Press Briefing Tony Snow 07/13/07 VIDEO PODCAST

Press Briefing by Tony Snow, FULL STREAMING VIDEO. file is windows media format, running time is 31:10. James S. Brady Briefing Room. White House Press Secretary Tony Snow briefs the press and answers questions. 07 13 2007: WASHINGTON, DC: 12:41 P.M. EST.

PODCAST OF THIS ARTICLE, MR. SNOW: All right. Questions.

Q What do you think the Iraqi government is going to achieve in eight weeks that it hasn't been able to achieve in a year?

MR. SNOW: Well, number one, if you go back and look through the report -- I want to remind you of a couple of things. When you talk about the definition of satisfactory in the report, it's in the near-term. If you start looking at the benchmarks, it is clear that the Iraqi government has been moving in the direction of trying to achieve a lot of the political objectives. We're going to have to see. The Iraqi government is meeting throughout the month. They've got some legislative items that they're working on, but we're going to have to see what they do.

Meanwhile, I think -- let me continue, and then I'll let you follow up -- you continue to see the ramping up of Iraqi efforts on the security front; you continue to see also bottom-up efforts in places like Anbar, in places like Diyala. It's important to realize that the -- when the United States announced a way forward and the Iraqi government also began committing more resources, it did, in fact, influence thinking in different parts of Iraq, where people said, you know what, we don't want al Qaeda around killing our people anymore. So you had the tribal chieftains and tribal sheiks making accommodations with the allied forces in Anbar. You've started to see it in Diyala. You certainly have seen it reflected in some neighborhoods in Baghdad.

So you've got to look at it in two ways. The President talked about top down, and that is activity on the part of the government. You also see it bottom-up, in terms of changing perceptions of the U.S. forces and of the Iraqi security forces within Iraq, and also government agencies within Iraq and their ability to provide more capable services. So what I'll do is I'll give you sort of a scattershot analysis.

Number one, you can expect to see continued activity on the military front. As the President mentioned yesterday, the Iraqis are committing $7.3 billion to retooling and reequipping their military. They've also committed $10 billion to economic reconstruction. There continue to be efforts on the political accommodation side. So there are any number of things that can happen, we're just going to have to see.

Q Well, specifically, do you think things like de-Baathification and their oil law will be achieved by September?

MR. SNOW: We're going to have to see. Again --

Q Well, of course, but, I mean --

MR. SNOW: I'm not going to -- it doesn't matter what I think. I'm just not going to make prognostications on this. But also, the thing that -- there are others that you look for. For instance, how well is the presidency council working with the Prime Minister? Do you see signs of a political accommodation? If you do not have certain laws passed, do you see a greater sense of cooperation, cohesion and national identity among the various sectarian and regional groups within Iraq, reflected not only at the national level but also at the regional level?

So there are going to be -- when you see the report in September, it not only is going to address benchmarks, but as it said, if you read the early parts of this report, there will be a more comprehensive assessment in taking a look at other factors also that will allow people to weigh the success of the surge.

Q It seemed like what the President was saying yesterday that no matter what the report of September shows, if General Petraeus recommends the surge to continue, that it will.

MR. SNOW: Well, I mean -- you're assuming that if there is something that would be regarded as dire, that General Petraeus would be saying, you know what, my ego is invested in this. General Petraeus has made it pretty clear that he is not going to be making recommendations for U.S. force commitments unless he thinks it is going to contribute to success in Iraq, in terms of having a self-sustaining Iraqi government. He is not going to put his own men in harm's way if he does not think that it serves the purpose of the mission that has been outlined to him.

So it is not simply a matter of "regardless of what happens." In fact, the recommendations will be a reflection of precisely what is going on in Iraq. And I would -- again, I would suggest taking a very close look at all of this report because there are a lot of interesting data in there. If you simply look at benchmarks, you're going to miss a lot of the fine-print reporting in there that does give you a sense of a whole lot that's going on right now.

Q And, Tony, could you clarify, in terms of the relationship between Congress and the President, as regards to the war, the President is essentially saying that he is running the war and the Congress is funding the war. At some point, Congress may pass legislation, which attempts to, sort of, run the war.

MR. SNOW: Well, if so, the President is going to resist it. The President is Commander-in-Chief and he feels very strongly about his constitutional prerogatives.

Q Resist as in veto?

MR. SNOW: You're asking me to respond to something that doesn't exist. I will continue at the level -- I'm sorry -- Martha and then Helen.

Q Can you tell me just what David Petraeus's mission is? I am actually unclear about what he would recommend or not recommend, whether it goes beyond what his military mission is. So first describe what his mission is. You say he has a mission.

MR. SNOW: Thank you, because there's an important nuance that has to be added to this. It's not just a Petraeus report, but a Ryan Crocker report.

Today the President had an opportunity to hear from provincial reconstruction teams around Iraq. And Ambassador Crocker was chairing that. So what you have is General Petraeus is working the counter-insurgency piece and working the military piece. You also have Ambassador Crocker looking at the diplomatic piece, looking at economics. The two of them certainly are working with their counterparts in the Iraqi government on political items. But if you want to look at a division of labor, General Petraeus is the commander of the U.S. forces in Iraq; it's a military role. Ambassador Crocker also is fulfilling the traditional roles that you would assign to an ambassador.

Q Understood. So General Petraeus's mission is to set the conditions for political reconciliation, for the political benchmarks. But his doesn't go into the political realm. But the President keeps talking about -- and you all, I guess, keep talking about what Dave Petraeus does; I know Ryan Crocker has nothing to say. So Dave Petraeus's mission is to set the conditions forward --

MR. SNOW: No, the general -- again --

Q Okay --

MR. SNOW: -- you know what?

Q Maybe you're not saying that --

MR. SNOW: No, actually what I'll do is, rather than having me try to give you a nuanced answer, call MNFI. They will try --

Q No, but, Tony, this is important --

MR. SNOW: I just told you --

Q I know, but the President keeps talking about listening to Dave Petraeus, but if Dave Petraeus's mission is to set the conditions, I can't see how he --

MR. SNOW: No, what Dave Petraeus's mission is, is militarily to provide the security space that's going to allow the political process to move forward.

Q That's exactly what I'm saying. So the political recommendations and what Ryan Crocker reports -- does he make a recommendation that you keep going? Does he make some sort of recommendation -- let's say -- I'm not even getting into pure and hypothetical here, but if Dave Petraeus, as he's already said, there are some security things that are satisfactory, so in September if he has enough progress that he feels good about it, then does Ryan Crocker say, yes, I think we should continue, too, because the political (inaudible)?

MR. SNOW: What happens is, is that the report you're going to get is going to be a joint production between the two, so it will reflect their combined judgment.

Q Who makes the decision? Does Ryan Crocker make any decisions for the President -- is it solely up to the President, reading those two things --

MR. SNOW: Yes, the President makes the decisions. The other thing that the President has said is that he will take recommendations from both of them and he will review them with senior advisors. So it is not as if a recommendation immediately is self-enacting. The President will take anything that General Petraeus has, he will talk about it with the Secretary of Defense, about it with the Joint Chiefs. Any of the recommendations that Ambassador Crocker may have, similarly, will be considered by the President in conjunction with senior advisors.

Q Is the Iraqi government and the Iraqi parliament taking the month of August off?

MR. SNOW: Probably, yes. Just not --

Q They're taking the entire month of August off, before the September deadline?

MR. SNOW: It looks like they may, yes. Just like the U.S. Congress is.

Q Have you tried to talk them out of that?

MR. SNOW: You know, it's 130 degrees in Baghdad in August, I'll pass on your recommendation.

Q Well, Tony, Tony, I'm sorry, that's -- you know -- I mean, there are a lot of things that happen by September and it's 130 degrees for the U.S. military also on the ground --

MR. SNOW: You know, that's a good point. And it's 130 degrees for the Iraqi military. The Iraqis, you know, I'll let them -- my understanding is that at this juncture they're going to take August off, but, you know, they may change their minds.

Q But have you tried to convince them not to?. Does the U.S. government pressure them not to, because then the September deadline --

MR. SNOW: Again, I'm not going to -- you know, I'm just not -- I'm not getting into the -- the Iraqis understand the importance. It's not a September deadline, it's a September report. I think it's very important, in an age where everybody wants to create a sense of, sort of, finishing up on a deadline -- it's a report, it is not a deadline. It is a report that will, in fact, measure progress --

Q It's a pretty important report --

MR. SNOW: It is a very -- it's a very important --

Q (Inaudible.) I mean, a month they're not working.

MR. SNOW: Sheryl, will you let me answer Martha's questions first? And then Helen is next, and then I'll call on you.

Now, where were we, because --

Q We were a month off, we have --

MR. SNOW: Okay, so what you're saying -- yes --

Q -- 130 degrees for the Iraqi parliament, so they need a month off, even though it's 130 degrees for U.S. soldiers.

