State Department Daily Press Briefing, 12/11/06 (VIDEO)

Daily Press Briefing, Spokesman Sean McCormack, FULL STREAMING VIDEO, file is windows media format, running time is 52:41.

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:, 12:56 p.m. EST.

MR. MCCORMACK: Good afternoon. I don't have any opening statements so we can start with the questioning. Whoever would like to start.

QUESTION: I wonder if you could provide any insights into the -- on the advice that the State Department collectively and individually gave the President today about Iraq.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, today's briefings were designed to update the President on what the Department of State's efforts inside Iraq look like. Some of it had to do with staffing. Some of it had to do with our insights, our advice with respect to the current situation as well as the situation in the region. The President also had a briefing directly from some PRT -- Provincial Reconstruction Team -- leaders. Three of them were in Iraq, one of them just by serendipity happened to be here in the United States. And they ran through their observations of being on the ground in each of these provinces outside of Baghdad, ran through what their activities were with respect to their teams, the programs that they had. It was a good give and take. The President had questions throughout the entire set of briefings.

In terms of the ongoing Iraq review process, I guess you could say that today's briefings were one part of that, one input to it. We get this question about when the State Department review process will be concluded, and I guess I can only say that this is not a process where, you know, the State Department writes one paper, it gets laid down and then that's it, we're done, we're out of it. I think that the State Department review process -- the end of that will be coincident with the end of the overall review process. We're feeding into the NSC-led, National Security Council-led review process and it's an organic process where there's give and take, deputies meet, principals meet, they brief the President on occasion where they happen to be, and that there are questions back and forth. Some of those get sent back out to the agencies. We answer some of those. More papers are tasked. We write those papers. So it's much -- it's less a serial process than an ongoing participation and discussion and review.

QUESTION: Do you remember maybe -- it was about six months ago there was a report somehow, and I associate Jim Jeffrey with it, on reconstruction, programs that were moving along fine and programs that were having trouble getting on track. Is there any expectation that an update will be made public on the various issues of restoring the civilian society -- a government that can, you know, help people live a normal life?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we have periodic reports to Congress which we're required under law to do. There's a lot of information collected in those. I'm not aware, Barry, of any particular plans to do a separate update on the reconstruction efforts. The Special Inspector General of Iraq does periodic --

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. MCCORMACK: SIGR -- S-I-G-R -- does periodic reports. I understand in some of the legislation to get recently passed in this last Congress, they re-upped SIGR to continue on. I don't know if it has any particular end date. But those reports come out. They are independent of the State Department obviously. We have input to them in terms of providing information, but they're not our reports.

QUESTION: Right, thanks.

MR. MCCORMACK: Sure.

QUESTION: In the review -- and I'm sorry if you've already done this. In the review, did you look at whether it might be useful to speak to Iran and Syria just over Iraq directly? Did you look at that? Was that part of your discussion?

MR. MCCORMACK: There was a discussion about regional diplomacy vis-à-vis Iraq, yes, and the current -- some of the current efforts that are underway that we all know about that are in public. With respect to engaging Iran and Syria, there's nothing new to add to what we have already said on the topic over the past week or so.

QUESTION: Sean, who were the individuals in the room from the State Department?

MR. MCCORMACK: State Department -- Secretary Rice. Ambassador Khalilzad beamed in from Baghdad. David Satterfield, Philip Zelikow, Under Secretary Nick Burns, Under Secretary Hughes, Steve Krasner, Director our Policy Planning Staff, Brian Gunderson and myself. Brian Gunderson, our Chief of Staff.

QUESTION: On another subject?

QUESTION: Did the President ask participants in the room to look at specific elements and to do more research on that?

MR. MCCORMACK: There were a couple times where he said he wanted people to look into a couple topics.

QUESTION: What kind of topics? What are you talking about?

MR. MCCORMACK: Just -- I'm not going to get into that sort of thing. There were a couple times when the President, in response to a give and take, he asked some questions, he got some information back, and sort of at the conclusion of those discussions he asked, you know, look into that for me.

