State Department Daily Press Briefing, VIDEO, TEXT, 10/23/06

Daily Press Briefing, Spokesman Sean McCormack, FULL STREAMING VIDEO, file is windows media format, running time is 32:17 Washington, DC, October 23, 2006

Department Spokesman Sean McCormack (shown during the Daily Press Briefing) was sworn in as Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs and Department Spokesman on June 2, 2005.

Immediately prior to returning to the State Department, Mr. McCormack served as Special Assistant to the President, Spokesman for the National Security Council, and Deputy White House Press Secretary for Foreign Policy. State Department Photo by Michael Gross. TRANSCRIPT:, 1:02 p.m. EDT.

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't have any opening statements, so we can get right into your questions. Who wants to start off?

QUESTION: Anything on the Secretary's meeting with ElBaradei?

MR. MCCORMACK: She -- they talked about a few different topics, talked a little bit about North Korea, talked about Iran, talked about the issue of fuel assurances. We have very similar views in terms of international fuel supply guarantees. The President has made a bunch of proposals in that regard. Mr. ElBaradei has some thoughts on it, so they covered that.

On North Korea they talked really about the issue of implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1718. The Secretary filled him in on her conversations from her recent trip last week to northeast Asia and the reception she got -- a very positive one -- from other countries about how to work together to implement 1718.

On Iran, they had a general discussion where we stand right now, and UN member countries' efforts to pass a UN Security Council resolution that would impose some sanctions on Iran. So that was really sort of the tone and tenor of their conversation.

QUESTION: Where do we stand right now on Iran?

MR. MCCORMACK: In terms of Iran, we are working with the Security Council members, the so called P-3, the English and the French, on a Security Council resolution. We don't have, yet, a full text of a resolution. I think that there's fairly widespread agreement on what the elements of that resolution will be, sort of working out, now, talk to the P-5 about a resolution. I think that will probably happen over the next couple of days. Once you do that, you expand the circle out even further and start working with the other members of the Security Council. And then we will have a broader discussion on that matter, which I would expect will take a little bit of time.

QUESTION: On the P-5 discussions, you -- we talked last week and a little bit I think the week before about that there were discussions among the P-5. So is it because you just have so many other issues right now with North Korea and other things on the docket, or are you still at loggerheads in terms of narrowing down what kind of sanctions would go into this resolution?

MR. MCCORMACK: No, I think there's -- among the P-3, we, the French and the British, think that there's agreement -- widespread agreement, although not total agreement, on the elements of a resolution as well as how this resolution might relate to further diplomatic efforts. And we have also been consulting with the Chinese as well as the Russians on this all along, although, the core conversations have been among the P-3.

So there have been a lot of other things on the Security Council docket. The North Korea resolution, yes, I think did push off a bit more formal discussions on Iran, although those have now been taking place. And I would expect that this is going to be one of the top items on the Security Council calendar for the next several weeks.

QUESTION: Is it your understanding that Russia and China are on board for some kind of resolution which would call for sanctions against Iran?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, that was their commitment. That was their previous commitment. There's nothing -- there haven't been any new discussions in that regard. The Secretary obviously talked a little bit about this on her stop in Moscow, but there's nothing new in terms of that commitment. There was a commitment -- we all know the history of that -- so we're going to be pushing forward on a Chapter 7 resolution coming up here in the next couple of weeks.

QUESTION: Sean, diplomats in Vienna are now saying about the time of the meeting this morning that Iran had expanded its nuclear program by hooking up a second centrifuge. Did that come up in the meeting with ElBaradei and does that affect the U.S. position at all?

MR. MCCORMACK: I have to -- no, I wasn't in this particular meeting so I don't -- I can't give you a full readout. We'll check to see if that issue was touched upon.

In terms of what's going on on the ground in Iran, the IAEA has the eyes on what's happening there. They do have inspectors that continue to be there. I can't tell you whether or not they have expanded from the 164-centrifuge cascade to something larger, but that has been our concern all along is that the Iranians are, it seems inexorably at this point, moving forward on expanding the number of centrifuges in these cascades and then linking those cascades up so that at some point in the future you will have industrial-scale production. You don't want that. You don't want that for a lot of different reasons. One, you don't want them to get good at enrichment and mastering the techniques and the know-how of enrichment. It's more -- this is science and art, and you acquire that knowledge through experience.

And you also don't want them to expand to industrial-scale production, because that would be -- that would be something that would be quite alarming for the rest of the world because that means that you are able to start to produce, or at least have the capability to produce, large amounts of highly enriched uranium, which leads you to the building blocks for a nuclear weapon.

So our position on this matter is clear. The Secretary has reiterated that. We call upon Iran to suspend all their enrichment and reprocessing related activities. That is the position not only of the United States but of the P-5+1 as well, and the Security Council.

QUESTION: Any other signs of Iranian developments since the August 31st resolution and are they pressing ahead as --

MR. MCCORMACK: To my knowledge, they are pressing ahead with their program. I can't offer you specifics as to, you know, how often they are running, spinning their centrifuges, how much gas they're introducing into them or whether or not they're expanding them. I don't have the details for you on that. But we do believe they are moving forward on their program.

Sylvie.

QUESTION: The Iranians this weekend made several statements and including President Ahmadi-Nejad today, but this weekend the Foreign Minister said that if the international community would sanction, we will take appropriate measures.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: How do you assess the risk for the sanctions to give way to an influence, negative influence of Iran in Middle East, in Iraq, in the Palestinian territories --

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, they're already --

QUESTION: Like on --

MR. MCCORMACK: They are already doing that. They're already doing that. They already are a negative influence in the region. I think the rest of the world and especially Iran's neighbors would very much like for Iran to play a positive role in the region. Iran as a country and as a culture has a lot to offer, has a lot to offer the rest of the world, has a lot to offer the rest of the region.

But the situation you have now, given Iranian behavior and under the current leadership, you have Iran really on the other side of the line from where the rest of the region is heading. The rest of the region is heading towards greater openness, greater freedoms, greater democracy, looking for solutions to avoid conflict, to work out differences through dialogue. Whereas, you have the Iranian regime which is just headed the other way. They're the sponsors of Hezbollah, which started a war in the region. They are clearly playing an unhelpful role in Iraq. The Iraqi Government has talked to them about that. They are probably the most significant state sponsors of terror in the world and they are now working to develop a nuclear weapon, which if they accomplish that would be probably one of the single most destabilizing events that we have ever seen in the Middle East.

So Iran already is playing, unfortunately, a negative role in the region and Iran's neighbors, more than anybody else, are concerned about that and have spoken out about it.

QUESTION: But this is a real threat so it could be worse. That's what they are saying. It could be even worse.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, you know, again, I don't think that that argues in favor of not doing anything with respect to their nuclear program. As I said, it could get worse, absolutely. It could get a heck of a lot worse if you have a nuclear-armed Iran in the heart of the Middle East. Think about that. And Iran's neighbors have been thinking about that and they are alarmed at the prospect. The rest of the world, the international community is alarmed by that prospect. That's why you had -- that's why you had a Security Council resolution that was passed that called upon them to suspend all their enrichment and reprocessing- related activities. And you've also had others who looked at what happened when Hezbollah started a war in the Middle East and were quite concerned about that fact, quite concerned about the fact that a terrorist group sponsored by Iran could drag the entire region down into conflict. That got people's attention.

