Fourth Anniversary of Operation Iraqi Freedom VIDEO PODCAST

President Bush Discusses Fourth Anniversary of Operation Iraqi Freedom, FULL STREAMING VIDEO, PODCAST OF ARTICLE, Roosevelt Room, 11:30 A.M. EDT. Fact Sheet: Four Years Later: New Strategy Requires Patience and Determination and In Focus: Defense or In Focus: Renewal in Iraq

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Four years ago today, coalition forces launched Operation Iraqi Freedom to remove Saddam Hussein from power. They did so to eliminate the threat his regime posed to the Middle East and to the world. Coalition forces carried out that mission with great courage and skill.

Today the world is rid of Saddam Hussein and a tyrant has been held to account for his crimes by his own people.

Nearly 12 million Iraqis have voted in free elections under a democratic constitution that they wrote for themselves.

And their democratic leaders are now working to build a free society that upholds the rule of law, that respects the rights of its people, that provides them security and is an ally in the war on terror.

At this point in the war, our most important mission is helping the Iraqis secure their capital. Until Baghdad's citizens feel secure in their own homes and neighborhoods, it will be difficult for Iraqis to make further progress toward political reconciliation or economic rebuilding, steps necessary for Iraq to build a democratic society.

So with our help, Iraq's government is carrying out an aggressive plan to secure Baghdad. And we're continuing to train the Iraqi security forces so that they ultimately take full responsibility for the security of their own people.

I've just received an update on the situation from Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki. My conversation with the Prime Minister followed a briefing earlier this morning that included Secretary Rice and Secretary Gates, along with General Petraeus and Ambassador Khalilzad, who participated by video conference from Iraq.

Prime Minister Maliki and General Petraeus emphasized that the Baghdad security plan is still in its early stages, and success will take months, not days or weeks. Yet, those on the ground are seeing some hopeful signs. The Iraqi government has completed the deployment of three Iraqi army brigades to the capital, where they've joined the seven Iraqi army brigades and nine national police brigades that were already in the area.

The Iraqi government has also lifted restrictions that once prevented Iraqi and coalition forces from going into areas like Sadr City. American and Iraqi forces have established joint security stations. Those stations are scattered throughout Baghdad and they're helping Iraqis reclaim their neighborhoods from the terrorists and extremists.

Together, we've carried out aggressive operations against both Shia and Sunni extremists; carried out operations against al Qaeda terrorists. We've uncovered large caches of weapons and destroyed two major car bomb factories that were located on the outskirts of Baghdad.

I want to stress that this operation is still in the early stages, it's still in the beginning stages. Fewer than half of the troop reinforcements we are sending have arrived in Baghdad. The new strategy will need more time to take effect. And there will be good days, and there will be bad days ahead as the security plan unfolds.

As we help the Iraqis secure their capital, their leaders are also beginning to meet the benchmarks they have laid out for political reconciliation. Last month, Iraq's Council of Ministers approved a law that would share oil revenues among Iraqi people. The Iraqi legislature passed a $41 billion budget that includes $10 billion for reconstruction and capital improvements. And last week, Prime Minister Maliki visited Ramadi, a city in the Sunni heartland, to reach out to local Sunni tribal leaders.

There's been good progress. There's a lot more work to be done, and Iraq's leaders must continue to work to meet the benchmarks that have set forward.

As Iraqis work to keep their commitments, we have important commitments of our own. Members of Congress are now considering an emergency war spending bill. They have a responsibility to ensure that this bill provides the funds and the flexibility that our troops need to accomplish their mission. They have a responsibility to pass a clean bill that does not use funding for our troops as leverage to get special interest spending for their districts. And they have a responsibility to get this bill to my desk without strings and without delay.

It can be tempting to look at the challenges in Iraq and conclude our best option is to pack up and go home. That may be satisfying in the short run, but I believe the consequences for American security would be devastating. If American forces were to step back from Baghdad before it is more secure, a contagion of violence could spill out across the entire country. In time, this violence could engulf the region. The terrorists could emerge from the chaos with a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they had in Afghanistan, which they used to plan the attacks of September the 11th, 2001. For the safety of the American people, we cannot allow this to happen.

Prevailing in Iraq is not going to be easy. General Petraeus says that the environment in Iraq is the most challenging that he has seen in his more than 32 years of service. He also says that he has been impressed by the professionalism and the skill and determination of our men and women in uniform. He sees in our troops "a true will to win and a sincere desire to help our Iraqi partners achieve success."

Four years after this war began, the fight is difficult, but it can be won. It will be won if we have the courage and resolve to see it through. I'm grateful to our servicemen and women for all they've done and for the honor they brought to their uniform and their country. I'm grateful to our military families for all the sacrifices they have made for our country. We also hold in our hearts the good men and women who've given their lives in this struggle. We pray for the loved ones they have left behind.

The United States military is the most capable and courageous fighting force in the world. And whatever our differences in Washington, our troops and their families deserve the appreciation and the support of our entire nation.

Thank you.

END 11:38 A.M. EDT. For Immediate Release, Office of the Press Secretary, March 19, 2007

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House or Sadr City and Operation Iraqi Freedom or emergency war spending bill and war on terror or Saddam Hussein and Coalition forces or Prime Minister Maliki and PODCAST

Hilliary Clinton as Big Brother VIDEO

"It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen. Winston Smith, his chin nuzzled into his breast in an effort to escape the vile wind, slipped quickly through the glass doors of Victory Mansions, though not quickly enough to prevent a swirl of gritty dust from entering along with him.

The hallway smelt of boiled cabbage and old rag mats. At one end of it a colored poster, too large for indoor display, had been tacked to the wall. It dipicted simply an enormous face, more than a meter wide: the face of a man about forty-five, with a heavy black mustache and ruggedly handsome features. Winston made for the stairs. It was no use trying the lift. Even in the best of times it was seldom working, and at present the electric current was cut off during daylight hours.

It was part of the economy drive ir preperation for Hate Week. The flat was seven flights up, and Winston who was thiry-nine, and had a vericose ulser above his right ankle, went slowly resting several times on the way. On each landing opposite the lift shaft, the poster with the enormous face gazed from the wall. It was one of those pictures which are so contrived that the eyes follow you about when you move. BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU, the caption beneath it ran." 1984 By George Orwell

Technorati Tags: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama or Big Brother and 1984 or VIDEO

Crops feeling the heat of global warming

LIVERMORE, Calif. — Warming temperatures since 1981 have caused annual losses of roughly $5 billion for the major cereal crops, a study has found.

From 1981-2002, fields of wheat, corn and barley throughout the world have produced a combined 40 million metric tons less per year because of increasing temperatures caused by human activities.

“There is clearly a negative response of global yields to increased temperatures,” said David Lobell, a Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory researcher and lead author of the study that appears online March 16 in Environmental Research Letters. “Though the impacts are relatively small compared to the technological yield gains over the same period, the results demonstrate that negative impacts of climate trends on crop yields at the global scale are already occurring.”

This is the first study to estimate how much global food production already has been affected by climate change. Annual global temperatures increased by about 0.7 degrees Fahrenheit between 1980 and 2002, with even larger changes observed in several regions.

“Most people tend to think of climate change as something that will impact the future, but this study shows that warming over the past two decades already has had real effects on global food supply,” said Christopher Field, co-author on the study and director of Carnegie Institution’s Department of Global Ecology.

Lobell and Field studied climate effects on the six most widely grown crops in the world – wheat, rice, maize (corn), soybeans, barley and sorghum (a genus of about 30 species of grasses raised for grain). Production of these crops accounts for more than 40 percent of global cropland area, 55 percent of non-meat calories and more than 70 percent of animal feed.

Using global yield figures for 1961-2002 from the Food and Agriculture Organization, Lobell and Field compared yields with average temperatures and precipitation over the major growing regions.

They found that, on average, global crop yields respond negatively to warmer temperatures for several of the crops. Lobell and Field then used these relationships to estimate the effect of observed warming trends.

“To do this, we assumed that farmers have not yet adapted to climate change, for example by selecting new crop varieties to deal with climate change,” Lobell said. “If they have been adapting – something that is very difficult to measure – then the effects of warming may have been lower.”

Most experts believe that adaptation would lag several years behind climate trends, because of the difficultly of distinguishing climate trends from natural variability.

