, including the recent establishment of a Strategic Export Control Division within its Ministry of Foreign Affairs to centralize licensing and enforcement. Pakistan continues its cooperation with the United States under the Export Control and Related Border Security (EXBS) program. We welcome Pakistan’s participation in the Container Security Initiative and the Secure Freight Initiative, under which the United States and Pakistan worked together to install screening and radiation detection equipment to scan U.S.-bound cargo. We are also pleased that, in early June, Pakistan joined the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism. We remain engaged with Pakistan on this full range of nonproliferation and counter-proliferation issues, as they remain vital to U.S. and global interests and key to ensuring a shadow proliferation network does not arise again in Pakistan. Additionally, the U.S. Department of Energy is working with their counterparts in Pakistan on radiation source security and is in the process of finalizing an agreement to install radiation detection equipment at Pakistani ports and border crossings. We hope Pakistan will continue to take steps to join additional international nonproliferation programs and regimes so it can finally move beyond the stigma of the A.Q. Khan era.

Supporting Democratic Transition

Before the end of January 2008, Pakistanis will go to the polls—both for president and parliament. President Musharraf has pledged to hold free and fair elections in accordance with Pakistan’s Constitution and with international standards. Our partnership with the Pakistanis gives us an opportunity to support the long-term objective of Pakistan’s transformation to a modern, democratic state, and a moderate voice in the Islamic world.

To support Pakistan’s electoral process, we are providing technical advice and assistance. We believe that Pakistani citizens must be able to freely and fairly choose their own leaders, and chart their own course through a civilian-led democratic government, in accordance with the Pakistani Constitution, as President Musharraf has promised. But we in the U.S. also know that democracy means more than just holding elections. It means building the foundations of sustainable democracy: a free and vibrant press, the right to free assembly, an independent legislature and judiciary, active civil society organizations, and broadly participative and internally democratic political parties. The Pakistani government will need to do more to help build such a system of government. Our governance and democracy assistance programs aim to strengthen institutions such as a free media, a responsive legislature and issue-based political parties and support nongovernmental organizations, with an eye to bolstering Pakistan’s civil institutions and long-term political stability. Department of Justice programs in Pakistan, supported by the State Department, work to ensure an accessible, viable, secure justice system. These efforts also work toward ensuring that Pakistan has the legislative tools necessary to meet international conventions.

Throughout the world, the United States backs democratic institutions with training, assistance and political support. We plan to intensify these efforts in Pakistan in the months and years ahead. The credibility of Pakistan’s elections will rest on the ability of Pakistani political parties to campaign and seek votes openly, the ability of Pakistani voters to vote on election day for the political parties and candidates of their choice, in an election free of government manipulation; the ability of political parties to adjudicate post-election disputes in a timely fashion, an Election Commission that is viewed by political parties as independent and impartial, and the ability of those political parties who emerge with a majority of the votes to form a democratic government reflecting the will of Pakistan’s electorate.

Supporting Opportunity for All


Nothing determines individual, and therefore societal, success more than opportunity to education. We have thus made education a core focus of our economic assistance. We are supporting the Pakistani government’s efforts to upgrade public education, placing emphasis on improving the quality and affordability of Pakistan’s public schools. USAID is helping increase school enrollment by constructing and furnishing sixty-five primary, middle, and high schools in five agencies within the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. These efforts will allow impoverished parents to give their children educational opportunities beyond religiously oriented madrassahs.

We are pleased that the increased resources to Pakistan’s education sector have already shown encouraging results. National school enrollments have increased 5.7% from 2000 to 2005. In the Punjab, Pakistan’s largest province, provision of free textbooks and stipends paid to female students have increased enrollment by more than two million students since 2001, many of them female. In the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, enrollments have increased 38% since 2000 with female enrollment accounting for 27% of the total. National female literacy rates increased from 32% in 1998 to 40% in 2005.

Pakistan has undertaken a comprehensive reform of its school curriculum, which aims to remove teaching material encouraging violent extremism, and to modernize school curricula in areas such as English-language, science, history, and mathematics. In addition, in recognition of the critical role that international study and higher education play in developing the next generation of Pakistani teachers and leaders, we have partnered with Pakistan to make available over the next few years 500 Fulbright Commission scholarships for graduate degree study in the United States. This represents the largest U.S. government dollar contribution to any Fulbright program in the world, and helps Pakistan strengthen its human capital base to support its university system and build an innovation society. Programs for youth and their teachers have also been quite successful. To date 157 Pakistani high school students have spent an academic year with U.S. host families under the YES (Youth Exchange Study) program. Fifty-five more students are expected for the upcoming academic year.

The State Department’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs is also funding teacher training programs in Pakistan, including in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, as well as bringing Pakistani teachers to the U.S. for additional training. This summer, for example, for the fourth consecutive year, teachers from across Pakistan have studied educational methodologies at Plymouth State College in New Hampshire. Since 2004, the teachers returning from Plymouth State have trained 10,000 more of their colleagues.