MR. SNOW: Well, you know, you're assuming that nothing is going on. As I said, there are any number of things going on in Iraq. Let's see what the parliament does during the course of this month. Let's also see what happens, because quite often when parliaments do not meet, there are also continuing meetings on the side. And there will be progress, I'm sure, on a number of fronts.

I'm just -- I'm not in a position at this point to try to gainsay what the Iraqis are doing. We are working with them and trying to help them succeed. They have a vested interest also in doing this and doing it right, and what they've done is they've set a higher bar for their legislative accomplishments than we do because they're trying to operate on a basis not of simple majority, but consensus. It's probably a wise thing to do at the outset of a country that has been driven by strife for so many years. It is a tough business.

But I would suggest not merely looking at the legislative accomplishments, but also, again, taking a look overall at what's going on in terms of creating a sense of national unity, dealing with problems of sectarian strife -- that certainly were rife last year, but are far less prevalent today, at least according to the trajectory mentioned in the report -- and, therefore, take a comprehensive and factual look at all the aspects of what's going on in Iraq.

Okay, Helen and then --

Q Do we have one-man rule in this country?

MR. SNOW: No.

Q The President --

MR. SNOW: But thank you for asking.

Q No, no, I'm going on.

MR. SNOW: Oh, I'm sure you are.

Q The President has indicated that public opinion through the polls -- (inaudible) the polls means nothing. He's going to ignore totally whatever Congress lays down in terms of deadlines, time lines and so forth. What is this?

MR. SNOW: It's the way our democracy works. The fact is, Presidents -- you know, it's interesting, Presidents sometimes will make unpopular decisions because they think that their obligations, in terms of saving lives and providing security to the American people, are paramount. And that's what this President believes.

Q So do members of Congress and so do the American people.

MR. SNOW: Well, but they're -- you know, the President is the one person who is vested with the constitutional obligation to serve as Commander-in-Chief.

Q He also has to respond to people, doesn't he?

MR. SNOW: He does. As a matter of fact, I believe he responded to you first yesterday. The President --

Q -- very, very, very pleased and very kind, but --

MR. SNOW: But the President -- no, the President understands, and I think what you're going to see is a vigorous debate.

I think also that what the President did yesterday was say to the American people, let us all take a careful look at what's going on in Iraq; and let's have a debate about the facts on the ground; and let's also have a debate about what is in our national interest in the long run. And all of those things are legitimate topics for political debate. A President, of course, listens but he also does what he thinks is right, based on his principles and his understanding. It may not be something that people agree with, but it is what he thinks is right.

And, furthermore, this is a President who I think has demonstrated that he is going to do whatever it takes, in his judgment, to keep this country safe and to keep it -- and also to create the tools necessary for fighting a war on terror that began before he entered office and will continue long after he leaves office. It is an ideological battle that is waged in constantly changing ways around the globe and it is going to be a chief concern of anybody -- Democrat, Republican or otherwise -- who is going to occupy the Oval Office for years to come.

Q It's also the concern of the American people and Congress.

MR. SNOW: And also --

Q And he should be listening to it.

MR. SNOW: They are.

Sheryl and then --

Q First, two questions -- to borrow a phrase from Lester. (Laughter.)

MR. SNOW: That's a new role model. (Applause.)

Q First, following on the point Martha raised, the President presented a report yesterday that found little political progress in Iraq. Now you are telling us that the Iraqi government is going to take the month of August off. Does the President expect that the government there can make substantial progress toward political reconciliation if they are taking the month of August off? And is he concerned about that?

MR. SNOW: The President has always been concerned about political reconciliation. The President, Ambassador Crocker, General Petraeus, Secretary Rice, Secretary Gates, all of us have made it clear that political reconciliation is a key consideration.

We've also pointed out, Sheryl, that you can't have -- realistically, you can't have that until you create a certain amount of safety. And what has happened in the early stages of the surge is there have been some significant developments in accomplishments on the security front that are going to make it possible. You have to develop conditions under which Shia and Sunni trust one another; Shia, Sunni and Kurd trust one another. And the way you build that basis of trust, first, is creating a certain amount of security so they can go about their daily business.

That, in fact -- we've always said the security part comes first. Now, as we have also said, politics needs to follow. We couldn't agree more. And I am not going to try to pass on advice in advance that the President may be offering to the Prime Minister or others. We continue to have conversations, and we will.

Q Is he offering that advice? Has he suggested to them, okay, now we've laid the groundwork for your reconciliation and you guys are taking a month off?

MR. SNOW: As I said, I'm not going to pass on the confidential advice the President gives the Prime Minister.

Q Okay. Secondly, has the President heard from General Franks after yesterday's press conference?

MR. SNOW: Not that I'm aware of.

Q Does he have any regrets, perhaps, about mentioning General Franks in the context that he did?

MR. SNOW: No, because what the President said is, at the beginning of the war he asked for the best advice of his commanders and he said, what do you think you need? And he continued to ask -- he said it many times; this is not -- you can go back and Google it, but it's, in fact, been a common statement the President has made repeatedly about his earlier consultations. And he constantly said, do you have what you need, is there anything else you need -- is what he says of his commanders at all times.

Q Was he trying to lay blame on General Franks?

MR. SNOW: No, he was talking -- no. He thinks General Franks did a superb job. The fact is when you come in to a time of war and you encounter things that you did not expect, you need to react to them. Every war features this. And to go back and second-guess the best advice the President got, after consultation with generals and everybody else, is something that maybe historians may want to do later, as the President said. But you make your best judgment at the time based on what you know.

Q Virginia Senator John Warner made it clear that the progress report issued yesterday was unacceptable to him. The progress made by the Iraqis was unacceptable, he said, to warrant the sacrifice that Americans have been making. Was it acceptable to the President?

MR. SNOW: What the President got was a snapshot -- not a "snapshot," he got an interim report of what was happening at the beginning of the surge. Is it acceptable? No. What's acceptable to the President is having an Iraq that can sustain itself. But we're not there yet. What's acceptable to the President in the long run is a situation where our forces come home in victory and receive the praise that they have earned and deserve. That's what's acceptable.

What's not acceptable is the fact that we are in a world where there are terrorists who are determined to try to blow up democracy wherever it tries to lay in roots, whether it be in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Somalia or elsewhere. The President does not find acceptable the fact that foreign fighters are flooding -- not "flooding," but they're coming across the Syrian border. And the majority of the major bombings that are taking place in Iraq are as a result of foreigners who have made their way in Iraq through Syria.

The President does not think it is acceptable that weapons have made their way from Iran into Iraq, and that they have been used to kill Iraqis and Americans. The President does not think it is acceptable that al Qaeda has become an invading force that once promised justice to the Muslim and Arab people, and now gives them only humiliation, degradation and death. The President doesn't find that acceptable, either.

So in a world that is filled with unacceptable conditions, what you have to do is to figure out ways to try to change the outcome. What have we done? We have completely retooled our strategy for dealing with the situation and building counterinsurgency efforts within Iraq. We have twinned them with efforts to deal with the practical realities, how do you build a stable society. You create a political system that honors the rights of all, so that everybody can be invested in it. You work on having an economic system that not only is free and offers opportunities for all, but is integrated into a larger regional network. And you invite the neighbors in the region to become part of the Iraq Compact.

In other words, you take a comprehensive look at a situation that you don't find satisfactory and you create conditions where you hope it will be satisfactory. Let me note a couple of developments that have taken place in recent months.

Number one, the Iraqis have, in fact, been committing themselves not only much more in battle, but much more on the front lines of battle. They are now taking three times the casualties and deaths of American forces. They are committing significant resources, in terms of finances -- $7.3 billion to retooling. And we have also -- retooling, equipping, training, recruiting and so on -- and we are also working up procurement efforts that will get weapons to them as rapidly as possible so that they can have the equipment they need.

There are a lot of things going on where the Iraqis also have been stepping up, putting their lives on the line -- as Americans would expect -- for a democracy that we think is essential not only for the security of the Iraqi people, but in the long run for the security of the American people.

Q But what is not happening is political progress. What is not happening is rules for provincial elections. What is not happening is a hydrocarbon law. What is not happening are things that you have been talking about being necessary for a year now.

MR. SNOW: And, furthermore, what is happening is that they are working on all those issues. What has not happened in this Congress is passage of a single appropriations bill. The fact is that legislation sometimes requires a lot of hard work. What is happening is that they're working on all those issues, Wendell.

Q Let me ask another question about that. With the September report, in order to get passing grades, if you will, do the Iraqis have to show results or just show continued working on the issues?

MR. SNOW: Again, I'm not going to -- I'm not the person writing the report. I think what you're going to have to -- as you can tell, people have been pretty honest about the situation here and I expect them to write an honest report in September about whether they consider the progress satisfactory or not.

Q Tony, actually the report says that, doesn't it, that what you'll look for in September is more progress in the satisfactory categories, and some progress or movement in the unsatisfactory categories?

MR. SNOW: Well, we're going to hope for continued progress in all categories.

Q How pivotal in a general sense is the September report? And is the President truly open to changing course if the progress isn't satisfactory or fast enough?