And I think that in terms of Iranian behavior, there is a lot of concern over a variety of things. I haven't even mentioned human rights and the just terrible record that this regime has on human rights and the way it treats its own people. So there's a lot to be concerned about concerning this regime's behavior. And certainly looking the other way because they might do -- they might lash out in some other way is certainly not how we're going to respond. And I don't think you're going to see the rest of the world turn a blind eye, because that is just -- once you start going down that pathway that is a pathway that just leads to a very, very negative place.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Sean, just a few moments ago you acknowledged that the activity on North Korea at the Security Council had probably pushed back action on Iran somewhat. And then you stated that you expected the subject of Iran to dominate at the UN Security Council for, as you put it, the next several weeks.

MR. MCCORMACK: Next few weeks, yeah.

QUESTION: So should we not expect a resolution to be adopted in the next several -- in the next few -- before three weeks?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we're looking for a resolution as soon as we can get one. We think it would be certainly positive if we get a resolution this week. Is that likely? That's not likely just because, as I have said before, we will witness the sine curve of hope and despair which is the negotiating process in the Security Council over resolutions, and there are strong feelings on this. This is just passage of a resolution, putting Iran under sanctions, puts Iran in a pretty exclusive club, not a very positive exclusive club but an exclusive club nonetheless. And people have views about that. But there's an agreement that we are going down this pathway, and the reason why we're going down this pathway is because this is the pathway that Iran has opened up for the rest of the world. There's a very positive offer that was put down before them. And all they were asked to do -- all they were asked to do was to suspend their enrichment-related activities in order to negotiate. They weren't being asked to subscribe or sign onto a particular outcome of negotiations. All they were asked to do was to suspend their enrichment-related activity so that they could get into negotiations and talk about a very attractive package that was laid out before them. And within the confines of that discussion you could raise a lot of different topics and we would be at the table talking to them about that.

So that -- you know, an entirely, I would put to you, reasonable offer put to the Iranian regime. One in which they could realize the benefits that they say that they want to realize from a peaceful nuclear regime, while giving the international community some objective assurances and reassuring it that they're not developing a nuclear weapon. But instead they have chosen another pathway, and we're fully prepared to go down that diplomatic pathway, which leads to sanctions.

QUESTION: You said there's fairly widespread agreement on what should be in the resolution.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: The last we had heard from you was that --

MR. MCCORMACK: Among the P-3.

QUESTION: Among the P-3, okay. Can you tell us any more than you did, I guess about ten days ago, when you told us that Nick Burns had in his videoconference with his counterparts succeeded in short of whittling down the large -- the two-page menu into a subset. Where are we at in that process now would you say?

MR. MCCORMACK: I think we have -- we have in mind what might -- what the components of that resolution might be, what the specific areas of sanction might be and all the various other language that goes around it. It's not put down on paper yet. I don't have -- I'm not going to offer any specifics at this point because that's part of the negotiating process. You don't -- we try not to negotiate the specifics of these resolutions too much in public. It inevitably happens. I know you're disappointed. Why not, right?

QUESTION: You never know. You might try it, since the other one is taking so much longer.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, you know --

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that that might not make the process easier, it might extend it out a bit.

QUESTION: Can I ask simply whether there is agreement that this round of sanctions should target Iran's WMD program? Is that agreed upon?

MR. MCCORMACK: James, I'm not going to talk about the specifics, but that is our initial focus. As the Secretary has made clear, we don't -- you don’t start off with the most Draconian sanctions, because the idea here is you want Iran and the Iranian regime to change its behavior. And you also don't want to hurt the Iranian people. They are -- they are the, if you will, biggest losers out of all this because you have a regime that's taking them down this negative pathway whereas they could be realizing greater benefits through greater exchanges and openness with the rest of the world.

Yeah, Sylvie.

QUESTION: If we can stay on the nuclear subject. Senator Lugar yesterday said that the United States will -- eventually will have to have direct bilateral talks with North Korea. He said that it's going to happen, and it should happen sooner rather than later. So do you have --

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we -- again, we have, you know, in this building great respect for Senator Lugar. He is an experienced wise voice on foreign policy. But there is this myth out there that somehow we don't talk with the North Koreans directly. We have on many occasions within the context of the six-party talks. But -- and we're willing to do that again. The Secretary has made that clear. Within the context of the six-party talks we are absolutely willing to talk to the North Koreans. Chris Hill has done it previously. He is ready to do it again. He's ready to have dinner with them again. He's ready to sit down with them again in the context of the six-party talks.

But the idea that you deal with North Korea in a strictly bilateral sense is one that's been tried and unfortunately has failed. And you -- we are now in a position where North Korea, when it persists in bad behavior in the vain of launching missiles, conducting a nuclear test. It's no longer -- it's not a U.S.-North Korea issue. This is now an issue where you have the Security Council and the other five parties of six-party talks united in putting pressure on North Korea to get them to change their behavior.

If you had just bilateral discussions -- imagine if we were just in a bilateral arrangement right now. On the playing field you would have North Korea and the United States. Everybody else on the sidelines saying, you got to make a deal. You got to make a deal. U.S. -- you got to accede to the North Korean demands. That's you know, you're not going to win too many hands of poker that way, I'll tell you that. You now have everybody else in the game. And it is now the other five parties of the six-party talks allayed speaking with one voice towards North Korea, saying change your behavior and if you don't change your behavior, if you persist in the negative behaviors that you have demonstrated, there are going to consequences. There are going to be diplomatic consequences to that. And it is going to become increasingly uncomfortable for the North Korean regime in terms of the sanctions that are applied to it. So again I think we -- this is no doubt a very, very difficult issue. But we believe that we are on the proper course.

QUESTION: Sorry. I think what Senator Lugar meant was that maybe the North Koreans need to be reassured that the U.S. doesn't want to overthrow their regime to --

MR. MCCORMACK: Secretary Rice has been asked this question many times. The President has been asked this question many times.

QUESTION: But one to one.

MR. MCCORMACK: We have -- again, we were sitting across the table from them. We signed on to the September 19th Framework Agreement. We have told them repeatedly the words of the President of the United States standing in South Korea, saying we have no intention to invade or attack you. And we have provided those assurances repeatedly. Secretary Powell has, Secretary Rice has reiterated those assurances.

So, you know, I don't know what more you need than the word of the President of the United States on that score. And in terms of other issues regarding the peninsula, those are outlined very clearly in the September 19th Framework Agreement. If you look at it, it talks about addressing the current state of play on the Korean Peninsula where you have a suspension of hostilities via a treaty but formalizing that. So there are a lot of different ways to get at the stated North Koreans concerns. And you have to just wonder if, in fact, these sorts of concerns that they continue to throw out and say that the United States and the six-parties -- other members of the six-party talks haven't met those, whether or not those are just excuses for not dealing with the core issues. And we'll see. We'll see what their true intentions are here. We hope that that they would see it clear to come back to the six-party talks and to engage in a constructive manner.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Sean, has Secretary Rice managed to reach Secretary General Annan yet on Darfur. And what would be the point of that conversation?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, she talked a little bit about this in the camera spray upstairs earlier. To my knowledge she has not. I think she's been in meetings pretty much straight up until the time I came out here. But she -- I think this afternoon she hopes to get in touch with Secretary General Annan to talk about the situation, talking about Sudan's expressed intent to throw out Mr. Pronck from Sudan. But we -- she has said that we believe that is unfortunate in the extreme.