We are also working closely with our Pakistani and non-governmental partners on women’s rights and legal protection for ethnic and religious minorities, and combating forced child labor and human trafficking. The State Department's Office of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor plans to provide $150,000 to the Mukhtaran Mai Welfare Organization for gender-based violence training for its resource center workers, and will also offer capacity building and strategic planning technical assistance.

Women’s health is a particular challenge in Pakistan, but we believe the rate of maternal mortality can be lowered significantly with properly trained rural health providers. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) provides such training. In December 2006 President Musharraf signed the Women's Protection Act amending the Hudood Ordinance, marking a significant step toward improving the legal rights of women in Pakistan by allowing criminal courts (rather than religious courts) to try rape cases. The Act marks the first time in nearly three decades that a Pakistani government has modified discriminatory laws that have stood virtually untouched since the time of General Zia-ul-Haq.

Getting our Message Across Accurately

Mr. Chairman, as you can imagine, we face an active and often hostile press in Pakistan. Our public diplomacy programs in Pakistan disseminate our message to the widest possible audience and expose influential people and institutions to U.S. policies, views, and values. Despite considerable security constraints, our outreach programs include long-established and respected exchange programs such as the Fulbright, Humphrey, and International and Voluntary Visitor programs, as well as innovative use of print and electronic media, the internet, five new Lincoln Corners centers, a visiting speakers program, and an enhanced public speaking engagement program for mission personnel to further share our policies and values with the Pakistani public. Pakistan is one of 19 pilot countries that will receive significant new funding from the $40 million allocated to public diplomacy as part of the Global War on Terror FY 2007 supplemental.

But it is our concrete assistance to average Pakistanis that has been the best form of public diplomacy. I was impressed and moved by the Pakistani reaction to U.S. earthquake assistance in 2005, where the immediate and overwhelming support of the U.S. military, USAID disaster relief and reconstruction assistance, and the donations of private Americans saved many lives. The U.S. government provided nearly $280 million in emergency and reconstruction assistance in the response to the earthquake in FY 2006. This year, the Pakistani government will direct $50 million in local currency to earthquake reconstruction expenses from the local currency generated by the $200 million we provided in budget support. Nothing could have been more effective in demonstrating American values and disseminating a message of friendship between our peoples. Indeed, we have data which illustrates the impact of this visible aid: public opinion surveys in Pakistan carried out right after the earthquake and subsequent American relief efforts showed favorability ratings of the U.S. doubling, from 23% to 46%.

Working Toward Regional Peace and Stability

Mr. Chairman, it is very much in our interest to see Pakistan’s relations with neighboring states improve. We continue to work with the Pakistani and Afghan governments to strengthen stability along the twists and furrows of their 1500-mile-long border. The joint statement issued by President Musharraf and President Karzai in Ankara this spring demonstrates some hope that cooperation between the two countries might improve. But tensions remain, and the two governments need to make a greater and more sustained effort to work effectively together. U.S. and NATO policies must continue to foster expanded Pakistan-Afghanistan bilateral dialogue, stronger economic and trade ties, and deeper cooperation between Pakistani and Afghan border security forces. With U.S. assistance, Pakistan is working to secure its border with Afghanistan to prevent the smuggling of arms, terrorists, and illegal drugs which are fueling the Taliban insurgency. The difficulties of this terrain cannot be overstated but we will continue to work with Pakistan to place it under control.

On the eastern border, we have been pleased to see renewed commitment to Indo-Pakistan reconciliation. Pakistan and India opened the fourth round of the Composite Dialogue this past March, a process originally launched in 2004. The Dialogue addresses their long-standing differences, not only over the Kashmir issue, but over other issues such as the Siachen Glacier and Sir Creek. They have also opened a direct channel to discuss counterterrorism, which we think is extremely useful. We have been encouraged by the success of confidence-building measures such as bus and rail links that restore old connections severed at partition, allowing ordinary people to visit relations and friends. We will continue to support both countries to improve their relations. Secretary Rice and I have made a long-term improvement in relations between India and Pakistan, and especially resolution of the Kashmir dispute, a very high priority in our frequent high-level discussions with both countries.

When she became Secretary of State two and one-half years ago, Secretary Rice also promoted the creation of new economic and technological links between South and Central Asia as a major American priority. Pakistan and South Asia in general offer dynamic new markets for energy from the landlocked nations of Central Asia. The largest country in the region, India, has seen 8-9% economic growth in recent years, accompanied by a rapid increase in energy consumption. It is now the third-largest energy consumer in the world. Through infrastructure projects such as roads and hydroelectric power in Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, we envision helping to tie these countries closer together so they can provide a long-term and oil and gas bridge from the Central Asian north down to South Asia. As economic relationships develop to knit the countries of this broader region into new areas of interdependence, we believe changed calculations of national interests will offer dividends of peace and stability for all.