QUESTION: And what did the PRT leaders tell the President? That it was very rough on the ground and that all -- what was --

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, again, I'm not going to get into the content of --

QUESTION: It was a bit more --

MR. MCCORMACK: -- you know, government officials briefings -- briefing for the President of the United States. Although I think it is fair to say that each of these team leaders, they're in different parts of the country, gave differing assessments. Each of these -- each of the team leaders have different structures to their team, different programs that are in response to the different kinds of challenges and needs that they find in their provinces.

Just so you know, I'll run down the PRT leaders and where they're from. He heard from Stephanie Miley, who was actually in the room. She's back here in the United States briefly. And she is -- her PRT is in Salahaddin. There was Chuck Hunter from Babil, B-a-b-i-l, James Knight from Ninewa PRT and James Soriano from the Anbar PRT.

QUESTION: How many PRTs are actually functioning now in Iraq?

MR. MCCORMACK: Seven.

QUESTION: Seven? And what is the ultimate goal as far as fully functioning PRTs?

MR. MCCORMACK: I think right now we are at where we expect it to be. I think that this is one of these things where if there's a perceived need for expansion of the PRTs to other places, I expect that over time you'll probably get that. But this is our -- right now, I think the Secretary is comfortable with where we are. We have -- just so you know, I'll run down the list. We have PRTs in Ninewa, Kirkuk, which is also a regional embassy office, Salahaddin, Diala, Baghdad, Anbar and Babil which is also a regional embassy office.

QUESTION: Is the PRT in Anbar functioning up to what you were expecting?

MR. MCCORMACK: It's tough in Anbar, make no mistake about that. It's a very difficult situation. But there are brave people on the PRTs and brave Iraqis who are working to try to build up the institutions of a provincial and a local government in Anbar. Now, that's probably -- it's probably harder in Anbar than anyplace else, although we didn't ask that particular question. But just judging by -- certainly of the four we heard from, I think that they operate under the most difficult circumstances.

QUESTION: What is their task? To build the --

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, a lot of what you want to do with -- and what I got from the PRT team leaders is they want to meet with local government officials. They want to meet with regional leaders, those with some political influence in the particular province in which they operate. They want to talk to business leaders in the province and look at how we, the United States as well as the coalition, can help them in their efforts to build up rule of law, build up infrastructure, build up governing institutions; and if there are any other particular projects that are region or provincial or local specific, they'll work on those, but that's essentially it.

How do we direct our focus, our resources, our funds, our people to the right areas to make sure and also to help -- there is a great example in Salahaddin? One of the things that Stephanie Miley talked about is making sure that when our military and our State Department work with local officials, for example, town officials. that also those projects are coordinated with -- are coordinated at the federal level with the Iraqis as well as at the provincial level. For example, if you go into a particular town and they say, infrastructure-wise, what we really need is we need to build up our sewage treatment facilities to help with our infrastructure. Well, that, of course, you want to respond to what the people on the ground think that they need, what do they need most to demonstrate that their governing structures are responding to the needs of the people.

Well, before you do that, you want to make sure that the -- either at the provincial level or the federal level, they have actually -- they are actually aware of these kinds of requests and that they are able to, over time, sustain the maintenance of those kinds of projects. For example, you don't want to start up the sewage treatment project in a local -- in a town and not -- and six months later, not be able to have the provincial or the federal people help out the town to maintain that, either with spare parts or expertise or money. So that's part of what they do.

QUESTION: But in Anbar, for example --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: Is the team leader able to meet with all the local leaders?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't know if he's able to meet with all, but I think that they have access to all of those people that would like to meet with us and that we -- that they continue to reach out to other Iraqis who reassure them that they should be part of the political process, that that is the best way forward for Iraq.

QUESTION: Can you tell us about, I mean just generally, the success of this program at this point? Have they been able to achieve the goals that they've set out for themselves? You talked about the meetings and talked about, you know, reconstruction. I mean, how successful have they been able to --

MR. MCCORMACK: The PRTs?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, it's a relatively new program. The Secretary announced it back in 2005 and, of course, any sort of new bureaucratic effort, it takes a while to get it going. You're working out the security arrangements, making sure that they are staffed up. It takes -- you know, we work in a bureaucracy and sometimes it takes a little bit of time to actually get the people and the resources dedicated to those tasks. But we now have, since that time, since that announcement back in early 2005, we have seven PRTs standing up. We have most of all the positions filled -- I checked before I came out here, and there are 51 State Department positions among these PRTs and we have 46 of them filled. And David Satterfield reported that in the coming bid cycle, we're actually over-subscribed. We have people actually seeking out these assignments. So it is -- the word is getting out that these are good, exciting challenging assignments for people here in the Department and we're getting good people out to them.