So she's going to talk to him about what we might do to continue to try to get this regime to comply with the demands of the Security Council resolution and to work to get that international force in there, which is going to be -- which is really key to trying to address the current situation on the ground. It's -- it is a just terrible situation right now, where you have loss of innocent life. And there are areas where NGOs, where international organizations just can't get to so there are people that are at risk in those areas. And this is something that is -- the Secretary is very concerned about and works on even while she is on the road dealing with other issues. She brought this issue up in China, talking with her Chinese counterpart about the need to get something done on Sudan.

QUESTION: Does she have new ideas?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, the new ideas are to get the Sudanese Government to agree to allowing that international force, that UN blue-helmeted force which, for a lot of different reasons that we've talked about here previously, is -- we believe and the rest of the world believes -- the optimal solution.

QUESTION: There's been some commentary that the expulsion order was a bit of political theater because he was due to leave -- expected to leave, you know, at the end of Annan's term anyway.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: So what do you view as the seriousness of --

MR. MCCORMACK: You know, it is -- I think we have to get a better handle on it. Whether or no it is related to or is a matter of political theater, I couldn't subscribe to that view. We think that it's important that the UN has continued high level access in Sudan. And as we've said, we believe that this order, if carried out, would be very, very unfortunate.

QUESTION: Did the Chinese tell her anything that, well, that is helping --

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I think the sense we get is the Chinese do want to -- do understand the importance of getting an international force in there. And I think that they do have some influence with this regime. And they are not the only ones. I wouldn't put it solely on the Chinese. There are other states as well, some of the Arab states we are hoping, can talk to the Sudanese regime and explain to them clearly what the intent of this international force is and what the intent -- and address some of their concerns. They have stated that they have some concerns about what the mission of this force might be and the extent of their activity. So we are trying through a number of different channels. Andrew Natsios was there as well on our behalf. So we're trying a number of different channels to try to change the minds of this regime and let that international force in.

QUESTION: Did you get a readout of his trip? Has he briefed the Secretary of his conversations?

MR. MCCORMACK: He has not -- he is scheduled to sit down with her, I think either this afternoon or tomorrow, to give her a direct readout.

Joel.

QUESTION: Sean, with regard to the Sudanese, 15 Sudanese soldiers were arrested near Juba. That's down in the south. So when there is a will, there is a way. Now, did the UN, did we, have to push for that, those arrests? But that's probably in conjunction with the North-South agreement versus Darfur. And yesterday, 60 Minutes ran a show with John Prendergast of the International Crisis Group which is based in Brussels, Belgium.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: And as of October 12th, they are calling this whole crisis a major UN peacekeeping force directly a three-year failure with inaction. And this whole exposé last night with Scott Pelley and 60 Minutes pointed out the fragility of doing something to end this crisis immediately. Is there any further follow-up with other international groups to put pressure on the Sudanese Government at Khartoum?

MR. MCCORMACK: I just talked about a few of those, Joel. Certainly that's not an exhaustive list. European governments are concerned about this, you know, playing a role. As I said, the Chinese, other members of the Security Council, Arab governments, the Arab League; So we are working, working through all channels that we know that we have available, Joel.

QUESTION: Have you seen the television commercial on behalf of the Save Darfur Coalition?

MR. MCCORMACK: Mm-hmm. Yeah. Anything else? No? We got more. Kirit.

QUESTION: Oliver North has written a few op-eds recently quite critical of the State Department on policy in Nicaragua. I just wondered if you had any sort of response to that.

MR. MCCORMACK: He's a private citizen and he is free to express his views and travel where he likes.

QUESTION: Sean?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, Samir.

QUESTION: New topic?

MR. MCCORMACK: Sure.

QUESTION: Do you have any comments on the remarks made by Mr. Alberto -- Alberto Fernandez and how does the State Department and you feel about the -- what he said?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I think he himself addressed it. He originally told his colleagues that he had been misquoted. He went back and looked at the transcript and he realized at that point that he had misspoke. He put out a statement apologizing for his remarks. He also made it clear that those remarks do not represent his personal views and they certainly don't represent the views of the State Department. So as far as we're concerned, the matter is closed.

QUESTION: Did he get in trouble?

MR. MCCORMACK: Excuse me?

QUESTION: Did he get in trouble?

MR. MCCORMACK: What do you mean by "get in trouble"?

QUESTION: Was he rebuked by his superiors for this?

MR. MCCORMACK: He's still in his job.

QUESTION: That's not what I asked you.

MR. MCCORMACK: He's still in his job.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Can I have a readout of the meeting of the Secretary with the Foreign Minister of Netherlands Bernard Bot?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, they met for about half an hour. They talked about a lot of different things. They talked about Afghanistan and they talked about the situation on the ground there. They talked about the importance of the NATO mission and what the NATO mission is accomplishing there. The Dutch have some people down in Uruzgan Province. Talked about the importance of that NATO mission succeeding and our shared belief that it will, and that it is engaging the Taliban now in some tough fighting but also we believe that that NATO mission will -- has been performing very, very well and that that mission will succeed. They've talked -- they talked about just the generate state of the transatlantic alliance and how really we have been able over the past years to put that transatlantic relationship to work. Afghanistan is one example of that.

They talked about -- talked a little bit about the military commissions, U.S. plans to implement that legislation, and a little bit about the upcoming NATO summit in Riga. I think that's pretty much it.

Yeah, George.

QUESTION: Do you have anything on the referendum in Panama on expanding the Canal?

MR. MCCORMACK: I know that they are -- that there is a referendum that is underway. I think it's a multibillion dollar referendum to expand the canal. Our view is that this is a decision for the Panamanian people to make.

QUESTION: Did the Panama Canal treaties come into play at all with respect to this issue?

MR. MCCORMACK: I'll check for you, George. I haven't seen anything from the lawyers on that but I'll check into it.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Regarding the Fernandez comments, despite the apology, it does sort of raise the question of whether there could be a public opinion benefit of maybe having a more open discussion of some of the mistakes there. And I just wonder if that -- what your response might be to that question.

MR. MCCORMACK: I think that there is a very healthy and vigorous debate in this country and elsewhere about Iraq and all the various elements of Iraq policy from, you know, dating from now back to 2003. The President and Secretary Rice and other high level officials have talked about their views about what we've done there, what has worked, what hasn't worked. And all along the way, learning from those instances where initiatives might not have worked and ensuring that you make changes so that they do work in the future. So I think there is, you know, I think there's pretty vigorous debate, you know, just looking at your front pages, looking at your airwaves, looking at the internet. I think that there's no shortage of discussion about the issue.

QUESTION: And you think there has been sufficient acknowledgement by the U.S. Government of any mistakes they may have made in the -- in policy?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, look, you know, I think the -- certainly the attitude of Secretary Rice is that if you think something is not working the way it should, this goes for Iraq or any other place around the world, her interest is in identifying the problem and finding a solution and implementing the solution and making it work. And as she has said before to many of you here, there are going to be a lot of people writing a lot of dissertations when she goes back to Stanford about all the "mistakes" that have been made concerning Iraq. She will supervise many of those dissertations. But her focus and her attitude is if there -- if you need to correct your policies, if you need to modify programs, figure out how to do it and get it done,and focus on getting the job done and succeeding. And that's -- I think that's a fair summation of her attitude.

QUESTION: Has the Secretary received assurances that there is a slot available to her at Stanford after she leaves this job?