Pakistan is attempting to expand its sources of energy, and like India, is looking at Iran as a source. We have made it abundantly clear to both the Pakistani and Indian governments that a proposed pipeline project with Iran is a bad idea, given Iran’s refusal to comply with its international nonproliferation obligations. We will continue to urge Pakistan to pursue other sources for its growing energy needs.

Our People in Pakistan

Our embassy in Islamabad is currently led by one of our most experienced and accomplished diplomats. Anne Patterson, who was recently confirmed by the Senate, has already led the mission through the Red Mosque standoff and its fallout, as well as the recent post-cyclone flooding

Embassy Islamabad and our consulates in Karachi, Lahore, and Peshawar are dangerous and difficult posts, designated as unaccompanied for families and loved ones, but our fine men and women serve with distinction to advance key U.S. interests and to construct our important strategic relationship with Pakistan.

Closing Statement

Mr. Chairman, in closing let me reiterate that the partnership between Pakistan and the United States is successful and improving. Both of our peoples have spilled blood in our common struggle to defeat the terrorist enemy. Much remains to be done, however. We must continue to focus on bringing top al Qaida and Taliban leaders to justice. We must continue the momentum engendered by Pakistan’s recent success in capturing or killing several Taliban leaders. And we must continue our joint focus on moderating the extremism that emanates from Pakistan, which our long-term development assistance targets.

We applaud the efforts of Pakistan, ask for its continued support to defeat the extremists, and commit our support in return. In this year of momentous transition for Pakistan, we are determined to ensure that the substantial resources the American people provide to Pakistan are utilized efficiently, effectively, and to support what all of us want: Pakistan’s transformation into a more stable, open, and secure nation where its people can, in the future, live peacefully.

We look forward to working with Congress toward this goal.

Thank you, and I would be happy to take any of your questions.

Released on July 26, 2007

Technorati Tags: and or and , or and , or , or Microscopic jets, diamonds unlikely on Uranus, and amazing mosquito legs and Ford Model T "Tin Lizzies" and Press Briefing Tony Snow 07/25/07 VIDEO PODCAST

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Press Briefing Tony Snow 07/25/07 VIDEO PODCAST

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, vidcap from 07/13/07Press Briefing by Tony Snow, FULL STREAMING VIDEO. file is windows media format, running time is 31:10. James S. Brady Briefing Room. White House Press Secretary Tony Snow briefs the press and answers questions. 07 25 2007: WASHINGTON, DC: 12:43 P.M. EST.
PODCAST OF THIS ARTICLE, and Press Briefing Slides (PDF, 1.2 mb, 5 pages)

MR. SNOW: Hello, everybody. As you probably know, the House Judiciary Committee has just voted along partisan lines to have a criminal contempt of Congress referral against White House legal counsel and the White House Chief of Staff. For our view, this is pathetic. What you have right now is partisanship on Capitol Hill that quite often boils down to insults, insinuations, inquisitions and investigations rather than pursuing the normal business of trying to pass major pieces of legislation, such as appropriations bills, and to try to work in such a way as to demonstrate to the American people that Congress and the White House can work together.

I want to remind people that this White House, on a number of occasions, has reached out to the House Judiciary Committee and offered accommodations: First, we offered anybody at the Department of Justice who was of interest to testify under oath and on Capitol Hill, which many did. We supplied 8,500 pages of documents, including some between the Justice Department and the White House. The Attorney General, himself, and senior members of his team also went up to testify on Capitol Hill.

In addition, we offered further that we would make available any persons of interest at the White House for full interviews by members of the committees -- they'd be able to ask whatever questions they wanted to do. In each and every one of these cases, the efforts of the White House were rebuffed.

And so now we have a situation where there is an attempt to do something that's never been done in American history, which is to assail the concept of executive privilege, which hails back to the administration of George Washington, and in particular, to use criminal contempt charges against a White House chief of staff and the White House legal counsel. Ironically, this comes as the very same committee is marking up the attorney-client privilege protection act, apparently not believing that attorney-client privilege applies to the President and his own lawyer.

In any event, it's worth putting this in perspective in terms of the accomplishments of the present Congress. If you take a look at the 110th Congress right now, which had promised to have all of its appropriations bills done this month, here's what we have seen since the beginning of the Congress: More than 300 executive branch investigations or inquiries; 400 requests for documents, interviews, or testimony; we've had more than 550 officials testify; we've had more than 600 oversight hearings; 87,000-plus hours spent responding to oversight requests; and 430,000 pages made available to Congress for oversight. That's pretty significant.

In fact, the 87,000 hours that we mentioned that have been used in document production -- that's equal to more than nine-and-a-half years -- and here's your graphic of the day, ladies and gentlemen -- if you took those 430,000 pages and stack them on top of each other, they would reach a height twice that of the executive mansion, itself.