The importance of this study, the authors said, was that it demonstrates a clear and simple relationship at the global scale, with yields dropping by approximately 3-5 percent for a one-degree Fahrenheit increase. “A key moving forward is how well cropping systems can adapt to a warmer world,” Lobell said. “Investments in this area could potentially save billions of dollars and millions of lives.”

Founded in 1952, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has a mission to ensure national security and apply science and technology to the important issues of our time. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is managed by the University of California for the U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration.

Contact: Anne Stark Phone: (925) 422-9799 E-mail: stark8@llnl.gov FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE. March 16, 2007, NR-07-03-09

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 7000 East Avenue • Livermore, CA 94550, Operated by the University of California for the Department of Energy's and National Nuclear Security Administration

Technorati Tags: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and cereal crops or global food production and climate change, or Global Ecology and wheat, rice, maize (corn), soybeans, barley and sorghum or Food and Agriculture and global warming

Freedom Calendar 03/17/07 - 03/24/07

March 17, 1825, Birth of Benjamin Turner (R-AL), emancipated slave elected to House from Alabama in 1870; delegate to 1880 Republican National Convention.

March 18, 1877, Republican President Rutherford B. Hayes appoints African-American Republican and civil rights leader Frederick Douglass as D.C. Marshal.

March 19, 2003, Republican U.S. Representatives of Hispanic and Portuguese descent form Congressional Hispanic Conference.

March 20, 1854, Opponents of Democrats’ pro-slavery policies meet in Ripon, Wisconsin to establish the Republican Party.

March 21, 1965, Republican federal judge Frank Johnson authorizes Martin Luther King’s protest march from Selma to Montgomery, overruling Democrat Governor George Wallace.

March 22, 1871, Spartansburg Republican newspaper denounces Ku Klux Klan campaign to eradicate the Republican Party in South Carolina.

March 23, 1823, Birth of Schuyler Colfax (R-IN), who as Speaker of the House broke precedent to vote for Republicans’ constitutional amendment banning slavery; later served as Vice President.

March 24, 1902, Birth of Thomas Dewey (R-NY), who as Governor introduced nation’s first statewide civil rights law; Republican presidential candidate in 1944 and 1948.

“Our destiny is largely in our own hands. If we find, we shall have to seek. If we succeed in the race of life it must be by our own energies, and by our own exertions. Others may clear the road, but we must go forward, or be left behind in the race of life."

Frederick Douglass, Republican Civil Rights Activist

Technorati Tags: President Bush and Freedom Calendar or Booker T. Washington and Republicans or African-Americans and Brown v. Board of Education or Ronald Reagan and Condoleezza Rice or Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass or 40 acres and a mule or Martin Luther King and Voting Rights Act of 1965 or Dred Scott

Presidential Podcast 03/17/07

Presidential Podcast 03/17/07 . In Focus: Defense, Subscribe to Our Odeo or podnova Podcast Channel and receive the weekly Presidential Radio Address in English and Spanish with select State Department Briefings. Featuring real audio and full text transcripts, More content Sources added often so stay tuned.

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House radio address or Congress and General David Petraeus or emergency war spending bill and war on terror or Secretary of Defense and Robert Gates or Farm Service Agency and PODCAST

Bush radio address 03/17/07 full audio, text transcript

bush radio address 03/17/07 full audio, text transcript. PODCAST and, President's Radio Address . In Focus: Defense

Subscribe to Our Odeo or podnova Podcast Channel and receive the weekly Presidential Radio Address in English and Spanish with select State Department Briefings. Featuring real audio and full text transcripts, More content Sources added often so stay tuned.

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. In times of war, Congress has no greater obligation than funding our war fighters. And next week, the House will begin debate on an emergency war spending bill.

The purpose of this legislation should be to give our troops on the front lines the resources, funds, and equipment they need to fight our enemies. Unfortunately, some in Congress are using this bill as an opportunity to micromanage our military commanders, force a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, and spend billions on domestic projects that have nothing to do with the war on terror.

Our troops urgently need Congress to approve emergency war funds. Over the past several weeks, our Nation has begun pursuing a new strategy in Iraq. Under the leadership of General David Petraeus, our troops have launched a difficult and dangerous mission to help Iraqis secure their capital. This plan is still in its early stages, yet we're already seeing signs of progress. Iraqi and American troops have rounded up more than 700 people affiliated with Shia extremists. They've also launched aggressive operations against Sunni extremists. And they've uncovered large caches of weapons that could have been used to kill our troops. These are hopeful signs. As these operations unfold, they will help the Iraqi government stabilize the country, rebuild the economy, and advance the work of political reconciliation. Yet the bill Congress is considering would undermine General Petraeus and the troops under his command just as these critical security operations are getting under way.

First, the bill would impose arbitrary and restrictive conditions on the use of war funds and require the withdrawal of forces by the end of this year if these conditions are not met. These restrictions would handcuff our generals in the field by denying them the flexibility they need to adjust their operations to the changing situation on the ground. And these restrictions would substitute the mandates of Congress for the considered judgment of our military commanders.
Even if every condition required by this bill was met, all American forces -- except for very limited purposes -- would still be required to withdraw next year, regardless of the situation in Iraq. The consequences of imposing such an artificial timetable would be disastrous.

Here is what Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recently told Congress: Setting a fixed date to withdraw would "essentially tell [the enemy] how long they would have to wait until we're gone." If American forces were to step back from Baghdad before it is more secure, the scale and scope of attacks would increase and intensify. A contagion of violence could spill out across the entire country, and in time, this violence would engulf the region. The enemy would emerge from the chaos emboldened with new safe havens, new recruits, new resources, and an even greater determination to harm America. Such an outcome would be a nightmare for our country.

Second, the bill would cut funding for the Iraqi security forces if Iraqi leaders did not meet rigid conditions set by Congress. This makes no sense. Members of Congress have often said that the Iraqis must step forward and take more responsibility for their own security -- and I agree. Yet Members of Congress can't have it both ways: They can't say that the Iraqis must do more and then take away the funds that will help them do so. Iraq is a young democracy that is fighting for its survival in a region that is vital to American security. To cut off support for their security forces at this critical moment would put our own security at risk.

Third, the bill would add billions of dollars in domestic spending that is completely unrelated to the war. For example, the House bill would provide $74 million for peanut storage, $48 million for the Farm Service Agency, and $35 million for NASA. These programs do not belong in an emergency war spending bill. Congress must not allow debate on domestic spending to delay funds for our troops on the front lines. And Members should not use funding our troops as leverage to pass special interest spending for their districts.

We are a Nation at war, and the heaviest responsibilities fall to our troops in the field. Yet we in Washington have responsibilities, as well. General Petraeus was confirmed by the Senate without a single vote in opposition, and he and his troops need these resources to succeed in their mission. Many in Congress say they support the troops, and I believe them. Now they have a chance to show that support in deed, as well as in word. Congress needs to approve emergency funding for our troops, without strings and without delay. If they send me a bill that does otherwise, I will veto it.

Thank you for listening.

END

For Immediate Release, Office of the Press Secretary, March 17, 2007

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House radio address or Congress and General David Petraeus or emergency war spending bill and war on terror or Secretary of Defense and Robert Gates or Farm Service Agency and PODCAST

Discurso Radial del Presidente a la Nación 03/17/07

forre el audio de la dirección de radio 03/17/07 por completo, transcripción del texto. (nota de los redactores: ninguna lengua española mp3 lanzó esta semana, apesadumbrada) PODCAST Discurso Radial del Presidente.

Suscribir a nuestro canal de Podcast de Odeo o del podnova y recibir la dirección de radio presidencial semanal en inglés y español con informes selectos del departamento del estado. Ofreciendo transcripciones audio y con texto completo verdaderas, más fuentes contentas agregaron a menudo así que la estancia templó.

Buenos días. En tiempos de guerra, la obligación más importante del Congreso es financiar a nuestros combatientes, y la próxima semana, la Cámara de Representantes comenzará a debatir un proyecto de ley sobre el presupuesto de emergencia para la guerra.

El propósito de esta ley debe ser darles a nuestras tropas en el frente los recursos, fondos y equipo que necesitan para luchar contra nuestros enemigos. Desafortunadamente, algunos en el Congreso están usando esta propuesta como una oportunidad de controlar las decisiones de nuestros comandantes militares... forzar una retirada precipitada de Iraq... y gastar miles de millones de dólares en proyectos nacionales que no tienen ninguna relación con la guerra contra el terrorismo.

