State Department Daily Press Briefing, 11/08/07 VIDEO, PODCAST, TEXT

Daily Press Briefing. Sean McCormack, Spokesman. FULL STREAMING VIDEO. Washington, DC. November 08, 2007, 12:55 p.m. EDT. PODCAST OF THIS ARTICLE

MR. MCCORMACK: Good afternoon, everybody. I don't have anything to start off with. We can get right to your questions.

QUESTION: What's the status of the review of Pakistan aid?

MR. MCCORMACK: It's still ongoing, underway.

QUESTION: Can I just follow up on that? (Inaudible) I mean, Negroponte yesterday seemed to indicate that the Administration wants aid to continue. He's urging Congress to not block it or cut it. I mean, does that seem to indicate that this review is not going to be striking any of this aid out, that the U.S. policy towards Pakistan is not going to be changing in the light of Saturday's events?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, what I think he's saying, if you look at all of his testimony, is that we are going to conduct a review based on the actions in Pakistan, what are the realities on the ground and our law and our regulations. And of course, we're going to comply with our laws and regulations.

He also made the point that we have real national interests specifically in working with Pakistan, the Pakistani people and the Pakistan Government, to fight terror. We're not going to do anything that makes America less safe. I don't think anybody would disagree with that. So we're going to follow through on exactly what Secretary Rice and the President have said we're going to do. We're going to review our assistance programs to Pakistan with respect to our legal requirements and we are also going to continue to work and keep open those channels of communication with the Pakistani people. We're going to continue to work with Pakistan to fight terror. I think everybody believes that it's not only in our interest, but it's in the interest of the Pakistani people because they face as much a threat from violent extremists as we do. So we have a common interest in making sure that that fight continues.

QUESTION: Okay. And then barring any legal obligations to cut it, the U.S. does not want to cut the aid. That was my understanding of his comments.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I think you can look at his testimony. I think it's pretty balanced testimony and carefully thought out. We are going to go into this absolutely with an open mind with respect to what are the legal requirements and we're going to look very carefully at those, we're going to follow the letter of the law, and then we'll take decisions about what, if any, changes there are going to be in our assistance program with Pakistan.

But everybody -- I don't think you're going to find anybody that disputes the notion that while this is a very difficult situation and it's an important moment for Pakistan, that we have real national interests at stake with respect to what course Pakistan takes.

QUESTION: Has the constitutional crisis over the last week or so caused any revisiting of the question of the security of the nuclear facilities in Pakistan by the United States?

MR. MCCORMACK: I believe questions about Pakistani nuclear facilities are best put to the Pakistani Government.

QUESTION: But it is a concern of the United States?

QUESTION: Well, it's a legitimate question --

MR. MCCORMACK: I agree. I'm not saying --

QUESTION: Is the U.S. concerned about this? It certainly has been in the past.

MR. MCCORMACK: Absolutely. I would say 99 percent of the questions asked in this briefing are legitimate questions. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: I would be very interested to know what the 1 percent are --

MR. MCCORMACK: I will leave you to decide what the 1 percent may comprise. (Laughter.) But that's a question that I'm going to refer back to the Pakistani Government. They're in the best position to speak about those issues.

QUESTION: Would you agree with the description of the Deputy Secretary's testimony yesterday? Would you agree with the description of it that it was basically a case for doing nothing?

MR. MCCORMACK: Who said that?

QUESTION: I'm saying it right now.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, that's --

QUESTION: -- basically a case for not making any changes --

MR. MCCORMACK: No, I --

QUESTION: -- for keeping the aid programs where they are?

MR. MCCORMACK: It is -- I think it was a case for we are going to fulfill our legal responsibilities with respect to what we need to do in the wake of the actions that President Musharraf has taken. It is also a statement, talking about the importance of the United States maintaining a relationship with the Pakistani people as well as furthering our national interest.