Now, this White House remains committed to the principle that we are willing to accommodate members of Congress. They have legitimate oversight interest, and we have made available any individuals and any facts that would be necessary for them to conduct their deliberations. Interestingly enough, nobody has cited or recited anything that they think they've been denied. Instead, there has been constantly, and it seems, a desire to provoke a confrontation.

We think a confrontation of this sort is neither constructive, nor necessary. As I said, we maintain our position of accommodation toward the House of Representatives. But make no mistake, based on legal precedent this is something that the drafters of this particular referral know has very little chance of going anywhere. And so the question is, why are they doing this rather than the people's business?

Questions.

Q Tony, how can you cite as a sign of cooperation sending the Attorney General to Capitol Hill, when every time he seems to go there he contradicts what he said before, to the point that you have Republicans like Arlen Specter saying they don't think he can effectively serve any more?

MR. SNOW: I will let you do the characterizations. In point of fact --

Q That's what Arlen Specter said.

MR. SNOW: I understand what Arlen Specter said --

Q These are not my characterization.

MR. SNOW: Well, your characterization was, he contradicts himself every time, I think is what you said.

Q But he has contradicted himself repeatedly.

MR. SNOW: Well, no -- I don't want to parse too much here, and I'm not going to serve as the fact witness, so we're not going to get too deep into what he said, when and where. But I will remind you that when one is being called in an open session to talk about classified matters, it becomes very difficult to walk the line about what is permissible and what is not permissible to say in public. We continue to believe that the Attorney General has testified truthfully. He has also testified behind closed doors in considerably greater detail. Neither you nor I have heard that.

Q -- he testify under oath last year, under oath, and say that there was no disagreement within the Bush administration over the terrorist surveillance program, and yet, James Comey, who was the acting Attorney General, come out and say, actually there was a major disagreement.

MR. SNOW: James Comey did not mention the terrorist surveillance program.

Q But has it reached the point, Tony, where --

MR. SNOW: We'll go here, then -- go ahead, Jennifer.

Q On the citations, rhetoric aside, you all will have to choose a response. And so is that response going to be to enforce them, or to go to court?

MR. SNOW: No, we don't choose a response. The Department of Justice will handle the referral. If you take a look at opinions that have been handed out by prior Departments of Justice, and including the quote that I used last week from Senator Leahy, who seemed to believe that it would be a fruitless endeavor, given separation of powers doctrines and opinions that had been written by Democratic and Republican administrations in the past, that this is not likely to go anywhere -- but nevertheless, that is a decision to be made by the Department of Justice and will do so.

Q The Department of Justice works for the President, so that decision will involve him and will involve the White House.

MR. SNOW: No, it does not. No, in this particular case --

Q What is the preference, going to court or enforcing them?

MR. SNOW: -- the decision-making authority in this falls to the Department of Justice. They'll make the decision.

Q With absolutely no input from the White House? We can hold you to that, when that decision is made, that the White House will have zero input into it?

MR. SNOW: Well, at this point it's being done out of the Department of Justice.

Q Tony, the White House has already informed the committee, the Judiciary Committee, that it would perhaps instruct federal prosecutors not to prosecute contempt citations if they're issued.

MR. SNOW: No, what it did was recite -- what was provided was an opinion written by Ted Olson that explained why it would be inappropriate to do such referrals -- this was a 1984 opinion -- and also some opinions written by Walter Dellinger during the Clinton administration.

Q But has it reached the point, Tony, for the Attorney General to -- he's lost his effectiveness and his credibility?

MR. SNOW: Well, what's interesting is that there have been all these hearings on the Attorney General and yet nobody has really laid a glove on him. What you do is you have complaints, but there is yet to be any specific allegation. Instead what you have is a demand for more and more intrusive looks into the internal workings of the White House. Again, look at all the pages here, look at all the hearings. It is as if they keep throwing mud against the wall, hoping something is going to stick.

Frankly, if you have something solid and you think you do, invite the people up, ask the questions. Everybody has been made available. You have not been denied a shred of information. I've yet to hear anybody say any piece of information that they have been denied. Instead, this looks like an attempt to provoke something that falls more into the area of political theater than respectful, good governance and trying to do oversight.

Q If Justice is going to be determining the course, what kind of time frame are we talking about?

MR. SNOW: That I don't know.

Q Is it the kind of thing where they just may kind of let the clock run out on the administration?

MR. SNOW: No, I -- no, no, no. I mean, again, you look at past precedent; they will be putting together -- but I would refer you to Justice. But, no, this is not something where somebody is going to say, hmmm, can I stretch this out for 18 months? Nobody would stand for that and that would be an improper way to proceed.

Q What's the President's objection to taking the oath? He has taken the oath, himself.