MR. SNOW: Let me remind you what the President did last year. We took a look at what had been tried, after the explosion of sectarian violence, and we said, it's not working, we need a new way to do this. And I will once again remind you, even though the first deployments began in February, the final deployments didn't complete until several weeks ago. And Congress didn't even approve funding through the fiscal year until two months ago, and didn't pass the law that required this to be written until two months ago. So a lot of things --

Q But if --

MR. SNOW: No, let me just finish and then you can follow. A lot of stuff has happened in two months, and a lot of stuff that is encouraging has happened in the last two months. We will see what happens in the next two months.

What the President -- what is required of Ambassador Crocker and also General Petraeus is a very thorough look at what's working and what's not working, and recommendations if they think things are not working. The President has always made it clear, you look at conditions on the ground, you adapt, you adjust. And if they see it necessary to make changes, absolutely.

Q But the President has described the surge as a change in strategy. But a lot of his critics will say that it was just digging himself deeper into the plan that he was already pursuing.

MR. SNOW: It's a completely different way of doing this. I'm sorry, but the counter -- the way we're --

Q But is he open to a (inaudible) --

MR. SNOW: I just told you --

Q -- that might not involve -- that might involve scaling back?

MR. SNOW: Again, let's wait and see what we hear in two months, because I'm not going to create a narrative, the President might consider X. What the President is going to consider is, how do we pursue victory? How do we become more effective? That's what the President wants to hear. And he will follow recommendations that he thinks will achieve those aims.

April.

Q Tony, yesterday the President said at the very end of the press conference -- he was talking about how al Qaeda has been (inaudible) since 9/11. If that's the case, why not go lop the head of the al Qaeda monster off? If that were the case, the war would pretty much be over, if he were to be able to get Osama bin Laden; am I correct?

MR. SNOW: Well, let's -- I'm glad you asked about al Qaeda, because there are several angles to look at this, and if you'll indulge me, I want to walk through a few pieces and you can ask follow-up questions. Number one, the al Qaeda that exists today is not the al Qaeda that existed September 11, 2001. That is an al Qaeda that was a more traditional, top-down organization where you had bin Laden and a series of lieutenants and he issued orders and they carried them out.

That organization was smashed. Three-quarters of its leadership -- or, I guess, two-thirds of its leadership has either been killed or captured. Instead what has happened is that al Qaeda has become a different kind of organization and one that is, in some ways -- how shall I say -- it's sort of post-industrial, if you're taking a look at management models. For instance, what happens now is that you have a decentralized al Qaeda, where you have franchise operations around the globe that communicate using the Internet, using video, using very sophisticated techniques. They share finances; they share tactics; they share recruiting strategies; and they share communications.

Ayman al-Zawahiri, you might remember, sent a note to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi -- for those who want to know whether there was a link between al Qaeda in Mesopotamia or al Qaeda in Iraq -- he sent a letter in July of 2005. It included one thing that would be construed as an order, which is, please stop beheading people; it's very bad PR -- or, as he wrote: "Among the things which the feelings of the Muslim populace who love and support you will never find palatable also are the scenes of slaughtering the hostages. You shouldn't be deceived by the praise of some of the zealous young men in their description of you as the 'sheikh of the slaughterers'" -- et cetera. It's a recommendation to change his behavior.

Meanwhile, on the operational front, the very same letter included the following: "Our situation since Abu al-Faraj is good by the grace of God, but many of the lines have been cut off. Because of this we need a payment while new lines are being opened. So if you're capable of sending a payment of approximately 100,000, we'll be very grateful to you."

In a new era of al Qaeda you still have Ayman al-Zawahiri, the number two to bin Laden, communicating using audio and video, and so on, to people around the world. This from last week: "So, oh, youth of Islam, don't listen to them, and I convey to you the mujahideen's commander's mobilization of you, so hurry to Afghanistan, hurry to Iraq, hurry to Somalia, hurry to Palestine, and hurry to the towering Atlas Mountains."

Now, your question is, whether by going into -- one presumes that Osama bin Laden is in the tribal areas -- that simply by killing bin Laden that you will have the problem headed off. No, al Qaeda is a different kind of operation because you now do have franchises. And you saw the case at which, at one point, Ayman al-Zawahiri, himself, was asking for cash from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

However, certainly it would be -- we devoutly wish for the day in which Osama bin Laden is brought to justice. But I don't think that, in and of itself, takes care of the problem.

Follow.

Q So are you trying to tell me -- well, are you saying he's really not a player anymore? Is that what you're -- I'm trying to understand --

MR. SNOW: You know, I don't know. That's an intelligent judgment that -- we hear a lot more from Ayman al-Zawahiri than we do from bin Laden. But let me add one other sort of codicil here, and I'll let you follow up. What has also happened since September 11th -- one of the reasons why you have these guys hiding is that we, in fact, have at our disposal not only the cooperation of allies, whether they be the Pakistanis, the Europeans, or others, but we have also taken steps to improve our intelligence-gathering capabilities. As the President noted yesterday, al Qaeda is a lot weaker now than it would have been had it not been for aggressive intelligence and special operations activities that have taken place over the last six years.

Go ahead.

Q Tony, all right, yesterday the President said that Iraq al Qaeda has pledged allegiance to bin Laden, meaning that he's the titular head of al Qaeda. Now, if I'm correct, if memory serves me correct and all the news reports, that Osama bin Laden is the one who went to war with the United States on 9/11, why are we taking such a backpedaling approach as it relates to --

MR. SNOW: No, we're not backpedaling. We're not backpedaling. Again, look, we'd be delighted -- and if anybody has a suggestion of a quick and easy way to get bin Laden, the phone lines are open.

Q Does this administration really want to find him, bring him to justice -- or kill him?

MR. SNOW: Of course -- we want to bring him to justice. I mean, bin Laden has said he would not be taken alive. I don't know. The fact is, yes, we would love to have him, absolutely.

Q You've repeatedly linked al Qaeda as the main enemy in Iraq. But this report that you put out says that it doesn't account for most of the violence. How do you square that with --

MR. SNOW: No, what we said -- what you have is a whole series of different contributors to violence, but al Qaeda remains the number one enemy in the sense that it has, in fact, been effective in stimulating and spawning the violence.

For instance, you go back and you take a look at the Samarra mosque bombing. What al Qaeda does is it tries to light the fuse and to set off sectarian violence and tension, and it has been effective at doing that. Furthermore, it does so largely with the use of -- I will use the term, invading foreign fighters, people who have come across the borders who are not, themselves, Iraqis. In fact, the head of al Qaeda in Iraq right now remains an Egyptian, al-Masri. But the fact is that they're the ones who continue to try to use their efforts and have been effective in going in and inciting the kinds of violence that have led to the deaths of many innocents in Iraq.

Q Tony, can I go back to what Caren was asking? I'm not sure you got the first half of her question. How pivotal is September, especially given the weight that the President put on it yesterday? But in the past, you've dismissed it as, like, another snapshot and we're not sure if it's going to be --

MR. SNOW: I'm not dismissing it. No, it's an important report. Look, the American people -- as the President said yesterday, the American people want to sense that what we're doing is pursuing victory, pursuing success in Iraq, and they want granularity on it, they want facts and they want people to do a measured, thoughtful, accurate report about what's going on. So that certainly is going to be something that's important.

In terms of me getting into chin-pulling exercise or trying to say how important it's going to be, I don't know. What I do know is that this is a debate that is absolutely at the center of American politics and it's also at the center of our national security, not only now, but for years to come. And therefore, it's important that the American people get a full, factual report about what's going on, and that's what we expect them to receive.

Q Let me follow that on (inaudible) then, you see what's going on in the Hill, not just in the House side but the Senate side. Are you satisfied that you'll be able to hold off the withdrawal mandate legislation at least until then?

MR. SNOW: Well, if you take a look at what happened in the House, there were 10 Democrats who jumped from -- against -- from for to against. They're certainly nowhere near veto strength in the House of Representatives of -- yes, I mean, I think members of Congress -- a lot of this is trying to prepare the ground for an election; keep throwing up resolutions and saying, you know, so-and-so voted against bringing our troops home. It's political play.

I mean, here you have a Congress that can't pass a single appropriations bill, but there are a lot of resolutions that are going to go nowhere. There are a lot of new post offices. And there are a lot of investigations of members of this administration, all of which have been fruitless. So the question is whether this Congress is actually going to investigate or legislate. Right now it looks like it's going to spend more time doing political posturing.

Q Well, I mean, on Iraq, you're satisfied that you can hold off all this, that --

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Sheryl.

Q Tony, the President says he's open to new options. If General Petraeus should come back in September and say, sir, I need more troops, is the President open to that?

MR. SNOW: Again, I'm not going to play the "if" game.

Q Well, this isn't -- I mean --

MR. SNOW: It's a very interesting question. I'm just not going to answer it.

Q It's a legitimate question.

Q You were just talking about the vote counts in the House, but isn't that math going to become more difficult for you when you get to the appropriations and -- you know, the defense appropriations and the kind of bills you're going to --

MR. SNOW: Well, we'll see what happens. Again, look, if there is a defense appropriations bill that doesn't provide what we need, the President is going to veto it.