QUESTION: But it's not -- but he did this on Saturday. It's now Thursday. Are you saying that the interagency -- that this review, that the people doing the review have not yet been able to figure out if there are any legal --

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, there are --

QUESTION: -- or statutory requirements for aid?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, there's a State Department component to this, there's a DOD component to this, and I expect that there are probably other agencies in the U.S. Government that have equities in this review process. We are merely one part of the review process that will feed into the overall --

QUESTION: Well, the part that you can speak to, from the part that's being done in this building, have they -- have these people determined if there's anything that has to -- that is triggered legally under the law?

MR. MCCORMACK: It's still ongoing, Matt. It's still ongoing and then we're going to feed in to the overall review. I'm not going to try to dissect our particular piece of this. I don't think that that's fair. We're going to wait until the overall assessment is done and then either we will talk about it or the White House will talk about it or both of us.

QUESTION: Negroponte said that everything is covered by the appropriate waivers. That -- how do we interpret that? He said that everything that you guys have looked at so far is covered by the appropriate waivers.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, this gets into the legislation and the legislative requirements. And there are various provisions in there that require waivers to be issued and that, in some cases, because of the fact that you do not yet have new legislation appropriating funds, that some of those waivers carry over. I think, actually, all of the waivers carry over as far as I know. But that gets into some real inside baseball about legislative requirements and the actions of Congress and what we're required to do. But we are still conducting this review and taking a look at what we are and may be legally required to do.

QUESTION: Do you have a timetable for the review?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't have a timetable, but it's something that people are working on right now.

Yes.

QUESTION: Is the United States worried about violent confrontation in Pakistan? And can you be as specific as you possibly can about what the United States said to Benazir Bhutto in that regard?

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. Well, I think you'll understand that we're probably not going to describe in detail our conversations with former Prime Minister Bhutto or anybody else that's involved in Pakistani political life, whether that's leaders of political parties or people who are leaders of civil society.

Suffice it to say, our message is that we are firm believers and firm supporters of the idea that there needs to be a space in any democratic society, any aspiring democratic society, or any society which may have taken a detour from constitutional rule, that there needs to be a space for open, peaceful, political dialogue. That is very important and it's very important not only for the current moment but also for the future, maintaining that principle.

That said, it's very important also in what is clearly an important moment in Pakistan's history, as well as a politically turbulent time that all responsible leaders, all responsible parties, make every effort that they possibly can to maintain an atmosphere of calm, free from violence, because if you start getting into a situation where there are large-scale outbreaks of violence, that is something that could possibly hinder Pakistan's return to the democratic pathway and constitutional rule. Nobody wants to see that. That's bad for the Pakistani people.

So there are a lot of different levels to this message, but certainly we are in contact with a spectrum of leaders, responsible leaders throughout Pakistan, emphasizing the fact that there needs to be an immediate return to constitutional rule, that Pakistan needs to get back on the pathway to democracy. In that regard, President Musharraf has apparently ordered that elections be held sometime prior to February 15th. That is a positive step. There are other actions that need to be taken. He needs to fulfill his pledge, which he apparently recommitted to today, according to news reports, to take off the military uniform, as well as there is also a need to roll back the state of emergency, reinstate constitutional rule and put Pakistan firmly back on that pathway to democracy.

By the way, President Musharraf did quite a bit between 2001 and the current period before the declaration of the state of emergency to further. He did institute important political as well as economic reform. So what we want to see for the benefit of the Pakistani people is a return to that pathway of economic and political reform expanding democracy and expanding prosperity in Pakistan for all the Pakistani people.

QUESTION: Considering that, should Benazir Bhutto abandon the rally in March that she's discussed?

MR. MCCORMACK: I think -- leaders in Pakistani political life are going to have to take their own decisions about what are -- what is the proper course, keeping in mind that it is absolutely essential to have open political discussion, peaceful political discussion, peaceful expression of political views. But also it is important during a sensitive time in Pakistan's history to try to maintain an atmosphere of calm in which you can have open rational dialogue and -- so that the Pakistani people are able to peacefully express themselves and their desires about a return to a constitutional and democratic rule.