Nuestros soldados necesitan urgentemente que el Congreso apruebe los fondos de emergencia para la guerra. En semanas recientes, nuestro país ha comenzado una nueva estrategia en Iraq. Bajo el liderazgo del general David Petraeus, nuestras tropas han iniciado una misión difícil y peligrosa para ayudar a los iraquíes a proteger su capital. Este plan aún se encuentra en las etapas iniciales, pero ya estamos viendo señales de progreso. Soldados iraquíes y estadounidenses han detenido a más de 700 personas afiliadas con extremistas chiítas. También han puesto en marcha operaciones enérgicas contra los extremistas suníes. Y han descubierto grandes reservas clandestinas de armas que podrían haberse usado para matar a nuestros soldados.

Éstas son buenas señales. Y a medida que estas operaciones se desarrollen, ayudarán al gobierno de Iraq a estabilizar el país... reestructurar la economía... y avanzar en la labor de la reconciliación política. Sin embargo, el proyecto de ley que el Congreso está considerando menoscabaría los esfuerzos del general Petraeus y las fuerzas a su mando, precisamente cuando estas operaciones críticas de seguridad están poniéndose en marcha.

En primer lugar, el proyecto de ley impondría condiciones arbitrarias y restrictivas en el uso de los fondos para la guerra, y requeriría la retirada de tropas para fines de este año si no se cumplen estas condiciones. Estas restricciones atarían de manos a nuestros generales sobre el terreno al negarles la flexibilidad que necesitan para modificar sus operaciones según la situación cambiante en el campo de acción. Y estas restricciones sustituirían las decisiones ponderadas de nuestros comandantes militares por los mandatos del Congreso.

Incluso si se cumpliera con cada una de las condiciones exigidas en este proyecto de ley, todavía se requeriría que todas las fuerzas estadounidenses, excepto algunas con objetivos muy limitados, se retirasen el próximo año, independientemente de la situación en Iraq. Las consecuencias de imponer un calendario tan artificial serían desastrosas. El secretario de Defensa Robert Gates recientemente le dijo lo siguiente al Congreso: Fijar una fecha exacta para retirarnos sería "esencialmente decirle [al enemigo] cuánto debe esperar para nuestra partida". Si las fuerzas estadounidenses se marcharan de Bagdad antes de que haya más seguridad, la escala y el alcance de los ataques aumentarían y se intensificarían. La violencia se propagaría y se extendería por todo el país, y con el tiempo, esta violencia podría afectar a toda la región. El enemigo surgiría envalentonado del caos, con refugios nuevos... reclutas nuevos... recursos nuevos... incluso mayor determinación de hacerle daño a Estados Unidos. Ese resultado sería una pesadilla para nuestro país.

En segundo lugar, el proyecto de ley eliminaría fondos para las Fuerzas de Seguridad de Iraq si los líderes iraquíes no cumplen con las condiciones estrictas impuestas por el Congreso. Esto no tiene sentido. Los miembros del Congreso han dicho a menudo que los iraquíes deben asumir mayor responsabilidad en su propia seguridad, y estoy de acuerdo con ellos. Sin embargo, los congresistas tienen que elegir: No pueden decir que los iraquíes deben hacer más, y luego quitarles los fondos para ayudarlos a hacerlo. Iraq es una democracia joven que está luchando por su supervivencia en una región vital para la seguridad estadounidense. Quitarles el apoyo a sus fuerzas de seguridad en este momento crítico pondría en peligro nuestra propia seguridad.

En tercer lugar, se incrementaría en miles de millones de dólares los gastos internos, con partidas no relacionadas en absoluto con la guerra. Por ejemplo, el proyecto de ley de la Cámara de Representantes asignaría 74 millones de dólares al almacenaje de cacahuates... 48 millones de dólares a la Agencia de Servicios Agrícolas... y 35 millones de dólares a NASA. Estos programas no tienen cabida en una propuesta de fondos de emergencia para la guerra. El Congreso no debe permitir que el debate sobre gastos nacionales retrase los recursos para nuestras tropas en el frente. Y los congresistas no deben usar el dinero de nuestras tropas para ejercer presión para la aprobación de gastos que responden a intereses particulares para sus distritos.

Somos una nación en guerra, y las mayores responsabilidades recaen en nuestras tropas sobre el terreno. Sin embargo, nosotros en Washington también tenemos responsabilidades. El general Petraeus recibió la confirmación del Senado sin un solo voto en contra, y él y sus tropas necesitan estos recursos para triunfar en su misión. Muchos en el Congreso dicen que apoyan a las tropas, y les creo. Ahora tienen la oportunidad de mostrar ese respaldo con hechos, además de con palabras. El Congreso debe aprobar los fondos de emergencia para nuestros soldados, sin imponer condiciones ni causar retrasos. Si me remiten un proyecto de ley que disponga lo contrario, lo vetaré.

Gracias por escuchar. ###

Para su publicación inmediata, Oficina del Secretario de Prensa, 17 de marzo de 2007

Etiquetas De Technorati: Discurso Radial del Presidente a la Nación, y Presidente Bush, o Congreso y General David Petraeus, o Tropas americanas, o Secretaria de la defensa y Robert Gates o Iraq

Lieutenant General Henry Obering U.S. Missile Defense VIDEO PODCAST

Press Conference with Lieutenant General Henry Obering Regarding U.S. Missile Defense FULL STREAMING VIDEO, PODCAST OF THIS ARTICLE m3u for online streaming and mp3 for download

Berlin, Germany, March 15, 2007, Released by the United States Mission to Germany, Public Affairs Section

GENERAL OBERING: I am very pleased to be back in Germany . You can tell from my last name it is where my ancestors came from. I am very much looking forward to discussions with the German government today and further consultations with other allies in the next several weeks. What I like to do is just provide some context and give some background and maybe that will open up and spurn some questions on your part and then we can go from there.

In the past several years the United States has been fielding a missile defense system that has been geared toward protecting the United States from North Korea . This certainly came to light into a tremendous emphasis in the United States last summer, when the North Koreans of course stacked the several missiles that they did and launched them on the 4th of July and the 5th of July. And we fortunately -- because of the investments we had made over the past two and a half years -- we were able to have a system that we could turn on to protect the United States had those missiles threatened the United States territory. One in particular we know was a long range missile that they were tempting to fire. And they weren't telling us what was on the top of that missile. Our strategy has been to provide the protection to the United States against North Korea and then to turn our attention to the threat that we see to emerging from Iran . That is why we are finishing up work this year on a radar system in the United Kingdom in Fylingdales and also beginning to work on a radar system in Greenland in Tula ; and we have been working with the government of Denmark on that. That protection will provide coverage of the United States .

Unfortunately it does not provide coverage for our European allies, our friends or deployed forces in this region. To that end we have begun -- gotten approval to begin -- discussions to place missile defense assets in the European region that would protect our allies and friends as well as the United States from what we see to be a very serious threat emerging from Iran . A very aggressive missile developed program there and a very aggressive missile test program in Iran .

What we would be proposing would be a very small interceptor site up to ten interceptors in Poland, a radar in the Czech Republic that would provide tracking for those interceptors, and that we would hopefully begin this work in the next year and have it completed --it is going to take us about four to five years to do this -- have it completed by 2011, 2012 timeframe. Because we believe certainly by then we are very much concerned about the ability of the Iranians to reach almost all of Europe by that point, and certainly they may also be able to reach the United States .

So what we are proposing is clearly geared toward that threat, the Iranian threat. This has caused what I consider to be consternation and misinformation on the part of some nations; and so one of the reasons that we want to try to visit the various governments -- make sure that all of this information is clear and is transparent as we possibly can be about it. And I would like to address just a couple of those.

First of all I want to make it very clear. These are defensive missiles, defensive interceptors. We have perfected a technology in the United States called "hit to kill" . It is where we actually basically drive what we call a kill vehicle into an enemy warhead. There are no explosives, there is no warhead on these interceptors. It basically is a collection of seekers and the associated rockets to be able to maneuver those seekers to intercept the enemy missile. So we're not proposing any type of offensive capabilities, these are only defense. Consequently the only time that one of these interceptors will be launched is if there had already been a launch of a warhead of an offensive missile by Iran , and so that's very important to keep in mind.