Q Tony, the report had a pretty bleak outlook on disarming militias in Iraq, and I'd like to know whether you think disarming militias is a security or a political goal, and where --

MR. SNOW: Well, actually it --

Q -- and where it fits on the time line that you've laid out, where you say that security comes first and then political --

MR. SNOW: Well, look, there are a couple of things. If you take a look at the sections, for instance, on amnesty and also on disarming militias, it says that the timing is not quite right for it. As a matter of fact, it says amnesty right now with -- even though it's a benchmark, it would be positively dangerous for Iraq, and that the U.N. and others agree.

What it says is that the conditions right now for disarming are not present, it doesn't mean that people are still not working on them. As a matter of fact, you have seen some instances recently where, in fact, that Jaish al-Mahdi has been forced to sign "truces" with local organizations. And it does appear this is part of the bottom-up process, too. It is not always a matter of -- you know, very interesting things are going on, and so what you do have are reactions by the Iraqi people themselves saying, we're tired of bloodshed, we're tired of militias, we're tired of insurgency, we're tired of al Qaeda; we want the ability to live normal lives.

Not happening everywhere. I mean, look, there is certainly lots of violence and there are lots of challenges ahead. But all I would do is dispute the characterization a little bit. What it says is the conditions are not present for it. Obviously, you want to work until you get those conditions.

Q Okay, well that will teach me to have a premise before the question.

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q But, seriously, though, this is a little bit chin pulling, but I'm interested to know whether you could say that it's a security or a political goal, and where it fits on the --

MR. SNOW: I think it's both. I mean, it's both a security and a political goal, because when you're dealing with militias or insurgencies, you're still talking about something that is necessary for a long-term political success, which is the right of people in neighborhoods throughout Baghdad and districts throughout the country to think that the mere fact of their religious beliefs or their regional provenance is not going to be a cause for somebody to kill them.

Q Is the existence of militias, in effect, a vote of no confidence in the central government's ability to provide justice and security without regard to sectarian authority?

MR. SNOW: Well, I think what happened is that there was a vacuum, especially in some neighborhoods in Baghdad, where early on there wasn't government control and, therefore, militias came in and they said, we're going to protect you. It is part -- one of the reasons why you have these joint security operations now in Baghdad and elsewhere is to make it clear to people that you don't have to rely on militias, that the Iraqi security force, that the allied forces, the local police are going to be in a position to create the kind of security -- and furthermore, the government is going to have to step up, in terms of the provision of basics, and that's also an important point.

So I think the answer to your question, Olivier, is it's both.

Q Tony, a big-picture question -- because I suppose after the report yesterday, people across the country are wondering, is the President going to change his mind? I think it's sort of the big-picture question. I get the sense from listening that the President sees this sort of as horse race, and that you're at the third furlong of maybe a 16-furlong race, and that it makes -- everybody makes a mistake to get too focused on something very early in the process, which gives him sort of the sense of relax, hang on, we're going to do what we have to do, but it's a long race.

MR. SNOW: Well, the war on terror is not going to end in September, and the terrorist threat is not going to end in September. But I would avoid -- because, look, for me to buy into that analogy, I'll just get absolutely slaughtered. It will just sound like it's glib and dismissive of the sacrifice of our forces.

Q Well, let me --

MR. SNOW: But let me -- let me try to shape it a little bit, and then you can come back.

This is an attempt to ask what's going on. Now, Congress has laid out a series of benchmarks, and there are certain ways in which you evaluate those. And this report evaluates those, but it also talks about other developments in the country. What happens is that we have a debate in this country where there probably aren't a lot of people who realize that Iraqis are now taking three times as many fatalities, and who don't realize that, in fact, the security operations have completely changed the situation in Anbar, which, just last November, a military official, in a piece that was widely reported, said that Anbar was beyond reclamation; now, in fact, it is one of the great success stories in Iraq.

But there are a number of things where the security forces have, in fact, begun to provide not only the kind of space, but people are responding. For instance, we heard today in Anbar that the chief interest now for people is to start working on provision of government services -- sort of, give me my water, give me my electricity, give me my representative government, which is exactly where you want the Iraqi people to go.

So what the President wanted was an honest look at what's going on so that you can assess the success or failure of things that you are doing and that the Iraqi government is doing and you can adjust accordingly.

The President will continue to be briefed regularly on developments from the generals and ambassadors, and he'll have conversations on a regular basis with the Iraqi government.

Don't think also that somehow we kick back and we don't think about this each and every day between now and September 15th; of course we do.

Q My point is -- my question is that if the President sees this as a point in time early in a long process, what that allows him to do is say -- it gives him the faith or the foundation to not change his mind because you have to stay in it for a long time to win it.

MR. SNOW: I just -- I don't understand "change his" -- I think what you're saying is --

Q Change his mind, it's exactly --

MR. SNOW: Does "change his mind" mean leave?

Q Change his mind -- yes.

MR. SNOW: Okay. Well, the President believes that leaving, in the absence of conditions that will allow the Iraqis to support themselves, would result in the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis and the kind of security challenge that would make your head spin, because what would happen is that you would have a terror base in Iraq; you would have instant -- you would have a strengthened Iran; you would have a rejuvenated al Qaeda that gets a "see, told you so," would have increased ability to recruit throughout the globe.

Furthermore, our allies in the region -- I've gone through this before, but it's worth doing -- our allies in the region are going to say, well, wait a minute, we're not going to rely on the Americans. We'll cut side deals with al Qaeda or Iran. You'll have increasing instability in Afghanistan that will bleed over into Pakistan, that will have ramifications in India.

On the other side, you take a look at what happens, and you have instability throughout the Saudi peninsula, it moves across the Middle East into North Africa. It's certainly going to have impacts on Europe.

So the President understands that actions have consequences, and far-reaching consequences. And what's interesting about this one, Jim, is there is not wide disagreement on whether that would be the impact of leaving prematurely. If you look at the National Intelligence Estimate, and you look at the Baker-Hamilton report, they both say the same thing.

Q None of what you've just said would lead anybody to think there's even a glimmer that anything could happen in September that would force him to a major change in course.

MR. SNOW: Well, again, the President is somebody who's going to take a look at what the facts are, Jim.

Q Nothing is going to happen in eight weeks, right?

MR. SNOW: A lot has happened in the last eight weeks. Let's see what happens in the next eight weeks.

Q Thank you.

END 1:19 P.M. EDT. For Immediate Release, Office of the Press Secretary, July 13, 2007

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House or Tony Snow and VIDEO, or benchmarks and Anbar, or General Petraeus, and Carbon nanotubes endure heavy wear and tear or Seven Wonders of the World Colossus of Rhodes and Press Conference by the President Benchmark Assessment Report VIDEO PODCAST

Press Conference by the President Benchmark Assessment Report VIDEO PODCAST

Press Conference by the President FULL STREAMING VIDEO James S. Brady Briefing Room 10:31 A.M. EDT PODCAST OF THIS ARTICLE

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Thank you. Yesterday, America lost an extraordinary First Lady and a fine Texan, Lady Bird Johnson. She brought grace to the White House and beauty to our country.

On behalf of the American people, Laura and I send our condolences to her daughters, Lynda and Luci, and we offer our prayers to the Johnson family.

Before I answer some of your questions, today I'd like to provide the American people with an update on the situation in Iraq. Since America began military operations in Iraq, the conflict there has gone through four major phases. The first phase was the liberation of Iraq from Saddam Hussein. The second phase was the return of sovereignty to the Iraqi people and the holding of free elections. The third phase was the tragic escalation of sectarian violence sparked by the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra.

We've entered a fourth phase: deploying reinforcements and launching new operations to help Iraqis bring security to their people. I'm going to explain why the success of this new strategy is vital for protecting our people and bringing our troops home,

which is a goal shared by all Americans. I'll brief you on the report we are sending to Congress. I'll discuss why a drawdown of forces that is not linked to the success of our operations would be a disaster.

As President, my most solemn responsibility is to keep the American people safe. So on my orders, good men and women are now fighting the terrorists on the front lines in Iraq. I've given our troops in Iraq clear objectives. And as they risk their lives to achieve these objectives, they need to know they have the unwavering support from the Commander-in-Chief, and they do. And they need the enemy to know that America is not going to back down. So when I speak to the American people about Iraq, I often emphasize the importance of maintaining our resolve and meeting our objectives.

As a result, sometimes the debate over Iraq is cast as a disagreement between those who want to keep our troops in Iraq and those who want to bring our troops home. And this is not the real debate. I don't know anyone who doesn't want to see the day when our brave servicemen and women can start coming home.

In my address to the nation in January, I put it this way: If we increase our support at this crucial moment we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home. The real debate over Iraq is between those who think the fight is lost or not worth the cost, and those that believe the fight can be won and that, as difficult as the fight is, the cost of defeat would be far higher.