QUESTION: Sean, Bhutto said on air this morning that Patterson specifically asked her not to hold a rally or strongly discouraged --

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm sorry, I didn't --

QUESTION: I said, Bhutto said on our air this morning in a phone interview that Patterson had asked her not to hold a rally at all. Can you confirm that? Can you elaborate on that?

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm not going to get into the details of Anne's conversation with her. But Anne, as well as other members of the Embassy staff, were in contact with the whole spectrum of responsible leaders in Pakistan. I am not going to get into our half of the conversation. Of course, others are free to describe the conversations as they wish and interpret them as they will.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) call Musharraf in coming days?

MR. MCCORMACK: At this point, there's no plans on the books. Of course, if she feels the need to speak with President Musharraf, then of course she will. The President spoke with him yesterday and she --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes, they are. And Secretary Rice has had a number of conversations with President Musharraf in the preceding weeks.

Yeah, Sylvie.

QUESTION: Change of subject?

MR. MCCORMACK: Anything else on this?

QUESTION: I have one. I have one more.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Senator Biden today became the latest (inaudible) to suggest that the U.S. should take a look at the sale of F-16s that are in the pipeline and hold them up. And one of his arguments was they're not directly tied to the war on terror. Are they on the table and does the -- do you consider the F-16 sales part of the war on terror?

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm not going to comment on any particular aspect of our aid program or our military relationship with Pakistan. The President has laid out very clearly, as has Secretary Rice and Deputy Secretary Negroponte, we don't want to do anything that would harm our counterterrorism efforts. But we are going to take a look at all aspects of our aid programs with Pakistan prior to the completion of that review and any decisions that we've made -- may be made. I'm not going to talk about various aspects of the review or any particular components of what might be under consideration.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Georgia? The Georgian President announced this morning, actually while you were speaking to the press --

MR. MCCORMACK: That's right.

QUESTION: -- that the presidential election would be organized in January. And he also said the situation is improving on the ground, which seemed to imply that the emergency rule will be lifted soon. Do you have any reaction?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we did -- we put out a statement about this, and I can read it for everybody else's benefit who may not have seen it:

"The United States welcomes the Georgian Government's decision to hold early presidential elections and a referendum on timing of parliamentary elections. At the same time, we continue to urge the Government of Georgia to lift the state of emergency and restore all media broadcasts. These are necessary steps to restore democratic conditions for the election and the referendum. We call on all parties to maintain calm, respect the rule of law and address their differences through serious discussions to strengthen Georgia's democratic political system. These discussions should take place in the spirit of compromise and in support of Georgia's sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and commitment to human rights."

QUESTION: And do you think that the conditions -- it will be enough? Don't you think it will be a bit early -- January -- or it's a good time and they will have time to prepare?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, this is the President -- the statement and commandment of President Saakashvili. Elections have been held and organized -- good elections have been held with shorter lead times than this. So certainly it is possible, but clearly it is not a lot of time so you're going to have to make a concerted effort to make sure that the run-up to election -- to the elections is proper; that people have a rational expectation and feel as though that they can express themselves freely -- their political views; and so that the population can make a judgment, informed judgment, about who they want to vote for. And then election day is a day in which there are free, fair and transparent elections; people can vote, people can use the ballot box free from intimidation, and that once you have the actual counting of the ballots, that that's done in a way that really reflects the will of the people as expressed at the ballot box.

QUESTION: And at the same time, the supreme court declared that some opponents are -- they accused them of spying and working for a foreign power --

MR. MCCORMACK: I hadn't seen that, Sylvie.

QUESTION: It was just before the briefing.

MR. MCCORMACK: I know that there has been a lot of discussion -- not just over the past few days, but going back for some period of time about foreign interference in Georgia's internal affairs. I don't have any particular information that would either substantiate or refute that idea. But certainly I don't think anybody wants to see anybody but the Georgian people determine what Georgia's future course will be.

Yes.