You asked, well, have they achieved all their objectives? Well, you know, we haven't achieved all of our objectives in Iraq, but are we where we want to be? I think the Secretary is pretty pleased with where we are right now in terms of the PRTs and their function. Their effectiveness is, of course, subject to a variety of different variables, including the overall security environment and the security environment locally, the ability of the federal institution -- federal Iraqi institutions to function, and the connections between those federal institutions and provincial as well as local institutions. So we're trying to help build that up and it takes time. It takes time. But I think the Secretary is pleased with the PRT program in terms of where we are now.

Yeah, Libby.

QUESTION: Was there any thought in the room about the Iraqis and how they perceive PRTS and the Iraqi perception of the United States in their communities and reaching out and trying to work with them? And was there any concern about the Iraqis wanting perhaps the U.S. not to be there or not to meddle or was -- what's the, you know --

MR. MCCORMACK: Didn't hear that. We actually -- we didn't get into the larger question of, you know, Iraqi attitudes towards the American presence in Iraq as a whole. But in terms of the local and provincial officials, I think that our people on the ground have a good working relationship with them and I didn't sense any particular problems or tensions in their presentations. Of course, there's a security environment that is quite challenging and they travel with military convoys when they go out and sometimes those military convoys get attacked. So one can assume from those set of facts that there are people who don't want the PRTs there or Americans there, but I think we all know that. But the briefing that we got was that the Iraqis actually find very useful and productive their interactions with our PRT members.

Yeah, Charlie.

QUESTION: Yes, did anybody -- without getting into specifics because you don't want to say exactly what the specifics were, did anyone raise questions of policy or programs that were not working? Did anyone say to the President X, Y, Z is being tried, is not working, we should abandon that," that kind of -- was there that kind of give and take?

MR. MCCORMACK: No, I think it's a pretty honest estimate. The President asked direct questions and he gets honest, direct answers. You know, I think, sure, as a whole, are there things -- efforts that we could do better? Yeah, absolutely, and part of what we're looking at is, are we devoting our resources properly and getting them to the Iraqis and the government officials in the proper way.

Anything else on Iraq?

QUESTION: Just on the --

MR. MCCORMACK: Okay, we're going to go over and then we'll --

QUESTION: Just on the PRTs, you said the Secretary is pretty pleased overall with how this is going.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: Could you name five areas where you've achieved success in the PRTs? Could you just rattle off four or five things where you think you have --

MR. MCCORMACK: What, specific programs?

QUESTION: Yes, anything specific with the PRTs as to why --

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I didn't come armed with specific programs that they're working on. I could probably get you a long list of things that they are pleased with in terms of the PRT leaders.

You know, the Secretary, as she looks at this, is not looking at specific programs, whether or not one bid for a PRT program in a specific province won out over another one. That's not her job. Her job is to make sure that these PRTs are functioning in the way that they were outlined to function and that is a civilian-military relationship on the ground designed to work specifically with local and provincial officials to help build up their capacity, I think, from that -- and make sure that they -- these PRTs have the resources in order to do their job.

I think certainly from that perspective, yes, she is pleased with the way things are going. And as I mentioned, we have good people in the pipeline. This is -- these are now jobs that people in the State Department are seeking out to bid on; not because -- not just because it is -- you know, career-enhancing, but because they are actually -- they actually like the challenge. They like the challenge of being out there on the front lines and making a difference on American foreign policy.

So that's -- I guess those are the metrics by which the, you know, the Secretary, at her level, looks at these PRTs. I'll be happy to try to dig into it and see if there are some specific examples of projects that the various PRT leaders would highlight as things that they would say are accomplishments.