MR. MCCORMACK: She is on leave -- she is on leave from Stanford.

QUESTION: And so she'll go back --

MR. MCCORMACK: She retains her -- I don't know technically how you'd refer to it, but she still is a tenured professor at Stanford University on the leave of absence. George Shultz, I think had a similar sort of arrangement when he was Secretary of State. He was gone for eight years.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:35 p.m.), DPB # 171, Released on October 23, 2006

Technorati Tags: State Department and Secretary of State or North Korea and ElBaradei, or Bernard Bot and IAEA or Condoleezza Rice, or Sudan and P-3,

Press Briefing Tony Snow 10/23/06 (VIDEO)

Press Briefing by Tony Snow, FULL STREAMING VIDEO. file is real media format, running time is 42:47. White House Conference Center Briefing Room.

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow briefs the press and answers questions. 10/23/2006: WASHINGTON, DC: 12:48 EDT.

MR. SNOW: Just a couple of preliminaries here, and then we'll be happy to take questions. The President, today and tomorrow, is going to be talking about the economy. And well he should. Since cutting taxes in 2003, the United States economy has undergone an extraordinary period of growth after, frankly, an unprecedented series of challenges that included a recession, September 11th, and since then have also included the costs of two wars, as well as Hurricane Katrina.

Nevertheless, since August of 2003, we have had continuous economic growth; we've had job growth in each of those months. And maybe if you start doing it by the measure that most people look at -- are you working, do you own a home, do you have good prospects -- more people are working than ever before. More people own homes. More people are making -- people are making, on average, more money than ever before. More people have college degrees, and home ownership and college degrees among minorities continuing to grow. And basically, the American Dream club is getting bigger. And the President is going to talk about the importance of continuing to enlarge that club with pro-growth economic policies. And it's certainly worth reminding people where we stand.

In addition, what you have is consumer confidence continuing to rise. Americans understand that things are getting better for them. And so that is the message that we're going to have for the next couple of days. But I think there are other interests out there.

Q The President met with Secretary Rumsfeld today and General Pace. Tomorrow General Casey and Ambassador Khalilzad have a news conference in Baghdad. Is something afoot?

MR. SNOW: No. What's afoot is simply trying to keep people apprised of what's been going on in Iraq and how we intend to proceed. But there is nothing dramatically new going on.

The problem we have a lot of times when we talk about this is that there are constantly adjustments being made, so in that sense, there are new things going on. But are there dramatic shifts in policy? The answer is, no.

Q Are we satisfied with the pace of progress in Iraq, that the Iraqi government is -- has achieved?

MR. SNOW: I think what you try to do when you're looking at the Iraqi government is find out what's possible. What we are satisfied is that the Iraqi government is serious about taking on the real challenges that it faces. On the security side, it means taking on militias and also taking on insurgents, terrorists, and rejectionists.

On the economic side, it means building an economic infrastructure that contains not only a legal framework in which people have property rights and redress in cases of fraud, theft, or personal violence, but also the opportunity for investors to come in and realize that their investments are going to be made good, that you have the kind of respect for investment. They have passed an investment law that makes it now possible for international investors to come into Iraq.

Meanwhile, on the political side, reconciliation efforts continue apace, and you have had Prime Minister Maliki reaching out the Shia tribal leaders a couple weeks -- I mean, to Sunni tribal leaders a couple of weeks ago, as well as to Shia leaders last week. There was an international conference over the weekend in Saudi Arabia where Shia and Sunni were talking about the importance of putting an end to violence between Shias and Sunnis.

So what you have is a level of engagement and a new government where the Prime Minister, unlike those who have gone before, really at a much higher level now, is a man of action who is proceeding actively to take on the challenges that we all know exists.

Q Tony, this possible change in strategy story seems to be gaining momentum. We've been through the definition of strategy and tactics in this room. The New York Times had the story yesterday about benchmarks and goals and deadlines. Can you tell us what's new as far as that story line is --

MR. SNOW: It's really not new, Bret. As you probably know in July -- on July 25th, Prime Minister Maliki and the President held a press conference. And one of the things they discussed at that time was the formation of a new organization that would be taking a look at -- a joint committee really -- to take a look at the situation in Iraq on a strategic level and figure out how we could help the Iraqis more rapidly achieve self-reliance. It's called the Joint Committee for Achieving Iraqi Security Self-Reliance.

And part of that is just the practical matter, when you're looking at a problem what do you do? You normally follow the same sort of process: What do you think you need to do? Where do you think you need to do it? And how quickly do you think you can get the job done? And those are the kinds of discussions that have been ongoing really throughout the war. But they've been focused since then, and they continue to be the subject of joint cooperation between -- actually the coalition partners and the Iraqis.

The membership of the committee not only includes senior members of the Iraqi government, but also the U.S. and British ambassadors, as well as the top two leaders in the multinational forces.

So I think it's important to realize that this is really both sides rolling up their sleeves, taking a practical look at all levels. The Iraqis also have very publicly been setting up benchmarks for their own political and economic progress. For instance, by the end of the year, there will be a hydrocarbon law. As you know, the share of petroleum receipts is an enormously important issue, not only economically, but politically within Iraq. They have already agreed to an investment law -- I've just mentioned that a couple of minutes ago -- because that does pave the way to foreign investment. And it also helps enact the Iraqi compact or the Iraq compact which the President and Prime Minister Maliki talked about during our visit to Baghdad this summer. That is one that is, in conjunction with the World Bank and the IMF and the United Nations, is going to make it possible for international investors to come into Iraq again and to make money.

The de-Baathification law is also something that the Iraqi government has agreed to pursue. There is -- also agreed is a series of streamlining measures to make it simpler for laws to be enacted -- drafted and enacted. A lot of those things have been laid out by the government of Iraq very publicly, especially on the economic and political sides. For obvious reasons, you are not going to publicize all your security moves, because you are fighting against an enemy within Iraq, and therefore, you're not going to want to tell them each and every adjustment you make in response to their movements.

Q Can I follow up?

MR. SNOW: I'm sorry. Sure.

Q Not to belabor the definition dance that we do here between strategy and tactics, is the administration considering a change in strategy in Iraq?

MR. SNOW: No, again, we're -- let me go back through what we talk about. The strategy is to help Iraq defend, sustain, and govern itself, using three different approaches, all of which are interlocking and all of which are dependent upon the others, and that's security, economic and political. That's not going to change.

Now, are the tactics by which we take a look at those things going to shift? Of course. What you do is you respond constantly, especially on the security side, to the challenges that may arise in Baghdad and elsewhere. And those continue to be the topics of ongoing consultation and cooperation. General Casey and Ambassador Khalilzad are in constant contact with members of the Maliki government. So I hope I've at least answered that part of the question.

Q The Times story reported that top generals and Ambassador Khalilzad were crafting a timetable of sorts for disarming militia. Do you dispute the story --

MR. SNOW: No, the Iraqis themselves have set a timetable for trying to disarm the militia. They want to do so by the end of the year.

Q That's not what the Times is reporting --

MR. SNOW: I know. What the Times was reporting I think reflects the ongoing efforts of the joint committee. But the United States has not said, this is a date.

Q There's no crafting of a timetable going on right now among top generals?

MR. SNOW: I am sure that there is a crafting of timetables going on, drafting of goals --

Q To disarm the militia?