MR. SNOW: The President's objection in this particular case is going in and trying to open up the issue of executive privilege. You may recall that in this administration, the first time we went to bat for executive privilege it was on behalf of executive privilege for the Clinton administration. It is very important to be able to protect the confidentiality of conversations.

I guarantee you if somebody went before any member of the Senate and said, we want to know everything anybody said in this deliberative process, they wouldn't stand for it for a minute, nor should they. If you did the same thing to the judicial branch, nobody would stand for it. This is, in fact, a central principle of our government and it has been held since the administration of George Washington. And we have done -- I listed a whole series of accommodations, which have not been met at any juncture by reaching out by members of the House or the Senate, in terms of saying, we're giving you everything you could possibly need to render a decision; what more do you want? And the answer seems to be --

Q They want them to take an oath and they want transcription. You also said --

MR. SNOW: I'm sorry, the second word?

Q Transcripts.

Q Having a transcript.

MR. SNOW: Oh, a transcript. Okay.

Q The whole thing is you also said, on this question of classified information -- the President had no trouble yesterday in declassifying anything he wanted to, selectively.

MR. SNOW: Well, but when you -- no, what the President was doing was declassifying the names of some of the people who have been involved in killing Americans. That's a far different thing than talking operationally about ongoing efforts to try to save Americans.

April, first of all --

Q How about declassifying more to save America?

MR. SNOW: We will classify as is appropriate. We will not declassify in such a --

Q As you wish.

MR. SNOW: Well, no, there is, I think, Helen, a pretty sensible way of going about this. We are certainly not going to declassify things that say, hey, al Qaeda, here's what we're doing; hey, al Qaeda, here's what we're working with; here are the people going out, please go and kill them.

Q No, no, no -- tell the American people why they attacked us in the first place on 9/11, and what we know about bin Laden.

MR. SNOW: Are you arguing that we were somehow responsible for being attacked on September 11th?

Q No, no, no. Don't twist that. I'm asking you why --

MR. SNOW: Okay, then the answer, why did they attack us on September 11th, it goes back to a fatwah --

Q -- and what information have you gotten through your harsh interrogations.

MR. SNOW: Well, we will not talk about -- number one, there's no -- you are characterizing an interrogation; those are interrogations that are conducted by --

Q No, torture is on the record.

MR. SNOW: No, torture is not on the record. It's against the law. I'm just not going to get into spin cycle.

Go ahead, April.

Q Tony, this country -- if I'm correct from out history books, wasn't this country based on the system of checks and balances? You say they're not doing the people's business, but isn't that the people's business? If there is something in question -- granted, there might have been 400 investigations, but if there was something in question, isn't that the people's business?

MR. SNOW: That's a very good question. But what if there isn't anything in question and somebody is going on a --

Q There are things in question.

MR. SNOW: April, at this point, we have hundreds of hearings that have produced bupkis. And what has happened is that there is generated this idea of, let's go on a fishing expedition and let's haul somebody up, and let's make insinuations without having firm proof. And what that does is it creates a toxic atmosphere.

Let me mention to you that a system of checks and balances also has checks. And part of the checks are that branches of government may not raid the powers or the principles and authorities of other branches of government. They need to remain separate and equal. What we're talking about here is an attempt to take the principle of confidentiality and strip it away from the executive branch while maintaining it for the legislative and the judicial branches. That hardly qualifies as checks and balances.

Q But, Tony, can you concede when there is not transparency under oath, there leads -- it's not innuendos, it leads to the fact that something is not right --

MR. SNOW: Well, wait a minute. You've already had all the key members under oath from the Justice Department. You've had 8,500 pages of documents. You've also had an offer to bring people up under --

Q The White House even said that if it's under oath it could be a problem with perjury. Your White House has said this.

MR. SNOW: No, what we have said is that we don't think it's appropriate. But furthermore, you do have, in fact, you have laws that deny anybody the right to lie before Congress; that applies to anybody who testifies before them. There is, in fact, a guarantee that people go up and testify truthfully.

What we have been trying to avoid appears to be the one thing that is most devoutly sought by some on Capitol Hill, which is an entertainment event, rather than a calm, deliberative and respectful attempt to take a look at things that may be of concern to members of Congress.

Q A couple on different topics, if I can. First, the Italian Foreign Minister said it was time to wrap up Enduring Freedom and wrap it under ISAF in Afghanistan. Is the United States open to that? And second, the Iraqi Ambassador is complaining about the pace of U.S. arms transfers to the government in Baghdad.

MR. SNOW: Well, I will back up on the second one. We continue to work with the Iraqis to try to make sure that we make all arms and equipment available, and in fact have been doing that as rapidly as possible. It is in many ways -- those are the kinds of signs that you want to see, which is an Iraqi government saying, we want to be fully equipped and trained. We're doing it as rapidly as we can. We understand the frustrations. We continue to have frustrations. We have a Congress who can't even get through a defense appropriations bill at a time when we're looking at things like MRAPs for our own forces.