QUESTION: And then just one last thing. The President also said that it was important that State and Defense, you know, work closely together and coordinate. Are you satisfied with the current level of cooperation? Do you think that your working --

MR. MCCORMACK: On the PRTs?

QUESTION: No, just overall.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes.

QUESTION: And on the PRTs?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes. I didn't hear anything contrary. Look, anytime you have two bureaucracies working together on something, of course, there are going to be bumps in the road, but those have been smoothed out. I didn't hear any concerns from any of the PRT leaders and it did come up in terms of security, in terms of their working relationship with the military. They -- as a matter of fact, they -- in several instances, some of the PRT leaders volunteered that their working relationship with the brigade and division in their area was actually very, very good.

QUESTION: Sean, is it your opinion that the PRT model is going to continue? I mean, you know, as the Administration crafts a new way forward, can we expect that the PRTs are going to be an integral part of that?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes, yeah. I would expect the PRT program would continue, yes.

Yeah, Joel. Just a second, Barry. Do you have something on Iraq, Joel?

QUESTION: Not specifically.

MR. MCCORMACK: Okay, then we'll come back to you. Barry has dibs here.

QUESTION: Ten thousand words in the New York Times today about how awful the situation is getting to be in north Pakistan. This may not be the place to pursue it very deeply, but do you have anything to say about the general view that there's a rise in terror groups of all stripes in northern Pakistan? And does this reflect, in any way, on the -- your dependence on the Pakistani leader in the war against terrorism?

MR. MCCORMACK: In terms of --

QUESTION: It sounds like you gave up northern Pakistan.

MR. MCCORMACK: No. Well, this is one news story, Barry.

QUESTION: Yeah, I know. A long one though.

MR. MCCORMACK: It was a long one. It was a long one. Did you read every word?

QUESTION: No.

MR. MCCORMACK: Okay.

QUESTION: But I was looking for the silver lining and I couldn't --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. Well, first of all, it's a Pakistani program so you can talk to the Pakistani Government about whether or not they feel as though they've met their targets and their metrics and their expectations for this program. I do know it's relatively new so they're still working through it. And I think when it first came out we talked about the fact that we had been briefed up on the program and certainly it seemed as though it was a workable model. But as with most things, the true effectiveness of it comes down to its implementation and in exactly what manner it is implemented.

I think that everybody is aware of the problem of ceding territory to extremists, to terrorists, and you don't want to do that. The Pakistanis don't want to do that; that's why they came up with this program because the Federal Administrated Tribal Areas were an area that has not traditionally been under the control of the central Pakistani Government so -- and it was becoming a problem not only for the Pakistanis but also for cross-border infiltrations into Afghanistan of violent extremists who were attacking Afghans as well as coalition forces. So the Pakistani Government came up with this program as a way to integrated economic, political, civil, military program to try to address that.

I think it's too early to tell what the -- whether or not the program is succeeding and, again, I'd refer you to the Pakistanis for their assessment on whether or not it's meeting their expectations. Clearly you still do have cross-border infiltration, and I know that that is a concern for the Pakistanis and the Afghans. President Musharraf and President Karzai had some meetings a couple months ago here at the White House and they have since tried to get together themselves and talk about different ways that they can stop that infiltration. But having safe havens and areas where these extremists can operate from is a real concern for us.

QUESTION: Well, the Afghans, when they come here, they say there's been an increase in Taliban cross-border activities into their country.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: It's a difficult, difficult problem.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right, it is.

QUESTION: They acknowledge that it's a mess.

MR. MCCORMACK: It is. It is. And the key is you have to -- is cooperative working relationships among the Afghans, the Pakistanis, as well as coalition forces and that includes us.

Yeah. Janine.

QUESTION: New subject?

MR. MCCORMACK: Sure.

QUESTION: I have two areas so I'll pick. I have North Korea and Lebanon.

MR. MCCORMACK: Okay.

QUESTION: So first I'm going to start with the six-party talks. The Chinese announced they're going to resume on the 16th at Chris Hill's level --

MR. MCCORMACK: I think the 18th.

QUESTION: The 18th.

MR. MCCORMACK: The 18th.