MR. SNOW: To work toward disarming the militia. That is something --

Q Can you give us a sense of what that might be?

MR. SNOW: No.

Q Why not?

MR. SNOW: Because among other things, I don't know what it is, if there is such a thing. And secondly, that is a topic of cooperation between the two sides. You have to -- again, go back to what I was saying before, Jim, is you look at the problem. You ask yourself, what is the problem? Militias are a problem. How do you -- what do you need to do it, and how long do you think it's going to take? And the Iraqis in many ways are going to be the best judges. But let me also say that the Prime Minister has begun taking affirmative and public efforts to address the issue -- and I mentioned it a couple of times -- not only demobilizing a police brigade, but also making reforms within the Department of the Interior.

I think the Iraqis understand that at a practical level what you're really talking about with militias is bound up with the issue of police reform. So I think there are practical conversations going on about how you do this. But is the United States saying, here's your drop dead date? Of course not. What you're trying to do is work with the Iraqis to focus on trying to do it as quickly as possible.

Q But I think -- and last week is a perfect example -- a lot of Americans are looking at their television sets and seeing that Prime Minister Maliki has to go to al Sadr and ask for his help in calming cities that had been turned over and had to be sort of taken back or supported again by coalition troops. The question is, can you tell the American people, is the President satisfied with the degree of control Prime Minister Maliki has over the militias?

MR. SNOW: Well, Prime Minister Maliki is trying to -- look, Prime Minister Maliki understands he's got to deal with the militias. The second thing is, when you're talking about the meeting with al Sadr, you've got your timing a little bit off. He went down and talked to al Sadr, as well as Ali al Sistani. I think some of the incursions you're talking about occurred after that meeting. But the fact is --

Q -- was before.

MR. SNOW: Okay, but the other -- Amarah I think was afterward. But the fact is that I don't think he is -- what he's sending is a message to al Sadr, which is you've got a political process in this country, you're a player in it, and a key part of that is disbanding the militias. I don't think this is going on bended knee, so much as a head of state dealing with somebody who is a significant political player. So again --

Q What can you tell Americans who are looking at this --

MR. SNOW: What I can tell Americans is that you have the United States, the Brits, the international forces, and the Iraqis all working as diligently as possible and as practically as possible toward solving the economic, political and security needs of the Iraqi people so that Iraq will be a democracy that stands tall in the region, and also sends a message to terrorists around the world that whatever your efforts may have been to derail this democracy, they didn't succeed. And we've now demonstrated that democracy can flourish in that part of the world.

Q You talk about them setting up benchmarks, and you're telling us there's nothing new here with these markers.

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q Have they met all the benchmarks? Or have they missed benchmarks?

MR. SNOW: I don't know. I don't know.

Q And I'm assuming they missed some benchmarks, which is, perhaps, why the President, the other day in the interview with George Stephanopoulos, said he wouldn't take any dawdling. Now, you keep saying the Iraqi government is doing a fine job, saying the right things, going forward. The President said he wouldn't stand for any dawdling. Where does that come from?

MR. SNOW: I think you can -- the two statements are reconcilable. Look, I don't want to say whether they did or didn't make benchmarks because I don't know. But it would be reasonable to assume that there are things that don't work out as planned and, therefore, what you do is adjust.

The President understands also -- I don't think the President is accusing anybody of dawdling, but it's the one thing he doesn't want to happen. And it's one of the reasons why it actually fits into this whole notion of trying to set goals and work toward them. What does that do? It creates an incentive for the Iraqis now that you've got a unified plan to move forward and move forward aggressively. The Iraqis also have every incentive in the world because the violence in their midst certainly is not in their interest. The threat to their economy is certainly not in their interest. And they want to solve these problems desperately. So I think it helps -- it helps both sides work together.

And what Prime Minister Maliki has done -- I think it's significant -- in recent days is to step up. He's a Shia leader, and yet he is now taking affirmative steps on Shia factions that he thinks have been contributing to the violence. That's an important step.

Q But isn't the problem here -- I mean, you talk about the Iraqis wanting to move forward, wanting this to work. But isn't the problem that some people in the Iraqi government -- Maliki, perhaps -- doesn't want it to work quite the same way you might want it to work?

MR. SNOW: I don't think so, because Maliki -- I'm not even sure that -- let's back up. What do you mean by, the way --

Q -- a Shia-dominated government, the Shiites in control. I mean, do you see any problem with Maliki --

MR. SNOW: Well, one of the things -- so you're worried about Shia dominance and no protection of minority rights. That is something that was addressed within the constitution itself. It certainly --

Q Exactly. But is Maliki behind that to your satisfaction and the President's satisfaction, despite the sectarian violence?

MR. SNOW: Yes. But Maliki also understands that it's important to address the sectarian violence both on the Sunni and the Shia side. You also have a Sunni Deputy Prime Minister, and you have a Kurdish President. Everybody has got an interest in making this work, and they're all trying to do their best.

Q Can we talk about what Dan said this morning --

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q -- Diane Sawyer asking about incentives for these benchmarks and markers, and he said, reconstruction.

MR. SNOW: And this is -- because I talked to him about this. I didn't do a very good job of this at the gaggle, so let me -- so I did talk to Dan. And it's really kind of a practical point, which is for Iraq to succeed -- I've already mentioned the interlocking interests of security, economy and politics. And a lot of -- especially in a place like Baghdad, there is still enough uncertainty about the security situation that you're not going to be able to do the kind of reconstruction you consider necessary until you've handled the security issues. So when you sit down -- and his view is, setting these goals together, working on trying to put together benchmarks is an important way of focusing and combining efforts so that everybody is playing off the same play book, looking at the same goals and working together. And the real incentive is, once you've solved that piece, then you're ready to take the next step, which is equally vital, and that's reconstruction of areas that have been hit very hard by violence and terror within Baghdad proper.

Q Going back to The New York Times article, the White House said over the weekend the article was not accurate. But I was wondering if you can spell out exactly what you see as not accurate about it. It's talking about a plan for benchmarks that would be set and offered to the Iraqis, not with the threat of withdrawal, but with the understanding --

MR. SNOW: Because the process is not one where we say, take it or leave it, or here are the benchmarks. In fact, it's much more collaborative than that. And the two governments are working together. And it's more people sitting down with a clean sheet of paper, if you will, and saying, what do we need to do, what's the best way to go about it. It's much more collaborative.

To the extent that -- and the fact is that the efforts are not new, they have been ongoing. They, in fact, have been reported in the August 90-10, although very briefly, in the August 90-10 report to Congress, and no doubt in subsequent ones they will be sketched out in greater detail. But this process has been going on for some time. It was announced by the President and the Prime Minister in July.

Q But just because something is new doesn't mean it's inaccurate. I mean, is it inaccurate that the Bush administration is considering a plan whereby --

MR. SNOW: I believe what it said is that the Bush administration was considering a plan of laying down a series of deadlines by the end of the year. Was that correct, something like that?

Q By the end of the year, and if those deadlines aren't met, there wouldn't be a threat of withdrawal necessarily, but there would be an understanding that there would be changes in military strategy if they weren't carried out.

MR. SNOW: No, again, we're not in the business of issuing ultimatums, and that part of it is inaccurate. Now, there are a series -- at the end of the year, the Maliki government is going to be saying, okay, here's where we are and these are some things we need to do. So there will be consultations at the end of the year, much as there are consultations on a regular basis. But is there sort of an end-of-the-year, United States comes to Iraq and says, this is what you must do? No.