QUESTION: The United States position is known that it's no peace agreement before North Korea disable nuclear facilities. Meantime, South Korean Government mentioned North Korea's disabling of nuclear facilities and peace agreement must be done at the same time. What is your comment?

MR. MCCORMACK: Secretary Rice just spoke to this yesterday. You can take a look at the transcript. She got asked that exact question.

QUESTION: Were you able to look into what I asked about this morning, about Sudan and Salva Kiir and the Post story?

MR. MCCORMACK: Oh, yes, I did -- yes, I was. I was able to track that down. Apparently, what these proposals were, they were concerning implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. And Andrew, several weeks ago, made some proposals that sought to bridge differences between the government in Khartoum and the government in the South.

And what I have been told is -- and I heard this upstairs when the Secretary met with Salva Kiir -- is that Khartoum and the Government of Southern Sudan were actually able to come to some agreement regarding the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, the CPA. So -- and Salva Kiir was satisfied with those arrangements. He wants to see them implemented, obviously. And so the suggestions that Andrew had are mooted by the fact that they have already -- Khartoum and the South have actually already moved beyond those proposals.

QUESTION: Is it your understanding that what the North and South agreed to, whenever that was, last weekend or whenever --

MR. MCCORMACK: It was November 2nd or 3rd.

QUESTION: -- include some of -- at least some of the suggestions that (inaudible)--

MR. MCCORMACK: I believe so. I think -- I think some of Andrew's ideas were reflected in the proposal. I don't know if they -- it was just a matter of people in different places coming up with a good idea or whether or not they (inaudible)--

QUESTION: So, basically, it's off the table now? It's no longer --

MR. MCCORMACK: No longer relevant, because they've actually moved beyond it, moved beyond the issue.

Yeah, Gollust.

QUESTION: On Burma?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.

QUESTION: What do you make of the announcement by Gambari, basically -- Aung San Suu Kyi will apparently be meeting with -- be allowed to meet with leaders of her own party and with a representative of the government?

MR. MCCORMACK: Seen the reports. We haven't been able to confirm it. I know that Mr. Gambari is going to be reporting back to the Security Council. We have -- our representatives or people from our government have not had a chance to either talk to him or be briefed out regarding his activities in Burma.

What needs to happen in Burma is that there needs to be a serious, sustained, peaceful democratic dialogue. That is not something that we have seen. And as part of that, Aung San Suu Kyi should be able to engage in the kinds of political activities with her party that would add to that dialogue.

As for the reports that she's going to be able to have this meeting, I can't confirm them for you at this point. But it would be a step, but hardly a sufficient step, in order to achieve that true democratic dialogue in Burma.

QUESTION: Just somewhat of a technical question. Is the United States going to be represented at the ASEAN summit in Singapore, apparently beginning November 18th? There are reports actually that ASEAN would like to see the United States represented.

MR. MCCORMACK: I'll check for you, Dave, and see what our representation is going to be. We've had good meetings with ASEAN representatives. Most recently, the Secretary met with them up in New York at the UN General Assembly. And I know we are exploring ways for ASEAN leaders to get together and have a discussion.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Syria. This may have come up at the tail end of the gaggle this morning, but this Israeli newspaper report about secret contacts with Syria in the interest of arranging a bilateral Syria-Israeli set of talks after Annapolis or on the site --

MR. MCCORMACK: Bilateral Israeli-Syria?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. MCCORMACK: Talk to the Israeli Government about that. We have --

QUESTION: But is the U.S. not approaching Syria to work on that issue at all?

MR. MCCORMACK: Not to my knowledge. Secretary Rice met with Foreign Minister Muallem in Istanbul, but that was primarily to talk about -- from our point of view, to talk about Lebanon and the importance of Syria not meddling in Lebanese affairs and not interfering in the upcoming elections that will determine the next president of Lebanon. Now, we have said repeatedly that if Israel and Syria want to have a dialogue, then that is going to be up to the two parties to decide. We haven't seen any evidence at this point that Syria wants to play a positive role in the region, regardless of the issue that you're talking about -- whether it's the Palestinian-Israeli issue or Lebanon or Iraq.