QUESTION: The 18th, sorry. Why are they at the -- with all due respect to Chris Hill, why at his level and what are your expectations of the round?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, there hasn't been any other round of the six-party talks at any other level than Chris Hill's level.

QUESTION: There's never been one at the foreign minister level? Wasn't (inaudible) there in China last year and she was there?

MR. MCCORMACK: No, no.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. MCCORMACK: At the six-party talks, no.

QUESTION: What are your expectations of the talks?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, it's -- first of all, a couple just factual elements here. I think Chris will probably leave Friday, get into Beijing Saturday, talks start on Monday, the 18th. I would expect that there are probably going to be preliminary discussions in advance of the actual formal beginning of the round. He doesn't have any particular schedule at this point, but just wanted to give you fair warning, there probably will be meetings in advance of the actual formal start of the round.

Our desire for this round is -- and I think it's a shared desire among certainly the five members of the talks -- is to build on the joint declaration from September 2005 and actually make progress in taking concrete actions and steps to implement that understanding in the joint declaration. So not going back to re-litigate what was agreed to in that joint understanding. I think it's pretty clear what was agreed to in that joint understanding, using that as the starting point and moving forward.

QUESTION: Those preliminary talks, are you foreseeing a one-on-one with the North Koreas?

MR. MCCORMACK: He don't have a schedule yet, Barry. I can't rule it out.

QUESTION: But I mean, it is a way to clear the underbrush before you get into talks.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we've done some of that. We have done some of that. Like I said, and I'm being totally upfront with you guys here, I don't have a list of his meetings from between the 16th and 18th. I can't rule it out, any various different configuration, but we have met with them in the past in the context of the six-party talks and it very may well happen again. I can't tell you that it won't. Don't be disappointed if it doesn't happen.

QUESTION: How about this round?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.

QUESTION: Will this meeting be a fifth round talks or six round talks?

MR. MCCORMACK: The -- there'll be six parties at the talks.

QUESTION: I know, but is the fifth round or a sixth round?

MR. MCCORMACK: Oh, gosh. I don't know. I'll have to--

QUESTION: Is this a new round or a continuation?

MR. MCCORMACK: This is a new round. I can't tell you what number we're on. We'll look into that for you.

QUESTION: This is a little bit confusing. It's continuation with the 2005 in September --

MR. MCCORMACK: No, this is a new -- no, not a continuation. No, it's a good question because there was, I think the -- they got together in September, they came up with the joint operation, then they met again for a brief period of time in November. And I think that that was -- there was a expectation that there was going to be another meeting. There wasn't after that. This is -- I guess if your people are counting, this is a new round of talks.

QUESTION: Okay. December 18th is an interesting date. And you talked last week about the importance of having this meeting well prepared. Are they well prepared to the point where there's not going to be that much need for give and take in Beijing starting Monday, permitting them to sign something that would enable Chris to be back with his family by Christmastime?

MR. MCCORMACK: In terms of when he's coming back, he may well want to be back for -- with his family for Christmastime. We'll see. In terms of the level of preparation, I don't think anything is guaranteed. All the various parties, I think, have a healthy expectation of what is expected and what they might expect to hear in general terms from all of the other members of the talks. I would expect the negotiations to be intense and I don't think anybody is going to be giving away anything at these discussions, certainly not the United States.

But there -- the operating principle here is that good faith actions will be met in turn by good faith from the other members of the talks. That's the central operating principle here. So we'll see. There's no -- there are no guarantees here, but we would hope and it is our desire to make progress in terms of parties committing at this round to concrete actions and then quickly thereafter following through on those commitments.

Kirit.

QUESTION: What's the idea on the duration of these talks? I mean, is it going till you have some sort of agreement and you keep going, or is it --

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we'll see. Chris has flexibility in that regard.

Yeah. Joel.

QUESTION: Change of subject, Sean.

MR. MCCORMACK: Oh, wait a minute. We had one on North Korea, then we'll come back to you, Joel.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Has North Korea come back to the United States after Beijing talks in terms of the -- I mean, with demand from U.S. side?

MR. MCCORMACK: Oh, have they made demands on us?