Q Well, that's not exactly the way the Times put it. The Times said that there would be an understanding that there would be a change in military strategy or other steps.

MR. SNOW: No, no. No, again, you're working collaboratively -- no, because it sounds as if the United States would be engaged in punitive measures, which is not -- it's neither the intent, nor the design of the process we're talking about.

Q I don't think it used the word "punitive measures."

MR. SNOW: I know, but the way you described it fits that description.

Q Tony, you say there isn't a new plan, a new strategy, anything new in what I guess The New York Times is reporting, but is the White House concerned about the growing pressure from Republicans for something new? Obviously, Senator John Warner, recently, and Senator Specter this weekend, saying if you've got a new strategy, bring it out now; Senator Biden, in a conference call today, saying he's talked directly to senior Republican colleagues who are prepared to enter into a bipartisan effort to force a substantial change in the way we're moving in Iraq. Does that concern the White House? These are Republicans.

MR. SNOW: Well, wait a minute. The first -- Senator Warner has said he does not want a withdrawal that is based on facts other than those on the ground. Furthermore, the kinds of changes he's described are precisely the ones that we've been working with the Iraqis on, which is a constant revisiting of the methods by which you try to achieve security objectives within Iraq, including in Baghdad, and even as far as sectors of Baghdad. So there's nothing inconsistent. As a matter of fact, I believe the President came out and said he agreed with Senator Warner.

Senator Biden -- it's interesting because a lot of the critiques Senator Biden has issued over the months are things that we have done -- for instance, the petroleum law; for instance, political reconciliation.

So I think that there is a basis for it, and maybe the best way to do it is for both sides to take a good look at what's going on and work with the administration. The President has been the object of a lot of incoming fire from Democrats who have simply been willing to pronounce everything a failure without, A, analyzing the facts, and B, analyzing their own positions, which have shifted regularly over time.

We absolutely welcome bipartisan cooperation on this because that would be a recognition that, A, the war on terror is absolutely vital for American security, B, we cannot walk out of Iraq without having secured our objectives, and C, the unity of the American people is something much to be desired, because in a time of war, and especially a tough, long war, you do need the support of the public over the long haul.

Q Is there a change in the administration "stay the course" policy? Bartlett this morning said that wasn't ever the policy.

MR. SNOW: No, the policy -- because the idea of "stay the course" is you've done one thing, you kick back and wait for it. And this has always been a dynamic policy that is aimed at moving forward at all times on a number of fronts. And that would include the international diplomatic front. After all, the Iraq compact is something we worked out with the Iraqis before visiting the Prime Minister in Baghdad earlier this year.

So what you have is not "stay the course," but, in fact, a study in constant motion by the administration and by the Iraqi government, and, frankly, also by the enemy, because there are constant shifts, and you constantly have to adjust to what the other side is doing.

I think you also see much more aggressive efforts on the part of the Iraqi government because the Prime Minister understands the importance -- the vital importance of reconciliation. The third reconciliation conference will be taking place next -- is it next week, week after next -- on the 4th. He is working on the reconciliation front. There has been considerable, and continues to be, action on the economic front. And obviously, we're continuing to cooperate in security. That is not a "stay the course" policy.

Q A quick housekeeping question for one of my colleagues. When does the President intend to sign the Secure Fence Act, which --

MR. SNOW: That's a good question. And that's still being worked out, but it's going to be soon.

Q Tony, can you just -- I think we're all confused, because there's a lot of walk-back on a lot of issues. There's, it's not this, it's not that, Dan didn't mean that. What happened over the weekend with Generals Casey and Abizaid? Did you make any progress? Are you moving forward? Are you moving in some direction --

MR. SNOW: Well, let me just tell you --

Q Is there anything here to report?

MR. SNOW: To report is that the President has regular meetings like this. They have not been reported previously, but this time, the President said, I'm going to be meeting with General Abizaid. And so the meeting was made public. But this is --

Q But details about the meeting. If the President says something like that --

MR. SNOW: Yes, but here's --

Q -- you should tell the American people what you're doing.

MR. SNOW: No, you should tell them that you're having regular consultations. But when it comes to specific tactical decisions, of course, you're not going to describe what's going on.

Q I'm not even talking about -- let's not even go there with the strategy-tactics thing. But you're talking about --

MR. SNOW: Are you sure?

Q I'm sure. I'm sure. I don't want your head on the microphone again.

MR. SNOW: Thank you.

Q But if you're moving forward, tell us how you're moving forward because we don't really see it.

MR. SNOW: I know. And, unfortunately, it's one of the frustrations, again, when you're talking about working on tactical measures, for instance, what are you doing to secure Baghdad. We're not in a position to make that public, for the understandable reason that it, in fact, will influence your ability to achieve those goals.

The President was getting a regular update on the situation on the ground, as well as an update on the interaction between the American leadership, which would be Ambassador Khalilzad and General Casey, and Iraqi leaders on all these issues. So it's a regular update. And they continue to talk about, okay, what's the situation -- what's the status, what's going on, what do you think we need to do. It's the way the President handles it, too.

Q Can you tell us anything, any readout from that meeting? What's the status? How does the President feel about it?

MR. SNOW: You've got the basic readout we gave you the other day, and I can't go beyond that.

Q Tony, quick -- there's 65 active duty troops that are coming out with a letter today, saying they think the occupation should end, and they're saying that -- this is part of the military whistle blower. Any reaction to that?

MR. SNOW: Well, number one, it's a Fenton Communications job, which means clearly it's got a political edge to it. But number two it's not unusual for soldiers in a time of war to have some misgivings. I believe at least two of them have served in Iraq proper, active duty. We don't know how many have actually served --

Q I think the majority of them have.

MR. SNOW: But let's say they all did. You also have more than -- you have several hundred thousand who served in Iraq. You have reenlistment rates that have exceeded goals in all the military. You've had a number of people serving multiple tours of duty. And it appears that there's considerable --

Q They don't have much choice.

MR. SNOW: Well, no, I mean they do have choice. If you've got a chance to sign up or not sign up, and you decide that you're going to sign up again and go serve in Iraq, it means it means something to you. And so I believe that there is also -- you get 65 guys who are, unfortunately -- no, not unfortunately -- 65 people who are going to be able to get more press than the hundreds of thousands who have come back and said they're proud of their service.

Q Tony, I remember a few months ago, we were in the East Room, and Maliki was there, we were talking about the plan to secure Baghdad. And maybe this is a kind of more specific version of what we've been asking. That plan, is it going to be changed drastically? Is the President satisfied? Is it what was expected when the plan was put out?

MR. SNOW: Are you talking about Operation Forward Together -- or Together Forward?

Q Yes.

MR. SNOW: I think -- look, it is pretty clear that the first iteration didn't achieve the results that were desired, so that they're continuing to work through ways to improve and adjust so that you do have the security that you want. And it really does come in three parts. You not only need to go ahead and deal with the security issues. Once you're there you have to be able to clear and hold. And at this point, we're still working with the Iraqis to come up with ways to make sure that we have the right not only mix of forces, but tactics that are going to enable us to deal with the violence.

Q But was this expected when that plan was announced, that reordering of that plan was announced? Was the President thinking it would be more orderly by now or --

MR. SNOW: What you do in a time of war, you don't sit around and -- I think anybody who has been a Commander-in-Chief knows that there's a certain folly to having ironclad predictions about what's going to happen. You hope it's going to succeed. And if it doesn't you work to fix it. And that's how the administration has approached this challenge.