Ultimately, that's going to have to be a decision for those two sides to take. But it is really important to underscore the fact that we do not believe and do not see any sort of interaction or dialogue between Syria and Israel as a substitute for moving forward on the Israeli-Palestinian track. The Annapolis meeting is going to be about the Israeli-Palestinian track. I'm sure other attendees, when we know who those attendees are going to be, will bring up other topics. But the main focus is going to be on the Israeli-Palestinian track.

Sylvie.

QUESTION: On Syria.

MR. MCCORMACK: Sure.

QUESTION: Can you confirm that Syria has agreed to allow U.S. interviewers into Syria to screen Iraqi refugees?

MR. MCCORMACK: Let me check for you, Sylvie. Jim Foley was recently in Syria and this is one of the top two items on his agenda. Let me see if we -- what his takeaway from those discussions were and let me check on any reports, public reports, that may be out there.

QUESTION: Did that issue come up with Rice and the Syrian Foreign Minister?

MR. MCCORMACK: I didn't ask her about it, Matt. I'm not sure.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Please, any reaction to the shootings in Venezuela against students after a anti-Chavez --

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah. It's just appalling, just appalling. We don't know who is responsible for this. The news reports and the reports that I have seen have said that there were masked gunmen who opened fire on students who were peacefully protesting. So I can't tell you exactly who is responsible for this, but it's just, you know, an appalling act and just another indication of the kind of atmosphere that you see in Venezuela. These people are just expressing themselves in a peaceful manner. They've had a view contrary to the views held by the government, but it was a peaceful protest, as far as I've been able to determine from the news reports.

QUESTION: But based on information you're getting from the Embassy, you don't know whether those were members of Chavez militia?

MR. MCCORMACK: I can't say with any certainty who it was.

QUESTION: Secretary Negroponte and also Jendayi Frazer are traveling in Africa next week. Do you have any --

MR. MCCORMACK: You just promoted him. He's the Deputy Secretary.

QUESTION: Oh, I'm sorry, did I say --

MR. MCCORMACK: Deputy Secretary.

QUESTION: Sorry. (Laughter.) Two titles up. Yeah, there's an Africa trip ahead of (inaudible) Ivory Coast. Do you have any other details on that?

MR. MCCORMACK: We're going to be putting out a travel statement about the Deputy Secretary's travel. He's going to be going to, I believe, the Community of Democracies meeting and he may have some other stops as well.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. MCCORMACK: All right, thanks.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:19 p.m.), DPB # 198, Released on November 8, 2007

Technorati Tags: State Department and video or podcast and PAKISTAN or GEORGIA or President Bush, President Sarkozy VIDEO PODCAST and Veterans Day Honoring Veterans at Arlington and quantum cascade laser nanoantenna

President Bush, President Sarkozy VIDEO PODCAST

President Bush Participates in Joint Press Availability with President Sarkozy of France, FULL STREAMING VIDEO Mount Vernon Estate, Mount Vernon, Virginia. 3:12 P.M. EST. PODCAST OF THIS ARTICLE Running time is 18:42 PRESIDENT BUSH: Mr. President, welcome. Thank you very much for coming here to Mount Vernon, and thank you for coming to the United States. I think it's safe to say that you've impressed a lot of people here on your journey.

You bring a lot of energy, enthusiasm for your job, love of your country, and a strong set of universal values in your heart.

We just had an extensive conversation, one that you'd expect good friends to have. We talked about Iran and the desire to work jointly to convince the Iranian regime to give up their nuclear weapons ambitions, for the sake of peace. We talked about the Middle East and the upcoming talks at Annapolis, Maryland. We spent some time on Kosovo, and I appreciate the President's leadership on Kosovo.

I can't thank the President enough for his willingness to stand with young democracies as they struggle against extremists and radicals. And one such democracy is Afghanistan. Mr. President, your leadership on that issue for your country was very impressive. You sent a very clear message. It's clear that you're a man who does what he says he's going to do. It's the kind of fellow I like to deal with.