I believe we can succeed in Iraq, and I know we must. So we're working to defeat al Qaeda and other extremists, and aid the rise of an Iraqi government that can protect its people, deliver basic services, and be an ally in the war against these extremists and radicals. By doing this, we'll create the conditions that would allow our troops to begin coming home, while securing our long-term national interest in Iraq and in the region.

When we start drawing down our forces in Iraq it will be because our military commanders say the conditions on the ground are right, not because pollsters say it will be good politics. The strategy I announced in January is designed to seize the initiative and create those conditions. It's aimed at helping the Iraqis strengthen their government so that it can function even amid violence. It seeks to open space for Iraq's political leaders to advance the difficult process of national reconciliation, which is essential to lasting security and stability. It is focused on applying sustained military pressure to rout out terrorist networks in Baghdad and surrounding areas. It is committed to using diplomacy to strengthen regional and international support for Iraq's democratic government.

Doing all these things is intended to make possible a more limited role in Iraq for the United States. It's the goal outlined by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. It's the goal shared by the Iraqis and our coalition partners. It is the goal that Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus and our troops are working hard to make a reality.

Our top priority is to help the Iraqis protect their population. So we have launched an offensive in and around Baghdad to go after extremists, to buy more time for Iraqi forces to develop, and to help normal life and civil society take root in communities and neighborhoods throughout the country. We're helping enhance the size, capabilities and effectiveness of the Iraqi security forces so the Iraqis can take over the defense of their own country. We're helping the Iraqis take back their neighborhoods from the extremists. In Anbar province, Sunni tribes that were once fighting alongside al Qaeda against our coalition are now fighting alongside our coalition against al Qaeda. We're working to replicate the success in Anbar and other parts of the country.

Two months ago, in the supplemental appropriations bill funding our troops, Congress established 18 benchmarks to gauge the progress of the Iraqi government. They required we submit a full report to Congress by September the 15th. Today my administration has submitted to Congress an interim report that requires us to assess -- and I quote the bill -- "whether satisfactory progress toward meeting these benchmarks is or is not being achieved."

Of the 18 benchmarks Congress asked us to measure, we can report that satisfactory progress is being made in eight areas. For example, Iraqis provided the three brigades they promised for operations in and around Baghdad. And the Iraqi government is spending nearly $7.3 billion from its own funds this year to train, equip and modernize its forces. In eight other areas, the Iraqis have much more work to do. For example, they have not done enough to prepare for local elections or pass a law to share oil revenues. And in two remaining areas, progress was too mixed to be characterized one way or the other.

Those who believe that the battle in Iraq is lost will likely point to the unsatisfactory performance on some of the political benchmarks. Those of us who believe the battle in Iraq can and must be won see the satisfactory performance on several of the security benchmarks as a cause for optimism. Our strategy is built on a premise that progress on security will pave the way for political progress. So it's not surprising that political progress is lagging behind the security gains we are seeing. Economic development funds are critical to helping Iraq make this political progress. Today, I'm exercising the waiver authority granted me by Congress to release a substantial portion of those funds.

The bottom line is that this is a preliminary report and it comes less than a month after the final reinforcements arrived in Iraq. This September, as Congress has required, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker will return to Washington to provide a more comprehensive assessment. By that time, we hope to see further improvement in the positive areas, the beginning of improvement in the negative areas. We'll also have a clearer picture of how the new strategy is unfolding, and be in a better position to judge where we need to make any adjustments.

I will rely on General Petraeus to give me his recommendations for the appropriate troop levels in Iraq. I will discuss the recommendation with the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I will continue consultations with members of the United States Congress from both sides of the aisle, and then I'll make a decision.

I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region, and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean that we'd be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we'd allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.

The fight in Iraq is part of a broader struggle that's unfolding across the region. The same region in Iran -- the same regime in Iran that is pursuing nuclear weapons and threatening to wipe Israel off the map is also providing sophisticated IEDs to extremists in Iraq who are using them to kill American soldiers. The same Hezbollah terrorists who are waging war against the forces of democracy in Lebanon are training extremists to do the same against coalition forces in Iraq. The same Syrian regime that provides support and sanctuary for Islamic jihad and Hamas has refused to close its airport in Damascus to suicide bombers headed to Iraq. All these extremist groups would be emboldened by a precipitous American withdrawal, which would confuse and frighten friends and allies in the region.

Nations throughout the Middle East have a stake in a stable Iraq. To protect our interests and to show our commitment to our friends in the region, we are enhancing our military presence, improving our bilateral security ties, and supporting those fighting the extremists across the Middle East. We're also using the tools of diplomacy to strengthen regional and international support for Iraq's democratic government.

So I'm sending Secretary Gates and Secretary Rice to the region in early August. They will meet with our allies, reemphasize our commitment to the International Compact of Sharm el Sheikh, reassure our friends that the Middle East remains a vital strategic priority for the United States.

There is a conversion of visions between what Iraqi leaders want, what our partners want and what our friends in the region want, and the vision articulated by my administration, the Iraq Study Group and others here at home. The Iraqis do not want U.S. troops patrolling their cities forever, any more than the American people do. But we need to ensure that when U.S. forces do pull back that terrorists and extremists cannot take control.

The strategy that General Petraeus and the troops he commands are now carrying out is the best opportunity to bring us to this point. So I ask Congress to provide them with the time and resources they need. The men and women of the United States military have made enormous sacrifices in Iraq. They have achieved great things, and the best way to begin bringing them home is to make sure our new strategy succeeds.

And now I'll be glad to answer a few questions, starting with Ms. Thomas.

Q Mr. President, you started this war, a war of your choosing, and you can end it alone, today, at this point -- bring in peacekeepers, U.N. peacekeepers. Two million Iraqis have fled their country as refugees. Two million more are displaced. Thousands and thousands are dead. Don't you understand, you brought the al Qaeda into Iraq.

THE PRESIDENT: Actually, I was hoping to solve the Iraqi issue diplomatically. That's why I went to the United Nations and worked with the United Nations Security Council, which unanimously passed a resolution that said disclose, disarm or face serious consequences. That was the message, the clear message to Saddam Hussein. He chose the course.

Q Didn't we go into Iraq --

THE PRESIDENT: It was his decision to make. Obviously, it was a difficult decision for me to make, to send our brave troops, along with coalition troops, into Iraq. I firmly believe the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power. Now the fundamental question facing America is will we stand with this young democracy, will we help them achieve stability, will we help them become an ally in this war against extremists and radicals that is not only evident in Iraq, but it's evident in Lebanon, the Palestinian Territories and Afghanistan.

We're at the beginning stages of a great ideological conflict between those who yearn for peace and those who want their children to grow up in a normal, decent society, and radicals and extremists who want to impose their dark vision on people throughout the world. Iraq is obviously -- Helen, it's got the attention of the American people, as it should; this is a difficult war and it's a tough war. But as I have consistently stated throughout this presidency, it is a necessary war to secure our peace.

I find it interesting that as this young democracy has taken hold, radicals and extremists kill innocent people to stop its advance. And that ought to be a clear signal to the American people that these are dangerous people and their ambition is not just contained to Iraq. Their ambition is to continue to hurt the American people. My attitude is we ought to defeat them there so we don't have to face them here, and that we ought to defeat their ideology with a more hopeful form of government.

Terry.

Q Mr. President, you're facing a rebellion from Republican -- key Republican senators who want you to change course and begin reducing the U.S. combat role. Given the mixed report that you present today, how do you persuade Republicans to stick with you as they look ahead to the next elections?

THE PRESIDENT: A couple of things. First of all, I respect those Republicans that you're referring to. I presume you're referring to friends of mine, like Lugar -- Senator Lugar, Domenici, yes. These are good, honorable people. I've spoken to them and I listen very carefully to what they have to say.

First of all, they share my concern that a precipitous withdrawal would embolden al Qaeda. And they also understand that we can't let al Qaeda gain safe haven inside of Iraq. I appreciate their calls and I appreciate their desire to work with the White House to be in a position where we can sustain a presence in Iraq.

What I tell them is this, just what I've told you, is that as the Commander-in-Chief of the greatest military ever, I have an obligation, a sincere and serious obligation, to hear out my commander on the ground. And I will take his recommendation. And as I mentioned, to talk to Bob Gates about it, as well as the Joint Chiefs about it, as well as consult with members of the Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, as I make a decision about the way forward in Iraq.

And so I -- you know, I value the advice of those senators. I appreciate their concerns about the situation in Iraq, and I am going to continue listening to them.

Toby.

Q Mr. President, in addition to members of your own party, the American public is clamoring for a change of course in Iraq. Why are you so resistant to that idea, and how much longer are you willing to give the surge to work before considering a change in this policy?

THE PRESIDENT: First, I understand why the American people are -- you know, they're tired of the war. There is -- people are -- there is a war fatigue in America. It's affecting our psychology. I've said this before. I understand that this is an ugly war. It's a war in which an enemy will kill innocent men, women and children in order to achieve a political objective. It doesn't surprise me that there is deep concern amongst our people.