So the point is we do understand that and we continue to work with it. These are matters that the President discusses regularly with the Prime Minister and obviously are discussed on a regular basis with others.

As for Afghan operations, I really don't have anything for you at this juncture on the recommendation.

Martha.

Q Tony, can I go back to the intel that the President was talking about yesterday?

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q Can we assume there is other intelligence analysis that does not see such a strong connection? Or is he quoting analysis that shows a definite connection between al Qaeda central and local?

MR. SNOW: No, I think it's pretty clear -- if you take a look at "al Qaeda central" and "local," for one thing you have --

Q No, just the question -- is there a variety of intelligence, or did the President choose the intelligence that showed the strongest connection?

MR. SNOW: I'm sure the President -- I don't know what all the intelligence is so I can't answer your question. Do you --

Q That would go to people wondering whether he just cherry-picked, or whether there's other intelligence out there, saying --

MR. SNOW: As you know also -- let me put it this way: When a speech like that gets put together, it is vetted by, among other things, the CIA, the DNI, and other agencies. And they are loath to have people cherry-picking and trying to misrepresent the overall consensus. So I can --

Q So that would be overall consensus --

MR. SNOW: I'm just telling you, Martha, that that is the way the vetting process works, and if there were concerns about cherry-picking, they would have been known during the vetting process. If you have -- what you're doing is you're putting together an insinuation. If you have a specific charge that you would like me to respond to, I will do this. But to do this in a hypothetical way doesn't serve much of a purpose.

Q The National Intelligence Estimate said there was an affiliation between the two. The President was much harder on this, saying it was public enemy number one, that there was a connection, that these are the same people who want to attack us here.

MR. SNOW: Right. Well, let's take a look at what the President talked about, and these are things that have been made available both in Baghdad and in public. If you take a look at senior leadership in al Qaeda in Iraq, it is not Iraqi, and it hasn't been. The highest we have had, at this point, was Mr. Mashadani, who was essentially the minister of propaganda. But if you take a look at what was the case under Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian, or al-Masri, an Egyptian, what you have is a cadre of people who come from places like Egypt, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. So what you have are folks who are hand-picked. And in some cases, there is evidence that they were, in fact, dispatched by the center al Qaeda core to go fight in Iraq to try to assist in the efforts.

That seems to me to set up a pretty clear operational tie. Also, you go back to some of the communications -- and I've mentioned this many times -- communications directly between Zarqawi, who had pledged his loyalty to bin Laden -- had been named the "prince of Iraq," I believe, by bin Laden -- his conversations with Zawahiri, the number two -- Zawahiri was unhappy with beheadings, at the same time he was asking for a $100,000 in aid from Zarqawi. That gives you a pretty clear sense of some operational ties between the two.

So the idea that they're completely separate and distinct and operating on completely different agendas seems to be belied by the fact -- furthermore, if you go back and even take a look at the Zawahiri videos that --

Q I'm not saying completely separate, and I don't think people are saying completely separate, there's clearly some ties there, Tony. But to say -- to tie them in as the same sort of threat to the United States -- do you have evidence that there are kind of attacks being planned out of Iraq right now?

MR. SNOW: Well, what you do have evidence of is that the one place that it said that it would be willing to try to be mounting attacks on the United States, at the encouragement of al Qaeda core, was what? Was al Qaeda in Iraq. That intelligence has been available. That wasn't declassified just for yesterday's speech.

Q Okay, membership, Tony, membership in al Qaeda in Iraq, is that Iraqi?

MR. SNOW: There is considerable al Qaeda membership in Iraq. Also, it does seem to be eroding. If you take a look, for instance, again at the comments that were made by Mr. Mashadani, there seems to be a lot of chafing at this point, because the foreigners are apparently not terribly respectful. Also, if you take a look at some of the data that have been coming out, not only from Anbar and elsewhere, it seems that not merely the presence, but also the methods that have been adopted by al Qaeda have turned considerably unpopular. Yes, there are Iraqis involved.

Q But the majority membership is Iraqi?

MR. SNOW: Yes, I think that's -- I will double-check, but I think that's probably accurate to say. Having said that, you do have the leadership and the cadres, and furthermore, the most lethal activities are being done not by Iraqis, but by foreign fighters, many of whom are making their way through Syria, through the Damascus airport in particular.

So the point here is, yes, you've got a lot of Iraqis, but the guys who are mounting the high-value threats, the guys who are working the big actions, especially the most deadly ones, they tend not to be -- they in fact, as a general rule, are not Iraqis. And furthermore, again, what you're seeing -- and this is a significant development -- is that the Iraqis are beginning to get fed up by them. Are there Iraqis in al Qaeda in Iraq? Absolutely.