And so, Mr. President, I also want to thank your administration in your staunch -- strong stance for human rights and human dignity. Whether they be to those who are oppressed in Burma, or Darfur, or on the island of Cuba, France's voice is important and it's clear that the human rights of every individual are important to the world. And I look forward to advancing peace and freedom with you, Mr. President.

Our bilateral relations are important. They are strong and we intend to keep them that way. And so, welcome here to George Washington's old home. Proud to have you in America. Thanks for coming.

PRESIDENT SARKOZY: (As translated.) I want to thank President Bush, his administration, and all Americans who have welcomed us in such exceptional fashion. I get the distinct sense that it is France that has been welcomed so warmly, with so much friendship, so much love. This was my hope, my ambition. And with Bernard Kouchner, Christine Lagarde, Rachida Dati and myself, this is exactly what we wanted.

We've been very moved, deeply moved by your wonderful welcome, together with Mrs. Laura Bush, yesterday at the White House. I especially enjoyed the skit of the dialogue between George Washington and Lafayette that we witnessed.

The tokens of friendship that we have seen since we've been here, your open-mindedness and the fact that we can address any and every subject -- all those that you mentioned, sir -- even though the European defense policy and NATO have also been addressed; environmental issues, which are close to our heart; and Afghanistan. I said that we would stay there because what is at stake is the credibility of the Atlantic Alliance and the fight against terror.

We spent hours discussing very important issues, commercial, economic and others. And I will say that we have done so in a spirit of openness and trust, and that is something I've been particularly struck by. And I can tell you that this visit I think has been very widely covered in France. So when I say that the French people love the American people, that is the truth and nothing but the truth.

Now, I expressed -- I spoke at length this morning and I think the best would be that after President Bush -- whom I wish to thank once again -- we could answer any questions you may have.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Two questions a side. Deb.

Q Mr. President, you came down so hard on Burma and other nations for their crackdowns on pro-democracy demonstrators. Yet you seem to be giving Musharraf a pass. So the question is why are you going so soft on Musharraf? Is there a double standard?

PRESIDENT BUSH: I spoke to President Musharraf right before I came over here to visit with President Sarkozy. And my message was that we believe strongly in elections, and that you ought to have elections soon, and you need to take off your uniform. You can't be the President and the head of the military at the same time. So I had a very frank discussion with him.

Look, our objective is the same in Burma as it is in Pakistan, and that is to promote democracy. There is a difference, however. Pakistan has been on the path to democracy; Burma hadn't been on the path to democracy. And it requires different tactics to achieve the common objective. And as I told you, I just spoke to President Musharraf before I came here, and my message was very -- very plain, very easy to understand, and that is, the United States wants you to have the elections as scheduled and take your uniform off.

You want to call on somebody?

PRESIDENT SARKOZY: You know, in France, I don't choose, I don't pick the journalists.

PRESIDENT BUSH: You don't get to choose? Who chooses? I choose? (Laughter.) Who would you like me to choose? (Laughter.) Oh, he chose. Wait a minute, it didn't last very long, did it?

PRESIDENT SARKOZY: I didn't choose, I indicated a general direction. (Laughter.)

Q Thank you, Mr. President. My question is on Iraq. Mr. President, this morning you talked at length about Afghanistan, Iran, but not Iraq. And I wanted to ask both of you, is France reconciled with the United States, the United States is reconciled with France? So what about Iraq? Can France, for instance, help to get out of the Iraqi quagmire? And President Bush, where do you stand on Iraq and your domestic debate on Iraq? Do you have a timetable for withdrawing troops?

PRESIDENT BUSH: I don't -- you know, "quagmire" is an interesting word. If you lived in Iraq and had lived under a tyranny, you'd be saying, god, I love freedom -- because that's what's happened. And there are killers and radicals and murderers who kill the innocent to stop the advance of freedom. But freedom is happening in Iraq. And we're making progress.