Part of that concern is whether or not we can win; whether or not the objective is achievable. People don't want our troops in harm's way if that which we are trying to achieve can't be accomplished. I feel the same way. I cannot look a mother and father of a troop in the eye and say, I'm sending your kid into combat, but I don't think we can achieve the objective. I wouldn't do that to a parent or a husband or wife of a soldier.

I believe we can succeed and I believe we are making security progress that will enable the political tract to succeed, as well. And the report, by the way, which is, as accurately noted, is being submitted today, is written a little less than a month after the full complement of troops arrived.

I went to the country in January and said I have made this decision. I said what was happening on the ground was unsatisfactory in Iraq. In consultation with a lot of folks, I came to the conclusion that we needed to send more troops into Iraq, not less, in order to provide stability, in order to be able to enhance the security of the people there. And David asked for a certain number of troops -- David Petraeus asked for a certain number -- General Petraeus asked for a certain number of troops, and he just got them a couple of weeks ago.

Military -- it takes a while to move our troops, as the experts know. You just can't load them all in one airplane or one big ship and get them into theater. We had to stage the arrival of our troops. And after they arrived in Iraq, it took a while to get them into their missions. Since the reinforcements arrived, things have changed.

For example, I would remind you that Anbar province was considered lost. Maybe some of you reported that last fall. And yet, today, because of what we call bottom-up reconciliation, Anbar province has changed dramatically. The same thing is now beginning to happen in Diyala province. There are neighborhoods in Baghdad where violence is down. There are still car bombs, most of which have the al Qaeda signature on them, but they're declining. In other words, so there's some measurable progress.

And you asked, how long does one wait? I will repeat, as the Commander-in-Chief of a great military who has supported this military and will continue to support this military, not only with my -- with insisting that we get resources to them, but with -- by respecting the command structure, I'm going to wait for David to come back -- David Petraeus to come back and give us the report on what he sees. And then we'll use that data, that -- his report to work with the rest of the military chain of command, and members of Congress, to make another decision, if need be.

Yes, Martha.

Q You talk about all the troops now being in place, and only in place the last three weeks or a month. Yet three-quarters of the troops for the surge were in place during the period when this July interim report was written. Are you willing to keep the surge going, no matter what General Petraeus says, if there is no substantial Iraqi political progress by September?

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. You're asking me to speculate on what my frame of mind will be in September, and I would just ask that you give -- General Petraeus to come back and brief me. And then, of course, I'll be glad to answer your questions along that line.

Q But there has been no substantial political progress, even with three-quarters of the troops in there.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I mentioned --

Q Will you keep that going through September, even if there isn't?

THE PRESIDENT: Martha, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, we have felt all along that the security situation needed to change in order for there to be political progress. It's very hard for a young democracy to function with the violence that was raging. Secondly, there's a lot of -- a lot of the past that needs to be worked through the system. I mean, living under the brutal tyrant Saddam Hussein created a lot of anxiety and a lot of tensions and a lot of rivalry, and it's going to take a while to work it through. But they couldn't work through those tensions and rivalries in the midst of serious violence.

And so the strategy was, move in more troops to cause the violence to abate. And that's what David Petraeus will be reporting on.

Yes, Jim.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. A question for you about the process you're describing of your decision-making as Commander-in-Chief. Have you entertained the idea that at some point Congress may take some of that sole decision-making power away, through legislation? And can you tell us, are you still committed to vetoing any troop withdrawal deadline?

THE PRESIDENT: You mean in this interim period? Yes. I don't think Congress ought to be running the war. I think they ought to be funding our troops. I'm certainly interested in their opinion, but trying to run a war through resolution is a prescription for failure, as far as I'm concerned, and we can't afford to fail.

I'll work with Congress; I'll listen to Congress. Congress has got all the right to appropriate money. But the idea of telling our military how to conduct operations, for example, or how to deal with troop strength, I don't think it makes sense. I don't think it makes sense today, nor do I think it's a good precedent for the future. And so the role of the Commander-in-Chief is, of course, to consult with Congress.

Q So if Reed-Levin or anything like it were to pass and set a --

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I would hope they wouldn't pass, Jim. But I --

Q But what if they've got --

THE PRESIDENT: Let me make sure you understand what I'm saying. Congress has all the right in the world to fund. That's their main involvement in this war, which is to provide funds for our troops. What you're asking is whether or not Congress ought to be basically determining how troops are positioned, or troop strength. And I don't think that would be good for the country.

David.

Q Mr. President, you've said many times this war at this stage is about the Iraqi government creating a self-sustaining, stable government. Last November, your own CIA Director, according to The Washington Post, told you about that government: "The inability of the government to govern seems irreversible. He could not point to any milestone or checkpoint where we can turn this thing around." And he said, in talking about the government, that it's balanced, but it cannot function.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q When you heard that, since that point, you think of how many hundreds of soldiers have been killed, how much money has been spent. Why shouldn't people conclude that you are either stubborn, in denial, but certainly not realistic about the strategy that you've pursued since then?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, it's interesting, it turns out Mike Hayden -- I think you're quoting Mike Hayden there -- was in this morning to give me his weekly briefing, and I asked him about that newspaper article from which you quote. His answer was -- his comments to the Iraq Study Group were a little more nuanced than the quotation you read.

He said that he made it clear the current strategy in Iraq wasn't working -- this is his recollection of the briefing to the Iraq Study Group. He briefed them to the fact it wasn't working and that we needed a change of direction. He also said that those who suggest that we back away and let the Iraqi government do -- this is in November 2006 -- let the Iraqis handle it, don't understand the inability of the Iraq government at that time to take on that responsibility.

He then went on to say -- this is what he -- his recollection of his conversation -- was that our strategy needed to help get the violence down so that there could be political reconciliation from the top down, as well as the bottom up.

There has been political reconciliation, Martha, from the bottom up. Anbar province is a place where the experts had -- an expert had said that it was impossible for us to achieve our objective. This was the part of the country of Iraq where al Qaeda had made it clear that they would like to establish a safe haven from which to plan, plot further attacks, to spread their ideology throughout the Middle East. Since then, since this November 2006 report, and since that statement to the Iraq Study Group, things have changed appreciably on the ground in Anbar province.

And they're beginning to have the same change -- because the people on the ground there are sick and tired of violence and being threatened by people like al Qaeda, who have no positive vision for the future. And there's been a significant turn, where now Sunni sheikhs and Sunni citizens are working with the coalition to bring justice to al Qaeda killers. And that same approach is being taken in Diyala.

And so there's a lot of focus, and should be, frankly, on oil laws or elections. But remember, there's another political reconciliation track taking place, as well, and that's the one that's taking place at the grassroots level. Mike Hayden talked about that, as well.

Q But you think you've been realistic about the strategy and what's possible?

THE PRESIDENT: Well -- thank you for the follow-up -- nothing has changed in the new room. Anyway -- yes. As I told you last November, right about this time, I was part of that group of Americans who didn't approve of what was taking place in Iraq because it looked like all the efforts we had taken to that point in time were about to fail. In other words, sectarian violence was really raging. And I had a choice to make, and that was to pull back, as some suggested, and hope that the chaos and violence that might occur in the capital would not spill out across the country, or send more troops in to prevent the chaos and violence from happening in the first place -- and that's the decision I made. So it was a realistic appraisal by me.

What's realistic, as well, is to understand the consequences of what will happen if we fail in Iraq. In other words, people aren't just going to be content with driving America out of Iraq. Al Qaeda wants to hurt us here. That's their objective. That's what they would like to do. They have got an ideology that they believe that the world ought to live under, and that one way to help spread that ideology is to harm the American people, harm American interests. The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th, and that's why what happens in Iraq matters to the security here at home.

So I've been realistic about the consequences of failure. I have been realistic about what needs to happen on the ground in order for there to be success. And it's been hard work, and the American people see this hard work. And one of the reasons it is hard work is because on our TV screens are these violent killings, perpetuated by people who have done us harm in the past. And that ought to be a lesson for the American people, to understand that what happens in Iraq and overseas matters to the security of the United States of America.

Yes, ma'am.

Q But, sir, on that point, what evidence can you present to the American people that the people who attacked the United States on September the 11th are, in fact, the same people who are responsible for the bombings taking place in Iraq? What evidence can you present? And also, are you saying, sir, that al Qaeda in Iraq is the same organization being run by Osama bin Laden, himself?

THE PRESIDENT: Al Qaeda in Iraq has sworn allegiance to Osama bin Laden. And the guys who had perpetuated the attacks on America -- obviously, the guys on the airplane are dead, and the commanders, many of those are either dead or in captivity, like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. But the people in Iraq, al Qaeda in Iraq, has sworn allegiance to Osama bin Laden. And we need to take al Qaeda in Iraq seriously, just like we need to take al Qaeda anywhere in the world seriously.

Let's see here. Working my way around here. Sheryl.

Q Mr. President, in Jordan in November, you stood by Prime Minister Maliki and said he's the right guy for Iraq. Given this report card today and given the lack of top-down political reconciliation, can you tell the American people that you still believe he's the right guy for Iraq?