Q But there's no real evidence now that anyone in Iraq is trying to stage an Iraq on the United States?

MR. SNOW: I don't know -- I don't want to get into that intelligence. And again, I want to remind you that --

Q Do you know the intelligence?

MR. SNOW: No, I don't. And furthermore, if I did, I wouldn't tell you, because it would be totally inappropriate. But let me just put it this way: Again, if you take a look at what had been discussed, in terms of the means, methods --

Q Even though the President said it was a threat?

MR. SNOW: The President says it's a threat because the NIE, itself, mentions the fact that al Qaeda in Iraq, itself, said it wanted to kill Americans, and that it wanted to be involved in mounting attacks on American soil. That creates a heightened threat environment. Whether they've got cells or activities going on, that's the sort of thing for our intelligence people to know, and I certainly hope to foil, as well.

Victoria.

Q Tony, you said you've made everybody available and everything available, when it comes to the intelligence. But you haven't made everybody available. You've made them available if they go without the oath, if they go without the transcript, and if they go in private. But you haven't even made the documents available; you've only made the documents available that aren't the documents that they want. You won't make the documents available that they do want.

MR. SNOW: Wait, because the documents they do want violate executive privilege. You're absolutely right, those that violate the privilege we're not going to share with them.

Q You say that they're the ones that violate executive privilege, but that's not what the executive branch says -- that's what the executive branch says, that's not what the legislative branch says.

MR. SNOW: Well, the legislative branch is making characterizations of documents it has not seen. On the other hand, it has had plenty of opportunities to review documents. And as you know, there have been a number of cases where people are called up to the Hill, and people say, wow, this is going to be the big one. And it turns out, nothing. They get a new tranche of documents -- man, I bet I'm going to see all sorts of names in here, and it turns out to be a bunch of nothing.

So what you're saying is that on the basis of suspicion, rather than fact, some people think that there may be smoking guns in items that in fact pass for executive privilege. I will tell you that this White House looks very carefully at documents to try to figure out which ones properly qualify as being covered by executive privilege. It is something that we take seriously, because we understand that the way in which these things are handled -- and not just for us, but subsequent White Houses -- you have to preserve the privilege, you have to preserve it in a credible way.

Back to what you said originally -- there is no fact that the would not have access to, and furthermore, there is no situation under which somebody testifying before members of Congress would not be compelled to tell the truth. If there was no transcript, they could ask the same question 48 times; they could tell them to slow down and write it on the wall in crayon if they so decided. But the fact is that you would have the opportunity to get a full hearing of what anybody said; you could vet it, you could cross-reference it against other statements. You could do a completely full investigation. And what's being deprived is a little bit of political theater.

What we've been trying to do is to create a little air of dignity in this town, where at the very beginning of this Congress there was a lot of talk about getting work done, setting a new tone. And instead what have we gotten? We have got insults, insinuations, investigations and inquisitions. This is not the kind of thing --

Q They're trying to find out why these prosecutors were fired. It's a simple --

MR. SNOW: Actually, the real question is, does the President have the authority to do it? Yes. And was anything improperly done? The answer is, no.

Q The lack of a transcript seems to be the one area in which you could all agree. It seems to be one thing that is, frankly, just silly. Everybody knows that the lack of a transcript is something that --

MR. SNOW: You know what's silly, Victoria, is after we have made all these offers, Congress doesn't step forward with anything. That's silly.

Q -- that leads to this question --

Q Conyers says he has something.

MR. SNOW: Well, he has something -- would you characterize "something"?

Q Conyers says he has uncovered serious evidence of wrongdoing by retaliation for the improper firings. What do you have to say about that -- other than a pregnant pause?

MR. SNOW: Look forward to hearing what he has -- (laughter.) Let me ask you, how credible do you consider that? Do you consider that a credible reasoned argument, or an attempt to roll a grenade down the aisle?

Q It's not for me to say.

MR. SNOW: Okay, well, it's not for me to say, either.

Q You said the Democrats seem to want confrontation --

MR. SNOW: Seem?

Q Well, I'm paraphrasing, obviously. They say the same thing about the White House, of course.

MR. SNOW: But wait a minute. I cannot let them get away with that. We have talked about -- we've talked about a whole series of things where we have reached out and we have had a series of escalating proffers in terms of making people and information available. You simply cannot say that that is stubbornness on the part of the White House when we have made available all these documents, when we've made the people available, and the Congress itself has said, nope, we're just going to push this story to confrontation.

I think that the attitudes and approaches are significantly different. Proceed.

Q Well, that leads me to this question: How much negotiation went on, and do you think it was in good faith?

MR. SNOW: Yes, it was absolutely in good faith on our part. I mean, Fred Fielding went up --

Q On their part.

MR. SNOW: I don't know. I'm not going to characterize on their part. But I'll tell you what has happened is that there has been no demonstration that they've been willing to say -- to take up the offer, to get access to all the facts.