And I can't thank the President enough for sending his Foreign Minister to Baghdad. It's a clear message that freedom matters; that when people are struggling to live in freedom, that those of us who have comfort -- the comfort of a free society ought to help them.

We had a difference of opinion with your great country over whether or not I should have used military force to enforce U.N. demands. I reminded a TV reporter -- I don't know if the person is here or not -- but I said, I just want to remind you that 1441 was supported by France and the United States, which clearly said to the dictator, you will disclose, disarm, or face serious consequences. Now, I'm the kind of person that when somebody says something, I take them for their word.

Having said that, we had a difference of opinion. But I don't sense any difference of opinion now that a struggling democracy wants help from those of us who live in the comfort of free societies. And, Mr. President, the strong gesture of sending your Foreign Minister there wasn't a message to the United States, because we're good friends; it was message to the Iraqi citizens, that said, we hear your cries for freedom, we want you to succeed -- because one of the lessons of history is, free societies yield peace.

And so I appreciate your leadership on that issue and I want to thank your Foreign Minister for -- I don't see your Foreign Minister. Look, the guy was here. (Laughter.) Oh, there he is, yeah, next to -- look, the President was blocking; next to Madam Rice. Anyway, thank you, sir.

PRESIDENT SARKOZY: Allow me to give you two answers in one. On Pakistan, yes, we're worried about the situation. It's worrisome and we need to have elections as quickly as possible. You cannot combat extremism using the same methods as extremists, and it is very important, it is of the essence that Pakistan organize elections. I, like President Bush, I wish this to take place as speedily as possible.

Let me remind you that this is a country of 150 million inhabitants who happens to have nuclear weapons. It is very important for us that one day we shouldn't wake up with a government, an administration in Pakistan which is in the hands of the extremists. And we should, each and every one of us, think about this, of the principles, the values that we uphold and that we defend, and we must continue to uphold. And then there's the complexity, as it were, in the field. That's why it's important to convene elections, call elections.

Now, on Iraq, Bernard Kouchner's trip to Iraq was very successful. What does France want? A united Iraq. No one, it is in no one's interest to see Iraq dismantled. We want a democratic Iraq. We want a diverse Iraq, where each component, component element of Iraqi society has learned to live with others; an Iraq which can administer and govern itself and that has the means of ensuring the peace and security of every one of its citizens. And that was exactly Bernard Kouchner's message when he went to Iraq. And this is in the interest of one and all that it be thus. And that position is the position I will defend until the end.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Toby.

Q Mr. President --

PRESIDENT BUSH: Which one?

Q Both of you.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Get moving, will you?

Q Okay. Mr. President, with oil approaching $100 a barrel, are you concerned that your hard words for Iran on its nuclear program are helping drive up oil prices, which can end up hurting the U.S. economy?

PRESIDENT BUSH: No. I believe oil prices are going up because the demand for oil outstrips the supply for oil. Oil is going up because developing countries still use a lot of oil. Oil is going up because we use too much oil, and the capacity to replace reserves is dwindling. That's why the price of oil is going up.

I believe it is important for us to send clear signals to the Iranian government that the free world understands the risks of you trying to end up with a nuclear weapon. And, therefore, we will work together to try to find if there's not rational people inside your government who are tired of isolation and who believe there's a better way forward.

Every time I give a talk about Iran I make sure I speak to the Iranian people -- and I want them to hear once again that we discussed your country today; that we believe -- that I believe that you've got a bright future; that we respect your history and respect your tradition; however, you are governed by people who are making decisions that are isolating you from the rest of the world and you can do better than that.

The idea of Iran having a nuclear weapon is dangerous, and therefore, now is the time for us to work together to diplomatically solve this problem. And we spent a lot of time on the subject. And I thank the French President for his resolve on solving this issue peacefully.