Also, we have been asked about -- you're just doing this to protect the United States and it doesn't really protect Europe , and that's just not true. The coverage that these interceptors will provide would cover those nations that would be vulnerable to the long range threat that we see emerging from Iran . Nations that would not be covered farther to the East are so close to the Iranian threat that they would not be using long range missiles against those nations anyway. So this is not meant to in any way separate countries in terms of coverage. It covers those countries that would need to be covered against the long range threat.

There's also been a concern about debris, and I'd like to address that. As I said we've done extensive testing on all ranges of interceptors from the short to the long ranges interceptors. We fully understand what kind of debris is remaining from one of these intercepts and it is a tremendous amount of energy released when you have one of these intercepts. It basically pulverizes, if I can use that word, the warheads. We know that the particles are extremely small from the debris and it still has to come back to the atmosphere and most of that gets burned up. Certainly it's in any way shape or form is not a case of where and any missile is launched an interceptor is launched and debris falls just beneath it. What happens is after you intercept, the debris continues in the arcs that the two, the interceptor and the missile, are flying so the debris patterns for the most part do not fall straight down. We have done calculations to see whatever could make it back to the ground, what kind of casualties that we would have there, and even in the most densely populated areas you'd be talking less than one in a thousand chance. That's just a chance of a single casualty. One in two and a half million is more the norm when you get into most of the areas of population.

And also, one of the points I want to emphasize it is not whether you have debris or whether you do not have debris it is whether you have debris or you have a warhead impacting in terms of what you would choose to be able to endure. So we do not believe that debris is a significant issue. And I'd be glad to answer more questions about that.

In addition, there has been a strong Russian reaction to what we proposed. I'd like to clarify our engagement and hopefully clarify some of our future plans. First of all the Russians have announced that it changes the strategic balance between the United States and Russia , and we just outright reject that. Number one, you're talking about ten interceptors that we would place against potentially hundreds of missiles or thousands of warheads that the Russians maintain. This in no way shape or form threatens the Russian missile fleet. The numbers just don't add up. In addition, the reason we selected Poland and the Czech Republic for the potential positioning of theses assets is because it was optimum for the Iranian threat. It is not optimum if we were trying to address the Russian missiles. In fact, they are not positioned to where we can even catch the Russian missiles with these interceptors. So again, from a numbers perspective, from a performance perspective, this does not present a threat to the Russian missile fleet.

And the final point in that is, we have nothing to gain by doing so. We had a stable relationship with the Russians for many decades. That's not what changed -- the Russians have not changed, the Americans have not changed. What has changed here has been the very aggressive development in testing of missiles by Iran . That's what has changed and that's what we have to move, we believe, to address that threat and that we need to do that in a fairly timely manner. One last point on that is we want to be as open and as transparent as possible. We have a standing invitation to the Russians to visit missile defense sites in the United States . As I said, we have actually now deployed interceptors in Alaska and in California , and we have invited them to be able to visit those locations; and it would also be acceptable to us if the Russians wanted to visit the European locations. Obviously it would be up to the host nation government for that to occur, but it's certainly okay with us, and we will continue consultations.

I have been to Moscow going back -- I've been to Moscow in November. I personally met with the Minister of Defense and the Chief of the General Staff where there have been discussions with the Russians ongoing about this for over a year and we will continue to do that. We will continue to engage with them to have discussions and talks with them to get experts involved and that we hopefully will begin to allay the fears that the Russians may have about this. Also discussions with allies. I have personally briefed the North Atlantic Council twice. I have briefed the NATO Russia Council twice. We are in consultations with our NATO allies. The purpose of my trip this week has been to continue those discussions on a bilateral basis. We will reengage at the NATO collective level in April to further the discussions here, so it is not as if the United States is trying to do this alone. We are trying to make sure that we are as collaborative and consultative as possible as we go through this. But as I said, we do believe there is an urgency with respect to this threat and we think that we have an obligation to protect the U.S. citizens from this threat and certainly our deployed forces and allies in this region.

Okay, with that I'd be happy to answer any questions.

QUESTION: How do you explain the obvious contradiction that on the one side you are telling us -- speaking about a long range threat and then say many experts disagree, they say Iran (inaudible)& What is your opinion? Do you also see the forthcoming development that the US with this position is dividing Europe and NATO or at least irritate Russia ?

GENERAL OBERING: Okay, first of all, with the long range threat coming from Iran --let me tell you a little anecdote that occurred with North Korea . North Korea was testing short and medium- range missiles back in the 90s. They over flew Japan with a missile in the 90s. And then there were many experts that said that there would not be a capability of a long range missile from North Korea in many years. That was declared in 1998. Then the next month they launched a long range missile that showed multi-staged capability. It surprised the United States , it surprised all the experts around the world. So there is an element of uncertainty with respect to what we can predict and what we can not predict. We see -- and you can turn the television on and take a look at some of the testing the Iranians have done as recently as just this last month and certainly in the testing they did in the fall. Again showing several launches of short range missiles, launches of medium range missiles, and they have a stated intent to develop a space launch capability, which they believe, at least they say, is imminent. If that is true, if they develop a space launch capability, they have demonstrated all of the building blocs that you need for an intercontinental ballistic missile. Multi-stages begin with a control of missiles through stages, and with the ambiguity in their nuclear program it is not a risk that we feel is prudent to take. There is no rational for leaving populations open to that threat.

And one other point there. The Iranians would not necessarily have to even use these weapons. Just the threat of use of these weapons and the coercion they would try to be able to achieve, is something that we have to be concerned about. So it is not the Russians, the Russians is not the threat we are concerned about, it is the Iranians and it is the proliferation of what we see to be their threat. We saw last summer what happened when there were attacks by Hezbollah on Israel . 4000 rockets what we consider to be very short range rockets or missiles launched to them. The Israelis were not prepared for that. That shows what can be demonstrated from even the short range versions of these missiles being able to shut down entire regions of Northern Israel .

So I think it is a risk we have to weigh in consideration. And experts can agree or disagree as to timing. We know that there has been cooperation between the North Koreans and the Iranians, and that is another reason why it is hard to predict when they may have a certain capability or not. But most experts, at least in the Intel community agree, that they will have something about the early to mid next decade otherwise 2010 -2015 in that timeframe. And like I said before, even if we start this year we will not have the capabilities in place until 2011, 2012. And so I believe it is a risk that we need to try to address.

I would like -- in terms of dividing Europe -- I think what this actually does it can more unite Europe , if we think of this in a right way. Again, if we focus on the Iranians as being the problem what we should be doing is using the proposed capabilities that the U.S. would built along with the Czech Republic and Poland as the long range protection under which NATO provides shorter range protection. And we would be able to integrate those capabilities together. Now if we are able to do that and present and even include the Russians in that activity, what you would do is, you devalue these missiles in the eyes of the threat nations. One of the reasons I believe why you see the proliferation of these missiles around the world -- and that has been considerable over the past many years -- is because they are valuable when you do not have a defense against them. It is a way that they get asymmetrically challenged the United States and allies and friendly countries around the world that have conventional capabilities; they can asymmetrically challenge us. If we present a united front we begin to devalues those missiles and devalue those assets and hopefully dissuade them from investing further in the building and construction of them.

QUESTION: How reliable is the system, how accurate is it? And about the debris. Obviously we are talking about encountering nuclear missiles and interceptors. How about the nuclear warhead, what will happen if that rocket is intercepted?"

GENERAL OBERING: Okay, first of all on the reliability. This is something that is not very well known, I think, certainly worldwide and even to some degree in our country to the extent that it should be. We have had tremendous success in this program in recent years. And it has been because of the investments and the hard work of thousands of Americans and frankly some of our allies working on this. For example, we are building a capability against short range missiles, medium range missiles and long range missiles. So we have the Patriot System to handle the shorter range missiles, we have the Aeges sea-based system to handle the medium range and shorter range, and then we have what we call the ground-based Midcourse System to handle the long-range threats. We also have in development what we call the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense Interceptor, that is a very mobile interceptor that can operate in the very upper reaches of the atmosphere far greater than patriot and just outside of the atmosphere as well.

Now between those programs last summer, we were able to successfully intercept in the low atmosphere with Patriot and the upper atmosphere with the Terminal High Altitude area defense, outside the atmosphere with the Aeges sea-based as well as with the ground based system. With that long range test, we launched a target from Alaska , we flew it down into the South Pacific and we intercepted with an interceptor out of Vandenberg. And that test that was a very threat representative target; we flew across an operational radar in California; we had an operational fire control system that was operated by soldiers, and we had an operational interceptor identical to the ones that we have on the ground in Alaska and California. Achieved that intercept. And so we believe that we have been very successful and that we are proving that this technology is reliable.