Q And is the framework still -- is there still confidence in the framework?

MR. SNOW: If by the framework you mean training up Iraqi forces and professionalizing the police, and at the same time, using U.S. forces in a supplementary role, yes, that remains the general approach. Now the question is, what measures do you need to take within that framework to make sure that you not only secure troublesome Baghdad -- I mean troublesome neighborhoods and violent neighborhoods in Baghdad, but keep them safe afterward. And that's the challenge and that's what they're working to address.

Q Tony, it seems what you have is not "stay the course." Has anybody told the President he should stop calling it "stay the course" then?

MR. SNOW: I don't think he's used that term in a while.

Q Oh, yes, he has, repeatedly.

MR. SNOW: When?

Q Well, in August, because I wrote a story saying he didn't use it and I was quite sternly corrected.

MR. SNOW: No, he stopped using it.

Q Why would he stop using it?

MR. SNOW: Because it left the wrong impression about what was going on. And it allowed critics to say, well, here's an administration that's just embarked upon a policy and not looking at what the situation is, when, in fact, it's just the opposite. The President is determined not to leave Iraq short of victory, but he also understands that it's important to capture the dynamism of the efforts that have been ongoing to try to make Iraq more secure, and therefore, enhance the clarification -- or the greater precision.

Q Is the President responsible for the fact people think it's stay the course since he's, in fact, described it that way himself?

MR. SNOW: No.

Q Tony, two questions. I was looking at your -- statement. It's a good statement, but why do you think violence has escalated so in Iraq during Ramadan? And do you think there's any chance that it will abate now that Ramadan has ended?

MR. SNOW: You can hope it's going to abate, and I -- I know I had promised and I still need to make the calls on getting you a good answer on the Ramadan -- why violence escalates during Ramadan. I don't know. It's a worthy question. It's something that they knew was going to happen, but I don't know why, and I'll find out.

Q Just one domestic. Do you have any read on the conservative voters in this country who think that they will be going to the polls to support --

MR. SNOW: Yes, absolutely.

Q -- to campaign or --

MR. SNOW: Well, anymore Iraq questions? Do you want to -- anymore? April, okay. April and David.

Q Earlier you said something about the insurgent activity and I gave a statement from P.J. Crowley from the Clinton administration. Again, I'm trying to put clarity in this. Once the insurgency was allowed to reach maturity, it was not going to be resolved militarily. And you said something to the extent it takes political --

MR. SNOW: No, apparently, I think what -- I don't want to speak for P.J. without having seen it, but the way you've portrayed it creates a straw man, the idea that this was a conflict that at any point was going to be solved strictly through military means, because that was never the approach that this administration took.

There was always an understanding, especially when you're trying to create a democracy, that you've got a very important political element not only -- and the political element expressed itself through three elections last year. And now you have the formation of a constitutional government in Iraq. But in addition, it has -- you also have the continuing challenge of bringing more and more people into the political process and out of the business of armed conflict. In addition, you have an economic piece. That also was always part of U.S. strategy.

So if somebody were to argue that this was ever seen as strictly a military action, that simply would be wrong.

Q Do you agree that the insurgency is maturing, as even the NIE said, that a new generation is coming in with the perception of a win, and they are perceiving a win? And look at what's happening this month alone.

MR. SNOW: I'd be hesitant to try to read the minds of insurgents. They're not going to win. And I think what's important to understand is that the American military and the Iraqi government are determined to prevail and will continue to make adjustments necessary to achieve that end. It is clear that those who are fighting -- and it's not -- you've got a whole series of different factions. You've got outside forces, you have Baathists, you have people that are involved in the sectarian violence. So you're not dealing with one problem. You have to do several approaches even at the military and peacekeeping level to figure out how to address the problem.

But having said that, there is certainly no wavering of the will of the key parties in terms of addressing this and tamping down the violence and allowing Iraq to stand up as a democracy.

Q And lastly -- you say politically -- we're on the road politically. But our political -- international political support has eroded from the beginning of this war in Iraq. How are we politically pulling the international community to help support us when it continues to erode even more so --

MR. SNOW: Wait a minute. What's happening is the international community is supporting the Iraqi democracy. I just mentioned a meeting over --

Q But not the war.

MR. SNOW: Well, I think -- look, that is a broad enough claim -- let me put it this way: Nobody wants a war. But you also have to have a peace that is not going to lead to further bloodshed. The Iraqi people themselves lived in "peace" under Saddam Hussein and hundreds of thousands were slaughtered. But they were done so outside the vision of television cameras or the watchful eye of a Western media. It is important that the Iraqis get what they deserve, which is a chance to live in peace.

And therefore, it is heartening to see the international community working on the Iraqi compact. And it is clear that there is a vested interest in building the kind of stability and security we've discussed. The meeting over the weekend in Saudi Arabia dealing with sectarian tensions, that's an important signal that other countries in the neighborhood are also committed to helping the Iraqis.

So people may -- governments may have concerns about the United States' role there, but the good news is they seem to be dedicated and devoted to the idea of an Iraqi democracy, then the people responsible for that democracy want us to stay, want us to help, want us to help them get the job done.

Q Do you know if the Iraq government is concerned about America pulling out because of a loss of political support in this country?

MR. SNOW: No, but what's interesting -- I mean, your newspaper today had a poll that indicates that there's greater support for the war within Iraq than there is in the United States. It's kind of interesting. And what it does indicate also is if you take a look -- the Iraqis understand that you've got an administration that is not going to walk away. And furthermore, it's absolutely in America's security interests to make sure that we get the job done.

And going back to Senator Biden's comments -- there have been a number of people on both sides of the aisle who have made that point. So I think it's important for everybody to pull together and ask the practical question: Okay, if you've got that, then how best to do it?

Q Does the Iraq government have the sense of urgency that if the war continues to go badly, the public opposition may force Bush's hand?

MR. SNOW: No, I think the Iraq government gets enough sense of urgency when IEDs are going off with people who are simply trying to buy sweets at the end of Ramadan. I think they get a sense -- they get a clear sense of the urgency each and every day. And for them, they've got their own sense of urgency, which is, building the capability of taking on, through force when necessary, terrorist forces; reaching out politically when possible to those who might be amenable to joining in peaceably to the new government. They're working it from every possible angle, too. They have every inducement to do so. They're the ones who are dying in greater numbers. It is their country. It's not as if they need a wake-up call. They get it each and every day.

Les.

Q Yes, Tony, two questions. Will the President use his pardoning power to free those U.S. Border Patrol agents who were sentenced to prison for shooting and wounding an escaping drug smuggler? And if not, why not?

MR. SNOW: Second question. That's an unanswerable question, Les. The President is the person who is responsible for pardons. You can tell the network, which made you ask that question, that it is nonsensical.

Q All right. The Cincinnati Enquirer quotes John McClelland, the spokesman of the Republican Party of Ohio, as saying that Democratic Congressman Ted Strickland, the candidate for Governor of Ohio, should have known that a man arrested for exposing himself to children was on his congressional payroll, and with whom Strickland took a vacation in Italy in 1998 while leaving his wife Frances at home. Does the President believe it was wrong for this Republican state spokesman to bring up what most of the national media is refusing to report, even as they so repeatedly report the case of Congressman Foley?