PRESIDENT SARKOZY: I just wanted to say that we exchanged all the intelligence and information we had. It is unacceptable that Iran should have at any point a nuclear weapon. But Iran is entitled to the energy of the future, which is civilian nuclear energy. I believe in the effectiveness of sanctions. I believe even in the need -- (inaudible) -- the sanctions. But in my mind the two go together, in other words, the open -- the outstretched hand of dialogue, of continuing discussions -- because Iran deserves a better fate than that isolation. And I cannot imagine that there are not people, leaders in Iran who will stop to think about the consequences of what is going on.

This is a great people and a great civilization, and we must be firm for as long as there is no gesture on their part. And we have to keep the way of dialogue open, because we must do everything to avoid the worst-case scenario. And this, indeed, was the subject of a very lengthy conversation which showed exactly how convergent our views were.

Q Mr. President, with respect to your statements on Afghanistan and France's commitment on engagement, does this mean that France is going to be sending additional ground troops to fight in the southern regions of Afghanistan, as the U.S. wishes them to do?

How do you feel about the fact that France has been engaging Syria on the upcoming Lebanese presidential election? Do you think that's a good idea? And what are the chances that Lebanon will have a presidential election by November 24th? Thank you.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Thanks, good question.

You want to go first?

PRESIDENT SARKOZY: Well, on Afghanistan, I said what I thought and what I think. We've talked about it with President Bush. We will not pull out of Afghanistan because what is at stake here is the solidity of our alliance, and ultimately what is at stake here is the fight against terror. We're thinking about the best way to help bring about a democratic Afghanistan. Is it by strength, in stepping up our training efforts so that we lay the groundwork or the basis of a modern Afghan state? Or is it by other means? Maybe perhaps military means? We're still thinking about it.

THE PRESIDENT: First of all, you know, the Syrian influence in Lebanon was something that the previous government and I worked on to -- collaboratively. And because France and the United States worked together, we passed 1551 Resolution out of the United Nations, which got Syria out of Lebanon, by and large. And so we spent time collaborating on how best to make sure that Syria doesn't influence the presidential elections; that, in fact, the presidency is picked by the Lebanese people.

And I'm very aware that Mr. Hariri and Nabih Berri are in consultations as to whether or not they can come up with an acceptable candidate to them, not to Syria; whether or not the Lebanese people can be assured that their President is going to be representing the people of Lebanon, not the people -- not the government of Syria.

And I'm comfortable with President Sarkozy's government sending clear messages that meet common objectives, and our common objective here is for this Lebanese democracy to survive, thrive and serve as an example for others.

We will work with France and with others to see that this process be completed by November 24th. We believe it's in the interests of the Middle East that this Lebanese democracy survive. I want Lebanon to serve as an example for the Palestinians, to show them what's possible. I believe in a two-state solution. I believe there ought to be two states living side by side in peace. So does the President; we discussed that today. There's nothing better for the Palestinians to see what is possible with a stable democracy in Lebanon.

The interesting challenge we face in the world in which we live is there are murderers who will try to stop the advance of democracy, particularly in the Middle East. Isn't it interesting that the places where there's most violence is where there's young democracies trying to take hold, whether it be Iraq or Lebanon or in the Palestinian Territories? And the call for nations such as ourselves is to support those who want to live in freedom. Freedom is the great alternative to the ideology of people who murder the innocent to achieve their political objectives -- by the way, the very same ones that came and killed 3,000 of our citizens.

And so what I'm telling you is -- let me end this press conference by telling you this: I have a partner in peace; somebody who has clear vision, basic values, who is willing to take tough positions to achieve peace. And so when you ask, am I comfortable with the Sarkozy government sending messages -- you bet I'm comfortable.

Mr. President, thanks for coming. I appreciate you being here.

END 3:31 P.M. EST

For Immediate Release, Office of the Press Secretary, November 7, 2007

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House or Nicolas Sarkozy and President Sarkozy or or Judiciary Committee votes 11-8 to forward Michael Mukasey to full Senate VIDEO and Veterans Day Three Servicemen Statue and Biomolecular composition of water