In fact, since 2001 we have now had 24 successful "hit to kill" intercepts among those programs. So we are confident that technology works. And it is a technical challenge but we think that we again we have invested almost 100 billion dollars in this effort. So we are beginning to see the rewards of this investment over these past many years. And to talk about, again, debris. Again, I want to make sure everybody understands we are not talking about whether we have debris or whether we don't have debris. We are talking about whether we have debris that comes down or whether we have a warhead that impacts on European or U.S. soil. That is important to keep in mind. Having said that though, what we precisely want to do is, if you have a nuclear warhead inbound you want to intercept that as high as you can, and get it to detonate in the upper reaches well outside the atmosphere and the upper reaches of space.

QUESTION: Will it detonate?

GENERAL OBERING: We don't know. We don't know that it will or that it won't. There is a likelihood it will but we don't know since we don't know what that construction would be, etc. We know it will probably not be a very high heeled weapon coming from the Iranians if they develop those. So we believe that it is worth building that defense to be able to take that out. It is clearly better to do the intercept than to not do the intercept and let the warhead hit."

QUESTION: I wonder whether you can use the missile that you already have or whether you are developing a new system to (inaudible) to protect, for example, Portugal or Spain.

GENERAL OBERING: We are using the missiles that we have. There are some modifications that are made to adapt to the European, what we call the battle space -- otherwise how far you have to go. It would cover Spain , and what the other -- Portugal , you said? -- yes, it would cover those regions. I would like to say it would cover all of the nations that would be vulnerable to a longer range attack from Iran ."

QUESTION: Two questions. In your consultations over the past year, what were the reactions that you were getting anything like the public reaction that (inaudible) President Putin last month or were they saying something different prior to that? And have you brought up this idea that Russia might participate somehow in this effort, and what is the reaction to that? And I just want to clarify. Would Israel be protected by this system?

GENERAL OBERING: Israel would not be protected by this system. First of all, the directional coverage is not conducive to covering Israel , but there other assets that could be used to cover Israel . Of course, Israel has developed their own aero system and they have their patriot missiles as well that they work in combination with each other, so it would not cover them.

With respect to the Russian reaction. When we first started talking about this there was discomfort is the way I describe it and a level of suspicion, but not to the degree that we saw the reaction when we announced that we are going to begin the discussions with the Czechs and the Poles. So again, I think that a lot of this is continuing that engagement with Russia , explaining exactly what we are doing, getting into the technical details. We are scheduling a meeting of technical experts so that we can get to that level of degree that will give them more understanding of the capabilities and limitations. And I am hopeful that that will alleviate some of their concerns. I can't guarantee that but I hope that it will.

And we are open to participation by the Russians; in fact, there are ongoing discussions with the Russians as to how they could participate in missile defense over all and what types of things that we could do together in partnership. Those talks have been stalled to some degree in terms of what I would consider to be some bureaucratic measures that have been taken. On both sides we need to get by that and get on with that discussion. Things like, for example, data sharing, where there are radars that could be useful to, you know, if we could share data from the Czech Republic or radars that the Russians may have. That is one way just on the service to participate. There was a development program that we have with the Russians called Ramos, which was a satellite program that we were co-developing that ran into some cost problems that we had to basically walk away from. But I think this is a time that we can renew that partnership to see what we can do for the future with being able to provide protection."

QUESTION: General, do you think the system should be brought into NATO?

GENERAL OBERING: I believe that this system would complement NATO very nicely, if you mean should it be brought into NATO in terms of capability, defensive capability. Historically how has NATO defended itself? There are only a handful of programs that NATO has actually developed. The NATO AWACS program, for example. There are several programs that are in the works, like the NATO Air Command and Control System, the NATO air to ground surveillance system, but the majority of the NATO defensive capability is provided by member nations that come together in a cohesive defensive force.

I see this being very much in the same vein, where the US is providing along with the Czech Republic and Poland a contribution to a missile defense capability for NATO that could protect against a long range and what we call intermediate range missiles. And that NATO has started, by the way, an active layer theater missile defense program that would handle the shorter range missiles. So you can see this as being complimentary of what NATO is doing, and that is the type of discussions that we are having within NATO, within the council, and within our NATO allies, bilateral discussions.

So I am not at all against that and in fact I personally briefed the North Atlantic Council twice. I will continue to do consultations. That is the purpose of this trip; we have others planned to try to gain as much understanding as we can of what our plans are and why we think they can be complimentary to a NATO future and not to try to divide Europe or divide NATO in any way, shape or form.

QUESTION: What is the most important item of the consultation? Please talk about the difficulties in regard to Russia ?

GENERAL OBERING: The most important items of consultation have been first of all gaining an understanding from our perspective, trying to convey what the capabilities and limitations of the system are; make sure that folks understand that this is a defensive system it is not an offensive system. We talk a little bit of the operation of the system, how it operates, how the mechanics work. We also talk about coverage, we talk about timetables and that type of thing. We also -- this is not a one-way conversation -- we also are there to listen to what our allies have to say, to make recommendations. And we take those to heart, to listen to their recommendations on both, the way we may go about this as well as the key points that they are concerned about; what are their issues, what are their concerns. That is how, for example, the whole discussion of debris came up. And what does that mean and what is the extent of that? There was a discussion at one point that was geared at what the gentlemen asked about the electromagnetic pulse effects and those types of things with intercepts and what does that mean.

And also that is -- to the technical side and also to what I would consider to be the communicated side is -- how can we better explain what we are doing, how can we better interact between our NATO partners and ourselves on this. And then again the difficulties with the Russians, I think, primarily center around the location. They are just very concerned, I think, because of the nearness of Poland , the nearness of the Czech Republic and not quite understand about why those nations were chosen. And, like I said, we are willing to explain to the Russians. I actually showed trajectories from Iran to Europe, from Iran to the United States, why the Czech Republic and Poland would be important, and they have positioned assets there. It is not aimed against them. As I said earlier, it is actually too close and not in a very good position at all for any kind of direction against Russia . And nor do we want to and nor do we need to. There have been some suspicions that,  oh, well, this is just a ploy to get offensive missiles instead of defensive,' and clearly that is not the case.

There are significant differences between offensive missiles and defense missiles. These defensive missiles, because these interceptors operate on this "hit to kill" kinetic energy principle, they are very light weight -- the kill vehicle, by the way, for these interceptors only weighs 150 pounds, so about 70 kilograms. It is not very big. So this is not a massive nuclear warhead that would go on to an ICBM and, plus, there would have to be significant modifications made if we tried to do that. That would be easily observable and recognizable. So there is not a concern we believe there.

Another difficult point was, the U.S. is just attempting to take the first step and then they are going actually deploy many, many more.' And that is just not true. As much as I would like to have more money in our budget, we don't. You can look out through 2013 in our budget and see that [we don't] have any more money for other than the ten interceptors that we propose, which we think would be adequate to handle the Iranian threat in the timeframe that we are talking about. We don't have any plans to further expand or to add into the system with any type of dramatic land-based components.

QUESTION: General, a question about the debris. Is there a chance that debris might fall on Germany and so how high is it? And the second question. Have you been in talks about debris with the German government already?

GENERAL OBERING: Part of my discussions today will be concerning that topic with the German government. Where debris falls is all contingent upon where the missile is being aimed. It turns out that a lot of the debris that would occur from intercepts from Iran that target in the United States do not come in Germany at all or into this region or nor Russia; a lot of the debris patterns will be out over the ocean. But there are targets in Europe of which you could have debris patterns that could fall in Europe ; but there again it all depends on the trajectory, it depends on what the target is. There is a different debris pattern for London , if they were a target, than there would be for Berlin or whatever. So it all depends. But again, I want to emphasize debris is not the issue. Debris is not the issue. You are not talking about whether you choose to be under debris or under a potential warhead impact. So there that is a very easy decision."

QUESTION: You have been to Georgia two weeks ago, I think. Would it make sense to station radar or interceptors in Georgia or the Caucasus ? And would it make sense place the installations that are planned for Poland and the Czech Republic in the East of Germany?