Here's the interesting thing. Suppose you do get these people in and we're writing on crayon or we're taking the notes and we're doing whatever we can to record each and every syllable that has been given in testimony, and somebody finds something that looks like a smoking gun -- well, what does Congress do? They go in and ask for more. That's perfectly possible. The kind of offer we have made does not serve as an endpoint, it serves as an opportunity for Congress to do a full investigation and if they have other questions, to ask us whether, in fact, we have other items that might come to bear on this.

We have made it possible for them to proceed down the road to gather information and to try to assess the situation, and they've just basically rebuffed it.

John.

Q With so many contempt possibilities out there now in the House and in the Senate, where there's actually bipartisan discussion of contempt citations --

MR. SNOW: Right.

Q -- don't you feel like you're kind of rolling the dice on what is, as you say, an important constitutional principle?

MR. SNOW: You don't roll a dice on a constitutional principle, you stand by it. And you do it for the sake of the institution. Keep in mind, again, the first assertion of executive privilege in this White House was on behalf of the Clinton administration. This is an administration that believes it is important to maintain that kind of confidentiality. Normally, if you lose it you lose the ability to recruit the kind of people you need, to bring folks in who are going to be able to give their best advice and counsel to a President. And let me repeat, if you did the same thing to Congress, they would consider that completely crippling; and if you did it in the court system, it would be even more crippling because it would profoundly compromise their independence.

So I will repeat, it is not rolling the dice, and in fact, is an acknowledgment that no matter how much political heat people may want to try to generate, or how many colorful statements they may have to make, this is about preserving the institution so it can work effectively and, in fact, have checks against the other branches of government so that they remain separate and co-equal.

Q Can I follow up? If the Senate Judiciary Committee decides to do a contempt proceeding on its own, what they call I think, inherent contempt, would the White House participate? Would you have lawyers --

MR. SNOW: We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. I'm not going to get into procedures. Let's just see what goes on. We still hope, because the House is not going to have a full vote on contempt at least until next week, we still hope cooler heads may prevail and people will think, okay, we'll take up an offer, we'll look at what you've got. I mean, that would make sense. That would show that, in fact, the real purpose here is not to try to create a big public furor, but to get at the facts and find out whether there was anything wrong in the President doing what Presidents may do, which is to fire people who serve at their privilege.

Q What do you mean when you say that nobody has really laid a glove on Gonzales? Isn't the President troubled by senators questioning his truthfulness and by Specter saying that he doesn't think he has any credibility?

MR. SNOW: Well, what's happened on a number of occasions is that people have hauled him up and there have been insinuations and, yet, in the end, what is the specific charge? What is the specific charge of malfeasance?

Q Well, for one thing, his truthfulness has been questioned.

MR. SNOW: But again, the President stands --

Q Isn't the President bothered by that?

MR. SNOW: The President is bothered sometimes by the tone of debate in Washington. He understands it can be bruising and he stands by the Attorney General.

Q Thank you, Tony. Two questions. The AP reports that Sydney, Australia's Lord Mayor, Clover Moore, is leading a campaign urging all residents to pack an emergency survival kit in preparation for any terrorist attack or other disaster in Australia's largest city. And my question -- does the White House believe that this is a campaign U.S. cities should be launching, or not?

MR. SNOW: That would be something that I would not be privy to comment on. And, Les, let me just -- before we get back into a situation where it will be more difficult to get called on, let me just point out that you need to ask questions that bear on the President's responsibilities. I saw the piece you wrote the other day, that has been thoroughly twisting out of context the answer I gave you when I told you that the President, in fact, was --

Q That's what --

MR. SNOW: I don't care. What you did --

Q They wrote it out there.

MR. SNOW: You know what, I don't care, okay, because the fact is, if somebody is going to take questions about things that do not fall under the President's purview -- and I answered that question -- and it gets twisted, that is a disservice to this White House and to the craft of journalism. So if I were you, I'd pick up the phone and tell them to start cleaning up or writing corrections.

What's your next question?

Q Since Article II, Section III of the Constitution says that the President may or on extraordinary occasions convene both houses or either of them, my question is, is the President considering so convening a lame duck session after next year's election to try to have them pass his comprehensive immigration reform legislation?

MR. SNOW: Oh my goodness. It is way, way, way too early to start talking about after the election of 2008. I think what the President would like is in the year 2007 for members of Congress who had promised to get all their appropriations bills done at this time to get cracking and get them done.

Q Thank you.

MR. SNOW: Thank you.

END 1:12 P.M. EDT. For Immediate Release, Office of the Press Secretary, July 25, 2007

Technorati Tags: and or and , or and , or , or Nano Propellers Pump with Proper Chemistry and Ford Crown Victoria Police (car) Interceptor and President Discusses War on Terror 07/24/07 VIDEO