THE PRESIDENT: I believe that he understands that there needs to be serious reconciliation, a need to get law passed; firmly believe that. I have had a series of conference calls with the Prime Minister, as well as the presidency council. The presidency council, you have the President Talabani, you have the two Vice Presidents, al-Mahdi and Hashimi as well as the Prime Minister. And I have urged them to work together to get a law passed. It's not easy to get law passed through certain legislatures, like theirs. There's a lot of work that has to be done. And I will continue to urge, but --

Q Do you have confidence in them?

THE PRESIDENT: I'm almost through with the first one; I'll come back to the second one.

And so I'll continue to urge the Iraqis to show us that they're capable of passing legislation. But it's not just us, it's the Iraqi people. And what really matters is whether or not life is improving for the Iraqi people on the ground.

And, yes, I've got confidence in them, but I also understand how difficult it is. I'm not making excuses, but it is hard. It's hard work for them to get law passed. And sometimes it's hard work for people to get law passed here. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't continue to work to achieve an objective, which is a government that is able to provide security for its people and provide basic services, and, as importantly, serve as an ally against these extremists and radicals.

Yes, sir.

Q Thank you, Mr. President --

THE PRESIDENT: No, not you. Michael.

Q Oh.

THE PRESIDENT: Okay, was that harsh?

Q Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Like the new hall, I should have been more gentle? (Laughter.) Do we ever use "kinder and gentler"? No.

Go ahead, Michael. And then you're next.

Q If I could just switch subjects for a second to another big decision you made recently, which was in the Scooter Libby case.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q You spoke very soberly and seriously in your statement about how you weighed different legal questions in coming to your decision on that commutation. But one issue that you did not address was the issue of the morality of your most senior advisors leaking the name of a confidential intelligence operator. Now that the case is over -- it's not something you've ever spoken to -- can you say whether you're at all disappointed in the behavior of those senior advisors? And have you communicated that disappointment to them in any way?

THE PRESIDENT: Michael, I -- first of all, the Scooter Libby decision was, I thought, a fair and balanced decision. Secondly, I haven't spent a lot of time talking about the testimony that people throughout my administration were forced to give as a result of the special prosecutor. I didn't ask them during the time and I haven't asked them since.

I'm aware of the fact that perhaps somebody in the administration did disclose the name of that person, and I've often thought about what would have happened had that person come forth and said, I did it. Would we have had this, you know, endless hours of investigation and a lot of money being spent on this matter? But it's been a tough issue for a lot of people in the White House, and it's run its course and now we're going to move on.

Wendell.

Q Mr. President, you have spoken passionately --

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, I'm sorry.

Q Are you taking it away from me?

THE PRESIDENT: I am --

Q After doing the "fair and balanced," you're going to take it away -- (laughter.)

Q Ohhh. (Laughter.)

Q You're going to come back to me, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: You got the mic -- a possession deal, you know what I'm saying? (Laughter.)

Q Thank you, sir. You have spoken passionately about the consequences of failure in Iraq. Your critics say you failed to send enough troops there at the start, failed to keep al Qaeda from stepping into the void created by the collapse of Saddam's army, failed to put enough pressure on Iraq's government to make the political reconciliation necessary to keep the sectarian violence the country is suffering from now from occurring. So why should the American people feel you have the vision for victory in Iraq, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: Those are all legitimate questions that I'm sure historians will analyze. I mean, one of the questions is, should we have sent more in the beginning? Well, I asked that question, do you need more, to General Tommy Franks. In the first phase of this operation, General Franks was obviously in charge, and during our discussions in the run up to the decision to remove Saddam Hussein after he ignored the Security Council resolutions. My primary question to General Franks was, do you have what it takes to succeed? And do you have what it takes to succeed after you succeed in removing Saddam Hussein? And his answer was, yes.

Now, history is going to look back to determine whether or not there might have been a different decision made. But at the time, the only thing I can tell you, Wendell, is that I relied upon our military commander to make the proper decision about troop strength. And I can remember a meeting with the Joint Chiefs, who said, we've reviewed the plan. I remember -- and seemed satisfied with it. I remember sitting in the PEOC, or the Situation Room, downstairs here at the White House, and I went to commander and commander that were all responsible of different aspects of the operation to remove Saddam. I said to each one of them, do you have what it takes? Are you satisfied with the strategy? And the answer was, yes.

We have worked hard to help this country reconcile. After all, they do have a modern constitution, which is kind of a framework for reconciliation. And after all, there was a significant series of votes where the people were given a chance to express their desire to live in a free society. As a matter of fact, 12 million Iraqis went to the polls.

What happened then, of course, is that the enemy, al Qaeda, attacks the Samarra Mosque, which, of course, created anxiety and anger amongst the Shia. And then all of a sudden the sectarian violence began to spiral. Reconciliation hadn't taken hold deep enough in society to prevent this violence from taking hold. And so I have a -- you know, I've got to decide whether or not it's okay for that violence to continue, or whether or not it makes sense for us to try to send more troops in to quell the violence, to give the reconciliation process further time to advance.

My concern is, is that as a result of violence and killing, there would be chaos. Now that's a state of affairs that thugs, like al Qaeda, need to survive. They like chaos. As a matter of fact, they like to create chaos in order to create conditions of fear and anxiety and doubt. Out of that chaos would come -- could come a further escalation of violence in the Middle East. And this is what's important for the American people to understand: That violence and that chaos would embolden extremist groups, whether they be Shia or Sunni, and they would then be into competition with each other.

Such chaos and violence would send a mixed signal to the Iranians, who have stated that they believe Israel ought to be wiped off the map. People would begin to wonder about America's resolve. Al Qaeda would certainly be in a better position to raise money and recruit. And what makes all this scenario doubly dangerous is that they have proven themselves able to attack us and kill nearly 3,000 of our citizens. And they would like to do it again.

And, therefore, the strategy has got to be to help this government become an ally against these people. What happens in Iraq -- and I understand how difficult it's been. It's been hard. I have received a lot of inspiration, however, from meeting with our troops, who understand the stakes of this fight, and meeting with their families. And we owe it to our troops to support our commanders -- smart, capable people who are devising a strategy that will enable us to succeed and prevent the conditions I just talked about from happening.

Ed -- no, John. Just kidding.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Your administration has cited al Qaeda leaders such as Zawahiri as saying that if we leave prematurely, it would be a glorious victory for al Qaeda. But the reason that we can't leave or haven't been able to leave is not because we're getting defeated in any way militarily, it's because the Iraqis can't get it together so far. So why can't we counter those messages, and obviously not withdraw precipitously, but begin some sort of gradual withdrawal that prevents ethnic cleansing, but also allows our military to get out?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, there's a lot of discussion about a scenario in which our troop posture would be to guard the territorial integrity of the country of Iraq, to embed and train, to help the Iraqi security forces deal with violent elements in their society, as well as keep enough Special Forces there to chase down al Qaeda. As a matter of fact, that is something that I've spoken in public about, said that's a position I'd like to see us in.

However, I felt like we needed to send more troops to be able to get the situation to quiet down enough to be able to end in that position.

And in terms of my own decision making, as I mentioned earlier, I definitely need to be in consultation, and will be, with General David Petraeus, who asked for the additional troops in the first place -- troops which have been in place, fully in place for about three weeks.

And so I would ask members of Congress to give the general a chance to come back and to give us a full assessment of whether this is succeeding or not. And it's at that point in time that I will consult with members of Congress and make a decision about the way forward -- all aiming to succeed in making sure that al Qaeda and other extremists do not benefit from a decision I might have to make.

Mark.

Q Yes, sir, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, sir. Mark. (Laughter.)

Q Thank you. Thank you, sir. How comfortable are you -- sir, how comfortable are you with your Homeland Security Secretary saying, in the face of no credible intelligence of an imminent threat against the United States, that he has a gut feeling that one is coming this summer? And, sir, what does your gut tell you?

THE PRESIDENT: My gut tells me that -- which my head tells me, as well -- is that when we find a credible threat, I'll share it with people, to make sure that we protect the homeland. My head also tells me that al Qaeda is a serious threat to our homeland, and we've got to continue making sure we've got good intelligence, good response mechanisms in place, that we've got to make sure we don't embolden them with -- by failing in certain theaters of war where they're confronting us, that we ought to continue to keep the pressure on them. We need to chase them down and bring them to justice before they come home to hurt us again.

And so it's a -- this is a serious issue that is going to outlast my presidency. As I say, this is the beginning stages of what I believe is a ideological conflict that -- where you've got competing visions about what the world ought to be like. What makes this more difficult than previous conflicts is that there's the asymmetrical use of power -- in other words, IEDs and suicide bombers are the main tactical device used by these thugs to try to achieve strategic objectives.

Their objective is to impose their vision on the world. Their objective is to drive the United States out of parts of the world. They want safe haven. They love a society where women have no rights, just like the society that they worked to impose with the Taliban on the women of Afghanistan. That's their vision. And it's in our interest to defend ourselves by staying on the offense against them. And it's in our interest to spread an alternative ideology.