GENERAL OBERING: First of all, no, I had not been to Georgia . No I have not. I have been to Georgia in the United States , but (laughter). No, it does not make sense to place interceptors there. That is far too close. That is something else that we were asked:  Why don't you move your interceptors much farther forward and be closer to the threat?' The physics don't work that way. We do not have the ability to intercept a missile in what we call the "boost phase." And that is what you would be attempting to do is to intercept the missile in the boost phase if you move that close to these threat missiles.

We do not have any plans for any type of radar site in Georgia . What I have said in the past is there are three parts to this capability: there is the interceptors in Poland , there is the radar in the Czech Republic and then we have a very small rapidly transportable radar system that can be moved and set up in a matter of days and hours. It's a very small footprint. That would augment the system that is something we would put closer to Iran , but that is not something we are worried about right now. That is something that we have several years to work through were we can work out pre-positioning; so if we had to move it there we could. But we haven't asked any country to host that; it is something that is several years away anyway."

Germany could have been considered as an option. Again, however, from the standpoint of the maximum coverage of trajectories from Iran to U.S. and from Iran into Europe in terms of this coverage, Poland and the Czech Republic came out in the best regards there. Also the battle space, what we call the distance back from Iran .

QUESTION: What do you say to suggestions that in the end you can not prevent the proliferation and you cannot prevent other nations to develop new technology; and therefore the issue has to be tackled from a different angle and that is that you have to go back to the deterrence strategy and (inaudible) that we have been told basically and being from the Cold War. What happened to the deterrence strategy?

GENERAL OBERING: First of all the deterrence strategy is still very alive and very well. And I believe that that has a place in this as well. We often times tend to want to draw what I consider to be false selections. To say you either do this or you do that -- for example, it has been described that missile defense is an enemy of arms control. I could not disagree with that more. I view this as a spectrum. The first thing we have to do is try to prevent the spread of these weapons through talks, discussions, through proliferation security initiatives, through arms control treaties, where that is possible. That is important to do and I think we should continue that activity. But if that fails, as you say, if that fails to stop the proliferation, if it fails to stop the use of these weapons, then you have to come to what is your last option. I think deterrence is important. And I think that there are nations and organizations that can be deterred. But then what happens when you run into an organization or nation that can not be? What if they are not taking the same rational way that you are? Then what do you do? So I see this as a continuum.

We have arms control measures, we have non proliferation initiatives, we have talks and discussions, we have deterrence; but then when all of it fails and you have a warhead that is inbound your population, are you willing to loose tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of lives and in retaliation take out hundreds of thousands and millions of lives because you did not have a way to stop that? So I think this provides an extra blanket of security, it provides an extra option with respect to that protection that I believe is morally bound for governments to provide to their citizens.

QUESTION: General, one of the criticisms that is being made here in Germany is that this project was initially conceived and discussed as pretty much a bilateral project or one that involved only a small group of countries. And only very late in the game, countries like Germany and others in the European Union, being included in the discussion. Wouldn't it have been better to come to NATO at the beginning to discuss this so you don't make yourselves vulnerable to the allegation that NATO is being sidelined and so it becomes unnecessary complicated, because of that?

GENERAL OBERING: We actually have been in a discussion with NATO for quite a while. One of the briefings that I gave to the NATO council was over a year ago. So I would not describe that as coming late to the game. As you all know, by the way, within the United States government, there are discussions that have to take place on whether or not there is approval to move forward on these types of initiatives, do we have funding to be able to build the interceptors and to be able to provide the construction and that type of thing for these sites. And that takes a while to be worked out. So before last year, for example, it would have been premature, because we got permission just in this last year's budget to be able to have the money to begin looking at analysis and potential locations and that type of thing. So there is not an attempt of the United States to move unilaterally and to bypass things here. What there is an attempt to do is to -- basically we waited until we felt like we were going to get supported with our Congress and we did get money appropriated this fiscal year for that. Once that became apparent, we began our discussions with NATO in terms of our plans and what we are proposing and then we began the consultations that I talked about."

QUESTION: What areas will be protected by the interceptors -- Spain , Portugal . (inaudible) covered? All over Europe ?

GENERAL OBERING: Yes. It protects. I do not have a map with me. If you can think about this, the line is almost down about to the Ukraine , it cuts across part of far western Russia and it encompasses down across the south eastern part of Europe . I say that it covers all of the European nations that need to be covered, because anything on the other side of that line is too close for a long range weapon to be able to be launched against it. So you are talking about inside about 1500 kilometers from Iran . And I have to get the exact coverage for that. It depends on the radar coverage and it depends on the trajectories that we are analyzing.

QUESTION: Is there a chance any debris would be radioactive from (inaudible) in the warhead?

GENERAL OBERING: It depends on first of all -- well, would there be a chance if it was a nuclear warhead? -- there would be a high chance that you are going to have some type of radioactive debris. But, there again, how much of that makes it back to the ground and gets burned up in the reentry, so to speak, is questionable. But more importantly again, you'd rather have that than you would a nuclear warhead impact in the ground where it operates as designed and causes mass destruction and casualties or a electromagnetic effect in optimum altitude."

QUESTION: You have just started negotiations with the Czech Republic and Poland . When do you expect the conclusion of these talks?

GENERAL OBERING: We are hoping this year. We are hoping that we can complete these discussions and reach an agreement so we can move ahead this year.

QUESTION: Within this year?

GENERAL OBERING: Within this year, we would like to have that agreement. 2007.

End

Technorati Tags: State Department and Secretary of State or Lieutenant General Henry Obering and Condoleezza Rice, or U.S. Missile Defense and U.S. State Department or NATO

Press Briefing Tony Snow 03/15/07 (VIDEO)

Press Briefing by Tony Snow, FULL STREAMING VIDEO. file is windows media format, running time is 22:54. White House Conference Center Briefing Room. PODCAST OF THIS ARTICLE

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow briefs the press and answers questions. 03/15/2007: WASHINGTON, DC: 12:49 P.M. EST.

MR. SNOW: Hello. The President this morning had a good meeting with the Iraqi Vice President, Adil Abd Al-Mahdi. Among other things, the Iraqi Vice President noted that the ongoing security plan in Iraq is going, as he said, better than expected. But he also noted that we've got a long way to go. There are a lot of issues -- politically, economically, and in terms of security -- to address within Iraq. As he said -- he talked about the hydrocarbon bill and deBaathification. But it was an important and a good meeting.

And it, incidently, comes at a time when the United States Senate is debating a resolution that would pull the rug out from under the Iraqi people by trying to set artificial deadlines when it comes to U.S. military commitments. If that bill comes before the President, he will veto it.

The Vice President also -- that is the Iraqi Vice President -- also noted that yesterday he visited soldiers in the hospital, and he was impressed by the high spirit they had -- "better morale than I had," he said, talking about their mission. And in trying to bind the hands of the administration would pull the rug out from under them, as well. So we do have some business going on on Capitol Hill today.

Questions.

Q The Judiciary Committee today approved subpoenas -- authorized subpoenas for five Justice Department officials as they look into the prosecutors case. What's the administration's reaction?

MR. SNOW: Well, I refer you to the Department of Justice on that. I know that they've had some conversations, but I'll refer you to DOJ on that.

Q Why would that be? Why wouldn't the White House --

MR. SNOW: Because it's subpoenas for the DOJ, and the Department of Justice will respond. The Department of Justice has also had ongoing conversations with people on Capitol Hill. I don't want to be their fact witness on this one, but, again, I suggest you give their office a call.

Q But you said Fred Fielding is talking with the Hill to see about --

MR. SNOW: Yes. I said he's been talking with people on the Hill. He was up on the Hill yesterday. I don't know if he'll be up --

Q Still no resolution of that?

MR. SNOW: No. But, again, what we're trying to do is to make sure they get the information they need in a manner that's consistent with presidential prerogatives.

Q Tony, it's getting hard to find a Republican around town who says that Gonzales will survive this. Is there any feeling inside the White House that Attorney General Gonzales will survive this?

MR. SNOW: The President has confidence in the Attorney General. He's made that clear, both privately to the Attorney General, and he made it clear yesterday in the press conference.

Q But if you have an ever-growing number of Republicans on the Hill calling for resignation or expressing strong --

MR. SNOW: Well, you're asking me if; we have one publicly declared.

Q You do have more Republican opinion that Gonzales should not keep his job.