MR. SNOW: I'm just going to refer that one back to the Ohio Republican Party.

Q Tony, in line with what you said on the regional and international involvement in Iraq, the Saudi meeting between the Sunnis and Shia, why has the U.S. been so reticent in trying to engage countries like Iran and Syria on this same issue, where they obviously play a very important role in the internal situation?

MR. SNOW: Well, the United States -- number one, we continue to have diplomatic relations with Syria. Secondly, with Iran, Iran knows our position and it's absolutely clear. And furthermore, through international forums, there is indirect communication. So there's no secret on either part what our position is.

Q On the economy a few moments ago, the administration frequently measures the economy in terms of tax cuts, as well as you mentioned wage growth on average being more than before. But what is it in terms of median income? Because that doesn't factor in necessarily high income with low income?

MR. SNOW: Right. No, I believe -- you know what I believe, but I will check.* You know, rather than doing that, I don't want to freelance. We'll attach that as an asterisk for you and let you know.

Q Okay, but as far as the low end of the income scale, minimum wage, which we know hasn't increased in nine years, or been adjusted for inflation. And I believe there are 6.6 million minimum wage earners right now. My question is, does the administration support separating out a minimum wage bill from the trifecta if you can't get the three-pronged bill --

MR. SNOW: The answer is, no. But on the other hand -- and I'm also pulling together data for you on the minimum wage, to figure out how many of these are sole-source of income for families, what other benefits are available.

The President is keenly aware of those at the bottom levels of the income scale, which is why their tax burden has gotten not only lighter, but relatively lighter. It's why you probably hadn't noticed, but the tax burden has shifted even more so to the higher end of the income scales as a result of the tax cuts enacted three years ago. And the key challenge in any economy is not merely to increase at any given moment the pay, but increase the earning capacity of people throughout the economy so that they can move from one job into higher wage jobs. And that includes everything from child support to job training, to income supplements. So there are many different ways in which an administration -- any administration addresses these issues.

Q Are you talking about the earned income tax credit, as well --

MR. SNOW: Well, again, I'm not going to litigate possible things that may be brought up in future legislation.

Q Tony, why the focus on the economy now? It's been hard to get good news on the economy through the doom and gloom on Iraq.

MR. SNOW: Well, it's an amazing thing. You take a look at consumer confidence levels, they're sky rocketing. People are feeling good about the economy. And if you take a look at the news coverage of it, it has been overwhelmingly negative at a time when you do have just an extraordinary situation. Today, at least there has been a high during the trading day once again in the Dow Jones Industrial Average. I don't know where it's going to end up. But the fact is that you have trends that demonstrate that not only is -- the economy has weathered incredible storms. We have built more wealth in the last three years than at any period in our nation's history, period. That's an extraordinary accomplishment in the face of two wars and Katrina, all of which have taken place since then.

Q Has it been hard to pierce the bad news from Iraq with the economy?

MR. SNOW: I don't know. It has been hard to get people to report on it. That's a question to ask you because people doing the reporting are the ones who write the stories.

Q Just to put a fine point on that New York Times story and your perception of it, on the benchmarks. You're essentially saying what's new about the story isn't true, and what's true isn't new?

MR. SNOW: I like the line. (Laughter.)

Q Is that right?

MR. SNOW: Yes, yes, yes. I mean, it's -- yes.

Q Why the Urban Trust Bank today? Why billionaire Bob Johnson?

MR. SNOW: You mean -- well, I don't believe he was talking to the billionaire, was he? He was talking to people who actually have been investing in Washington, D.C. and helping create jobs based on an economy that's offered new opportunities.

And again, let me just reiterate what I was saying before. Not only are more people working and earning more than ever before, more are owning homes, more have college educations. And what you want to do is to have a situation that builds upon that, as opposed to some people in the other party saying, you know what we're going to do, we're going to take money out of their pockets. We're going to raise their taxes. We're going to take away tax cuts. And therefore, we think they're going to be better off.

We think that is -- that's a debate we love to have because you have tax increases, which are a proven damper on the economy. And you've got the President urging policies that pretty clearly have contributed to a burst of economic growth that we want to build upon so that there is greater opportunity throughout the country.

Q So why the bank? You never said why that bank.

MR. SNOW: Because it's there. (Laughter.)

First, let me go to Ann.

Q With almost every recent poll showing at least 60 percent of the American people now no longer support the effort in Iraq, what does the President say to those who will walk into a voting booth two weeks from now and say, this is my chance to vote against the war in Iraq? Should people use their vote to vote against the --

MR. SNOW: I'm not going to tell people how they should use their vote, but here's something to keep in mind. In a war on terror, is it wiser to follow a course that is devoted to victory, even though it's difficult, or one that says, let's not worry about whether we're winning, let's just leave? Those are two of the options that have been presented to voters.

Now, they're going to decide on a district-by-district and state-by-state basis on the issues that are of concern. I've been talking about the economy. My sense is for a lot of people, whether they have a better job, are they making more money? Are they saving more money? Are they owning their homes? Do they have a college education? The things that people measure as their own personal benchmarks of success, those are also going to be powerful reasons to vote.

Q Does the President think that the economy will change more minds or guide more votes than the war in Iraq?

MR. SNOW: You know, the President thinks it's important for people to understand all aspects. The presidency is something where the President not only has talked about the economy, he's talked about energy independence, he's talked about education, he's talked about health care, he's talked about entitlements. All of these things affect the lives of Americans, and I dare say, on any given issue, ones of more intense interest to people than others, but they're going to have to make up their minds. But I think one of the things that is important is to clarify the differences between the parties so that people can understand what the stakes may be for this election.

Q A question on Republican warnings about a potential takeover of the U.S. House of Representatives in an accusation of race baiting. In warning about what a Democratic takeover would mean, several Republicans - Republicans have repeatedly been pointing to two Democrats in line to chair committees: Charles Rangel of New York who would chair Ways and Means, and John Conyers who would chair Judiciary. And both of those are African American. And today -- James Clyburn of South Carolina, who is also African American, makes this statement: "It's a euphemistic way to say black people will be chairing committees. It's a way of bringing race into the equation." I'm curious what the White House has to say about that, particularly considering how many outreach efforts the President has made --

MR. SNOW: That's counter race baiting. That is an attempt to race bait. The fact is that there's a Democratic -- if Democrats hold the House of Representatives, Charlie Rangel will be the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and John Conyers will be the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. I believe also, Republicans have talked about other people who are going to be chairmen of other committees -- Henry Waxman, for instance. So the idea that that's race baiting is absurd. It's simply a recognition of who is chairing the committees.

Q Thank you.

MR. SNOW: All right, thank you.

END 1:32 P.M. EDT

* The figure the President quoted today is for hourly average wages of production and non-supervisory workers. Real wages adjusted for inflation for these workers have increased 2.2 percent in the past 12 months. This excludes the 20 percent of U.S. workers in supervisory and professional positions who tend to earn more. The most recent data for median income, a different measure, is for 2005. It increased over $500 that year compared to the previous year, adjusted for inflation.

For Immediate Release, October 23, 2006

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House or Tony Snow and VIDEO, or economy and taxes, or Hurricane Katrina, and Secretary Rumsfeld, or General Pace and General Casey or Ambassador Khalilzad and Baghdad or Iraq and Prime Minister Maliki or Saudi Arabia and Shia or Sunni, or The New York Times, or benchmarks,