We have done this before in our nation's history. We have helped people realize the blessings of liberty, even though they may have been our enemy. And freedom has an amazing way of helping lay the foundation for peace. And it's really important, as we head into this ideological struggle in the 21st century, that we not forget that liberty can transform societies.

Now, the interesting debate is whether or not a nation like Iraq can self-govern; whether or not these people even care about liberty. As you've heard me say before, I believe -- strongly believe -- that freedom is a universal value; that freedom isn't just for Americans, or Methodists, that freedom is universal in its application. And so when they voted in '05, I wasn't surprised -- I was pleased that the numbers were as big as they were, to defy that many threats and car bombers, but I wasn't surprised.

And this is the real challenge we face. And Iraq is just a part of a broader war against these jihadists and extremists, Mark. It is a -- we will be dealing with this issue for a while, just like we dealt with other ideologies for a while. It takes time for ideologies to take root.

I firmly believe that you'll see the democracy movement continue to advance throughout the Middle East if the United States doesn't become isolationist. That's why I've told you that I'm making sure that we continue to stay diplomatically involved in the region. Condi Rice and Bob Gates will be traveling there in early August, to continue to remind our friends and allies that we're -- one, we view them as strategic partners; and, secondly, that we want them to work toward freer societies, and to help this Iraqi government survive. It's in their interests that Iraq become a stable partner.

And I believe we can achieve that objective. And not only do I believe we can achieve, I know we've got to achieve the objective, so we will have done our duty. This is hard work. And one of the things I talked about in the opening comments was, do we do it now, or basically pull back, let the Gallup poll or whatever poll there are decide the fate of the country? And my view is, is that if that were to happen, we would then have to go back in with greater force in order to protect ourselves, because one of the facts of the 21st century is that what happens overseas matters to the security of our country.

Ed.

Q Good morning, Mr. President. Given the events on the ground in Iraq and the politics here at home, has U.S. military deployment to Iraq reached the ceiling, or can you allow any further military escalation?

THE PRESIDENT: You're trying to do what Martha very skillfully tried to get me to do, and that was to --

Q Can I have a follow-up?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, you can, because you're about to realize I'm not going to answer your question -- (laughter) -- except to say this: There's going to be great temptation to -- not "temptation," you won't be tempted, you will actually ask me to speculate about what David Petraeus will talk to us about when he comes home. And I just ask the American people to understand that the Commander-in-Chief must rely upon the wisdom and judgment of the military thinkers and planners. It's very important that there be that solid connection of trust between me and those who are in the field taking incredible risk.

And so, Ed, I'm going to wait to see what David has to say. I'm not going to prejudge what he may say. I trust David Petraeus, his judgment. He's an honest man. Those of you who have interviewed him know that he's a straight shooter, he's an innovative thinker. I was briefed by members of the CODEL that came back, that said that it appeared to them that our troops have high respect for our commanders in Baghdad, as do I.

Now, do you have a follow-up, perhaps another subject, another area, another --

Q Same subject.

THE PRESIDENT: Same question?

Q Different approach.

THE PRESIDENT: It's a different approach; yes, good. (Laughter.)

Q How hard is it for you to conduct the war without popular support? Do you, personally -- do you ever have trouble balancing between doing what you think is the right thing and following the will of the majority of the public, which is really the essence of democracy?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, it is. And, first of all, I can fully understand why people are tired of the war. The question they have is, can we win it? And of course I'm concerned about whether or not the American people are in this fight. I believe, however, that when they really think about the consequences if we were to precipitously withdraw, they begin to say to themselves, maybe we ought to win this, maybe we ought to have a stable Iraq.

Their question, it seems like to me, is, can we succeed? And that's a very important, legitimate question for anybody to ask. I think many people understand we must succeed, and I think a lot of people understand we've got to wait for the generals to make these military decisions. I suspect -- I know this, Ed, that if our troops thought that I was taking a poll to decide how to conduct this war, they would be very concerned about the mission. In other words, if our troops said, well, here we are in combat, and we've got a Commander-in-Chief who is running a focus group -- in other words, politics is more important to him than our safety and/or our strategy -- that would dispirit our troops.

And there's a lot of constituencies in this fight -- clearly the American people, who are paying for this, is the major constituency. And I repeat to you, Ed, I understand that there -- this violence has affected them. And a lot of people don't think we can win. There's a lot of people in Congress who don't think we can win, as well, and therefore their attitude is, get out.

My concern with that strategy, something that Mike Hayden also discussed, is that just getting out may sound simple, and it may affect polls, but it would have long-term, serious security consequences for the United States. And so, Ed, sometimes you just have to make the decisions based upon what you think is right. My most important job is to help secure this country, and therefore, the decisions in Iraq are all aimed at helping do that job. And that's what I firmly believe.

A second constituency is the military. And I repeat to you, I'm pretty confident our military do not want their Commander-in-Chief making political decisions about their future.

A third constituency that matters to me a lot is military families. These are good folks who are making huge sacrifices, and they support their loved ones. And I don't think they want their Commander-in-Chief making decisions based upon popularity.

Another constituency group that is important for me to talk to is the Iraqis. Obviously, I want the Iraqi government to understand that we expect there to be reconciliation top down; that we want to see laws passed. I think they've got that message. They know full well that the American government and the American people expect to see tangible evidence of working together; that's what the benchmarks are aimed to do.

But they also need to know that I am making decisions based upon our security interests, of course, but also helping them succeed, and that a poll is not going to determine the course of action by the United States. What will determine the course of actions is, will the decisions that we have made help secure our country for the long run?

And, finally, another constituency is the enemy, who are wondering whether or not America has got the resolve and the determination to stay after them. And so that's what I think about, Ed.

You know, I guess I'm like any other political figure -- everybody wants to be loved, just sometimes the decisions you make and the consequences don't enable you to be loved. And so when it's all said and done, Ed, if you ever come down and visit the old, tired, me down there in Crawford, I will be able to say I looked in the mirror and made decisions based upon principle, not based upon politics. And that's important to me.

Thank you all for your time. I loved being here at this new building. Thank you.

Q Can we just ask you about the al Qaeda intelligence report, please?

THE PRESIDENT: What was that? This is amazing.

Q I know, I know.

THE PRESIDENT: The new me.

The al Qaeda intelligence report.

Q The intelligence analysts are saying al Qaeda has reconstituted in areas of Pakistan, saying the threat to the West is greater than ever now, as great as 2001. What's --

THE PRESIDENT: Okay --

Q Okay, you tell us what --

THE PRESIDENT: I'm glad you asked, thank you. Thank you, I appreciate that opportunity to --

Q Thank you for coming back, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: I'm happy to do it. This is not the new me. I mean, this is just an aberration. In other words --

Q It's over next time.

THE PRESIDENT: -- I'm not going to leave and then come back because somebody yells something at me.

Q Like China.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, exactly. (Laughter.) Thank you, David. I appreciate that. Exactly.

There is a perception in the coverage that al Qaeda may be as strong today as they were prior to September the 11th. That's just simply not the case. I think the report will say, since 2001, not prior to September the 11th, 2001.

Secondly, that because of the actions we have taken, al Qaeda is weaker today than they would have been. They are still a threat. They are still dangerous. And that is why it is important that we succeed in Afghanistan and Iraq and anywhere else we find them. That's our strategy, is to stay on the offense against al Qaeda.

Elaine asked the question, is it al Qaeda in Iraq? Yes, it is al Qaeda, just like it's al Qaeda in parts of Pakistan. And I'm working with President Musharraf to be able to -- he doesn't want them in his country; he doesn't want foreign fighters in outposts of his country. And so we're working to make sure that we continue to keep the pressure on al Qaeda.

But no question al Qaeda is dangerous for the American people, and that's why -- as well as other people that love freedom -- and that's why we're working hard with allies and friends to enhance our intelligence. That's why we need terrorist surveillance programs. That's why it's important for us to keep -- you know, would hope Congress would modernize that bill. And that's why we're keeping on the offense.

Ultimately, the way to defeat these radicals and extremists is to offer alternative ways of life so that they're unable to recruit; that they can use -- they like to use frustration and hopelessness. The societies that don't provide hope will become the societies where al Qaeda has got the capacity to convince a youngster to go blow himself up. What we need to do is help governments provide brighter futures for their people so they won't sign up.

And the fundamental question facing the world on this issue is whether or not it makes sense to try to promote an alternative ideology. I happen to think it does. They say, he's idealistic. Yes, I'm idealistic, but I'm also realistic in understanding if there is not an alternative ideology presented, these thugs will be able to continue the recruit. They'll use hopelessness to be able to recruit. And so it's -- thank you for asking that question.

Thank you all.

END 11:30 A.M. EST

For Immediate Release, Office of the Press Secretary, July 12, 2007

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House or Initial Benchmark Assessment Report and the New Way Forward or Nanospheres revolutionize biodiesel production or Seven Wonders of the World Mausoleum of Halicarnassus and President Unveils Renovated Press Briefing Room VIDEO PODCAST