MR. SNOW: Well, again --

Q That's got to factor into an administration who wants to do business with Republicans on the Hill to get a domestic agenda done, if nothing else.

MR. SNOW: Well, we're working with people on both sides of the Hill, and, Jim, one of the things the President said is that the Attorney General is going to be going to Capitol Hill to talk about some of the mistakes that were made in terms of providing notification on U.S. attorneys. And furthermore, the information was provided to people within the Department of Justice when they went to testify on the Hill. So the Attorney General also is going to have an opportunity to speak with members of Congress and address their concerns.

Q At this point, the Attorney General --

MR. SNOW: The President has confidence in the Attorney General.

Q He had confidence in Rumsfeld, too.

Q Will the President let current and former officials, like Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, testify on Capitol Hill?

MR. SNOW: As I said, Fred Fielding is busy conducting talks with people in the House and Senate, with Democrats. And I'm not going to tell you what's going to be decided. I'm going to let them go ahead and have their conversations. Again, we're going to give them the information they need in a manner that's consistent with presidential prerogatives.

Q Without them having to subpoena?

MR. SNOW: Again, you're trying to get me to jump ahead and do negotiations. Not going to do it.

Q Was the Mohammed on the front pages subjected to any torture in the secret prisons?

MR. SNOW: We don't -- again, the policy of this government is we do not engage in torture.

Q And so you can guarantee that he was not tortured in all the years of secret --

MR. SNOW: I'm telling you the policy is that we don't do torture, and furthermore, that there are -- very specific guidelines have been laid down in terms of the questioning of people who, in fact, have been in U.S. custody.

Q But after it was all revealed. How do we know -- I mean, this is -- why would you send them to secret prisons in the first place?

MR. SNOW: Well, I'm not going to -- Helen, we have been through long conversations about that. There was a big debate on Capitol Hill about this. We're not going to relitigate it.

Q So you're saying he was not --

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q Tony, let me talk about the Judiciary Committee decision to authorize the subpoenas before these talks with Fielding are completed -- do you feel that's premature?

MR. SNOW: Well, you're talking about Department of Justice subpoenas, those are not White House subpoenas. That's a separate issue.

Q Tony, Leahy said that he would subpoena Rove, Miers, if there was not voluntary cooperation.

MR. SNOW: Well, as I said, I'm not going to get up here and act as if -- Fred Fielding is having conversations. I think it's advisable to let those proceed.

Q But if he does subpoena, is there anything the White House can do to stop --

MR. SNOW: I'm not going to play the "if" game. Let's just wait and see. Rather than trying to answer hypotheticals, we will deal with facts as they arise.

Q Do you think the White House made any mistakes in this whole matter of the discussions over the firings? And particular, I'm wondering if Attorney General Gonzales was making statements to members of Congress, beginning in January, that later proved to be not exactly in line with the facts, weren't people in the White House aware of that?

MR. SNOW: I'm not going to get into extensive sort of fact witnessing. Let me make a simple point. U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President, and these were proper decisions to remove seven U.S. attorneys. And the Department of Justice went through its own process, and I'll let the Department of Justice speak for the metrics, and so on, that it used. But it's certainly within the right of the President to replace people.

Furthermore, as you know, with U.S. attorneys, they've got a four-year term. Each of these folks had fulfilled the four-year term. There are holdover provisions, but it is well within the President's executive authority to replace people.

Q Tony, two quick questions. One, there has been so much written so far now as far as terrorism, threat of terrorism is concerned in Afghanistan and also here in the U.S. And The Washington Post former prime minister of Pakistan is writing that now that a clear story has come that General Musharraf is not doing enough as far as what he was accepted by the President -- and even not only President -- satisfied with what's happening with what's going on. And where do we stand now as far as Osama bin Laden and all those --

MR. SNOW: Goyal, you're asking me to answer a question that involves highly classified matters, and I can't do that. I'm not going to do --

Q Not classified --

MR. SNOW: There's not a lot of unclassified information about what we're doing with regard to Osama bin Laden. The fact is that this administration remains determined to prosecute the war on terror on all fronts.

Q Second, on immigration. As far as presidential trip is concerned, he had -- immigration as far as Mexico is concerned -- so he said that he will double his efforts as far as the immigration bill is concerned in the U.S. Senate. So what is he going to do now? Is it what Democrats want, or what --

MR. SNOW: No, the President laid it out yesterday -- working with Republicans to come up with a largely accepted Republican view, and then work with Democrats to get a bill passed. I mean, he's been pretty straightforward about the approach. But the President -- make no mistake, the President is committed to this cause. He delivered a nationwide address from the Oval Office. It certainly was something we discussed at every stop along the way. He thinks it is vital for making this nation more secure, this nation more prosperous, and incidentally, also for making our friends and allies in the neighborhood more secure and prosperous. It's good for both sides.

And as a result, he wanted to make sure that everybody understood that this was a real firm, profound and personal commitment on his part.

Q -- you can clear very quickly. Fred Fielding is negotiating with members on the Hill on possible subpoenas of White House staff. Does that mean he's not talking to them about the possible Justice Department subpoenas?

MR. SNOW: What I'm not going to do -- what he's talking about is -- and I'm not even going to engage -- what you've done is jump to negotiating about subpoenas. What we're talking about is getting information to them that they need in a manner that's consistent with our prerogatives. And that can cover a lot of ground. I am not privy to the precise conversations, but Fred is having conversations with them, and I don't want to characterize them.

Q You seem to be pushing off -- you seem to be pushing our questions on subpoenas --

MR. SNOW: Because the Department of Justice has been, in fact, having its own conversations with those committees.

Q Does the White House have no opinion about whether Justice Department officials should -- honor subpoenas?

MR. SNOW: That's sort of the backdoor way of getting into the conversations that Fred may be having with folks on the Hill. Let's just let these talks play out, and then once we get to a point where there's resolution, then you can ask me and I can give you a much more direct answer. We're dealing at a highly hypothetical level right now and that kind of musing doesn't give us much to go on.

April.

Q Tony, going to another subject, the Pentagon. Is the President now going to start embracing the words "civil war," to a certain extent as it relates to Iraq?

MR. SNOW: What you're talking about is the 90/10 report that came out. That, April, reflects the language that was used in the National Intelligence Estimate. As you'll recall, the National Intelligence Estimate said there are some things that are characteristic of a civil war, some that are not. So this is -- there's not new language, or for that matter, new analysis.

Q It's not new language for the NIE, but it's new language for the President --

MR. SNOW: No, no, the President -- what the President is focusing on is succeeding in Iraq. And again, you've got evidence that there has been progress. I don't want to oversell it because it is tough and there's along way to go. We're still busy moving forces into Iraq. We're still working with the Iraqis to develop capability. They've been stepping up and taking on tough decisions. The oil law has been passed by the council ministers; it is going before the legislature. What I'm telling you, April, is there's a lot of stuff going on. And what you're asking about is a phrase used in a National Intelligence Estimate.

Q Don't diminish it, because for months you, from that podium, have been dancing around the words, "civil war," and sectarian --

MR. SNOW: Right, but what you are trying to say is that that is a label that is attached as an absolute -- that is being used to describe accurately what's going on. And if you take a look at the NIE, it said it has some characteristics and some that are inconsistent. So we're not going to use the term.

Q So you're not going to use the term, the President is not?

MR. SNOW: No, but the President -- the National Intelligence Estimate says that there are some characteristics that are consistent and some that aren't.

Q Okay. And lastly, on the Sudan, why did it take so long for this administration to come out with the issue of sanctions, financial sanctions? From my understanding, this administration had been looking into that issue for months.

MR. SNOW: This administration has been working for months -- I would flip it around -- this administration -- and the President was the first person to call this genocide -- he has been working and he has been very aggressive on the diplomatic track, trying to get people in the neighborhood, within the African Union and also the United Nations to step up. This needs to be addressed.

Q Well, why has it taken the sanctions -- as you said, he's called it genocide; he's even called it outrageous. But why has it taken so long? I got word of it last year, towards the end of summer, that they were looking at sanctions. Why are we now in March, and they're talking about sanctions --

MR. SNOW: We have been trying to work, April, to make sure that we have the ability of players in the region to have some influence on the government, which, in the Sudanese government, has consistently rejected overtures, and that becomes a forcing event to get others involved.

Q Back on the prosecutors. Has the White House been in touch with Harriet Miers to see if she has further information in this case?

MR. SNOW: I don't know.

Q The President said, "I've heard those allegations about political decision-making; it's just not true." How can he say that when he hasn't seen all the emails, emails continue to come out, and of those that have already come out, some of them clearly seem to show that at some level, at least, there was political decision-making?

MR. SNOW: I'm not -- how would you define "political decision-making"?

Q Well, decision-making that involves politics.

Q How would you define it, Tony?

MR. SNOW: Well, it's a loaded term. I mean, I think what the President -- what the President is saying is that there is no -- that in evaluating U.S. attorneys, this is based on performance. And the important thing to do -- and furthermore, the Department of Justice made recommendations that the President has accepted. Also keep in mind, the President has the authority to remove people and put other folks in the job. That is at his discretion. That's presidential power.

Q But is he saying that he was so in the loop, then, that he definitely knew there was nothing political, or was he, in fact, removed, as you indicated this morning?

MR. SNOW: No, I think -- again, what the President has -- the Department of Justice has made recommendations, they've been approved. And it's pretty clear that these things are based on performance and not on sort of attempts to do political retaliation, if you will.

Q Tony, thank you. Thousands of veterans are coming from all over the country to make sure on Saturday that a rally organized by a group called Act Now to Stop the War and End Racism does not deface the Vietnamese War Memorial like the Capitol was spray-painted by another mob. My question: Does the President have any welcome for these veterans protecting our war memorial?

MR. SNOW: The President welcomes all veterans and thanks them for their service.

Q Since it has been my impression that Vice President Cheney has always been loyal to the President, could you tell us the President's reaction to the Time Magazine cover story that described Mr. Cheney as, "the administration's enemy within," "an independent operation inside the White House that has done more harm than good" and one of Bush's biggest liabilities?

MR. SNOW: That would be inaccurate.

Q Wait a minute, one last one, because you've been away for a week.

Q Welcome back.

MR. SNOW: Yes, this is my welcome back. (Laughter.)

Q Both the Media Research Center, as well as The Wall Street Journal, in an editorial headlined, "The Hubbell Standard: Hillary Clinton knows about sacking U.S. attorneys," deplored the old big media uproar about the firing of eight U.S. attorneys, when the Clinton administration fired 93 in one day. And my question: Does the President agree or disagree with The Wall Street Journal and the Media Research Center?

MR. SNOW: I'm not aware that he's expressed an opinion on it. Let me just remind everybody again, U.S. attorneys are --

Q What do you think?

MR. SNOW: It's not my job to get up here and expound my views.

Q I'd love to hear your opinion on it.

MR. SNOW: Well, that's well and good, and I appreciate that. It makes me feel all warm inside. But it's not appropriate for me to do that.

Sarah.

Q Welcome back.

MR. SNOW: Thank you.

Q Tony, has the building of the wall between Mexico and the United States damaged relations between the two countries beyond repair?

MR. SNOW: No. As a matter of fact, the relations are close. And the conversations between President Calder n and President Bush were, as the President said, extremely productive. They were detailed and -- the two leaders were honest with each other about things where they agreed and where they disagreed, and maybe the most important thing is that they also committed to taking issues of concern directly to Cabinet-level officers so that they could go ahead and really seize responsibility.

There are a lot of good things that we can do with the Mexican government -- border security, drug interdiction, arms interdiction, trying to make sure that the borders are safe, building conditions for greater prosperity in Mexico -- that takes pressure off the border and, frankly, greater prosperity within the region. There were educational exchanges. I mean, they talked about a lot of things.

So I would -- number one, I would argue that what's happened is that U.S.-Mexican relations have been strengthened as a consequence of the visit; and, also, that the personal relationship between the two Presidents was strengthened by virtue of the fact that they were candid with each other and I think they were both impressed with the seriousness, and also the leadership quality. President Calder n is a leader. He's been in office for a hundred days or so and he is tackling directly a lot of the most important businesses. So, again, to use the term the President did, very productive meetings.

Q Tony, in your answer this morning on the new Palestinian government, you said you hoped that President Abbas could proceed with the ability to follow the Quartet commitments. Can you explain what that --

MR. SNOW: Well, we're really -- at this point, let's wait until we have a government fully formed up. But the most important issue, ultimately, in dealing with peace in the region is to have the Palestinians abide by the Quartet conditions. That has been our position and will continue to be our position.

Q Tony, while the President was traveling, New Century fund, one of the biggest mortgage lenders, almost went belly-up, causing a major fall in the stock market. What's troubling investors now is the fact that this housing market, which has been based on some very risky loans, is really holding up the whole stock market situation. And if the bubble blows in the housing market, a lot of people are going to be in trouble, the U.S. economy goes down the tubes. I was just wondering if the President is focused on this problem. And does he have a game plan, aside from the denial and the happy talk that's been coming out of the Secretary of Treasury?

MR. SNOW: Well, number one, I would -- if you want to -- I would encourage you to take your concerns to the Secretary of Treasury; I'm sure he'll be happy to respond. Hank Paulson is not only an enormously capable, but very realistic Secretary of the Treasury. So, please, try that.

Secondly, we do have -- the fundamentals in the economy are sound, but I am not going to get into talking about markets. Any time somebody makes comments from this podium it is something that could potentially influence markets; I'm just not going to do it.

Q If such a collapse -- as a follow-up on that -- if such a market collapse would occur, would the President be intent on maintaining the value of the dollar?

MR. SNOW: I will refer you to my prior answer. What you're asking me to do now is to accept a premise, the acceptance of which would be a market-moving event.

Q Is the President worried about eroding support for No Child Left Behind?

MR. SNOW: No. The President is deeply committed to No Child Left Behind. And it's important to make sure not only that we have standards for schools, but that we extend to every child -- from kindergarten straight through 12th grade -- the opportunity and the promise of good education, so that they are equipped to intellectually -- they have the intellectual tools and capabilities to deal with a workforce in which they're going to change careers any number of times; that they're going to have the intellectual abilities. And the President is committed to making sure richer, poorer, wherever you live, you're going to have those opportunities. And he is strongly committed to it and he's working with Democrats and Republicans -- Republicans first, of course.

Q We know he's committed to it, but what about Republicans who signed on it before, but have now expressed interest in other legislation?

MR. SNOW: Well, I think, again, there are plenty of conversations that are ongoing. But the President feels confident that we're going to get reauthorization of No Child Left Behind, and, furthermore, that it's vital to American students.

Q How soon does the President want the Security Council to vote on the Iran resolution --

MR. SNOW: Well, they're still working it out. I mean, I don't think that the President has a timetable on it, but, obviously, we think it's going to be soon. It's important to realize, though, that we have been working within -- we're now going to present it to the full Security Council and I think we're pretty close on it.

Q Well, is the President satisfied with the language then?

MR. SNOW: Well, let's wait until everything is signed. This is another one of these things where we want to make sure it's all wrapped up, signed, sealed and delivered, and then we'll be happy to characterize.

Q On the attorneys, you mentioned that these firings were not done as political retaliation or retribution. If we're going to talk about, kind of, the President's powers, though, if any of the firings were for political retribution, is that within his purview, as well?

MR. SNOW: Let me put it this way: Again, the President has the authority to remove people who serve at his pleasure. And these are folks who had four-year terms, all of which had expired.

Helen.

Q Is there any plan to commemorate March 19th, four years into war?

MR. SNOW: To "commemorate"? The one thing we do is constantly --

Q Take notice of.

MR. SNOW: Well, I think there will be plenty people taking notice of it. The one thing that we want to do is also make sure that people take notice of how vital it is to continue to supply the reinforcement our forces need and the support that the Iraqi government is going to need in order to put all the pieces together that are going to allow that nation to be delivered from an age of tyranny under Saddam Hussein to one of hope and democracy.

Q Well, but is anything going to be done by the President, personally? You don't know.

Q Thank you.

MR. SNOW: Thank you.

END 1:11 P.M. EDT. For Immediate ReleaseMarch 15, 2007

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House or Tony Snow and VIDEO, or Adil+Abd+Al-Mahdi and United States Senate, or Department of Justice, and Judiciary Committee, or Fred Fielding and Attorney General Gonzales or Karl Rove and Harriet Miers or General Musharraf and National Intelligence Estimate or African Union and The Hubbell Standard or Karl Rove, or Hillary Clinton, or No Child Left Behind,