QUESTION: No, no, no, no. Has North Korea come back to the United States to answer the demand from the U.S. side?

MR. MCCORMACK: Oh, I'll have to -- I'll check for you what communication we've had with them lately on the six-party talks. They may well have communicated some information via the Chinese or other parties, which is something that they typically do.

Yeah, Joel.

QUESTION: Sean, Kofi Annan is delivering a speech at the Truman Library in Independence, Missouri.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: And apparently he's lashed out at the Administration in particular about the Iraq war.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: Calling it too much macho, too little diplomacy. And do you see this in any way as a reflection on UN Ambassador John Bolton's tenure at the UN?

MR. MCCORMACK: No.

QUESTION: His behavior and --

MR. MCCORMACK: No. And we have an as prepared for delivery set of his remarks. I haven't seen the actual delivered version of the remarks and I'm not sure I see any sort of bombast that has been portrayed -- that these remarks have been portrayed as having been delivered by Secretary General Annan. Again, I'm working off the as prepared text. We'll see what the actual delivered text looks like.

Look, you know, there's no Secretary General of the United Nations that going to be in lockstep with the United States or any other country with regard to its policies. That's not that person's job. We worked well with Secretary General Annan on a number of different issues. There's some issues on which we disagree; that is to be expected.

QUESTION: Can I follow up?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: Well, actually the speech was pretty verbatim to the prepared text that you mentioned. But what he said was that the United States in trying to secure -- the Bush Administration in trying to secure the country in the war on terrorism was dominating in its policy against other states, committing what he called human rights abuses. And I mean, I can't remember a Secretary General in recent history whose tenure was marked over the last four years by such harsh criticism of the United States. And do you think that this has soured the relationship between the UN Secretariat and the Bush Administration? Ambassador Bolton has had some pretty harsh remarks for the Secretary General over the last year or so.

MR. MCCORMACK: Look, there's going to be a new Secretary General. The Secretary of State is actually going to be meeting with him this evening for a series of discussions about what the United States -- what United States priorities are for the United Nations, what our policies are. We have a good working relationship with the Secretary General-elect -- I guess that's what we would call him. And I would expect that he is getting the same kinds of briefings and having the same -- similar kinds of meetings with other member countries of the United Nations.

As I said, are we going to see eye to eye on every single issue with Secretary Generals of the United Nations? No, probably not. With respect to Mr. Annan's remarks, he, of course, is entitled to his opinion. There have been instances that we have all seen, for example, Abu Ghraib, which had been shameful. But are these a -- are these part of a concerted policy? No. These are -- those were terrible, shameful acts by some individuals.

And in terms of how the United States has sought to protect itself and act in its own national interest and, by the way, also try to help protect and defend freedom and liberty and those countries that subscribe to that political viewpoint, of course, we have made difficult decisions and we don't expect that everybody has agreed with those decisions and people are entitled to their opinions.

But this country and this President and the Secretary of State are acting on the principle of defending liberty and spreading freedom and democracy throughout the world. That is at the core of this President's foreign policy. You can see it in the Second Inaugural. You can see it in our actions. You can see it in speeches and remarks by other members of this Administration. But that is at the core of our foreign policy.

Yeah.

QUESTION: The Arab League has submitted, you know, a compromise proposal for the Lebanese political conflict. Presumably, since the Secretary met with Amr Moussa last week --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: Presumably, there's been some knowledge here of what's involved in that, in that plan. Do you have reaction to that? Any --

MR. MCCORMACK: They did talk a little bit about that. It was by way of the Secretary was in receive mode as opposed to send mode on that. She heard what Mr. Moussa was talking about. I'll leave it to Mr. Moussa and the Arab League to describe what it is they that they have in mind. That is not something for us really to comment on.

Fundamentally though, the difficulties in Lebanon in terms of the political crisis that is now ongoing there are for the Lebanese people to decide and Lebanese political leaders to decide. Whatever proposals might be flowing in from the outside, they all have to be decided upon as to their merit by the Lebanese political leadership. We stand firmly with Prime Minister Siniora in his government in standing against those who would, using non-democratic means and with non-democratic motivations, try to undercut Lebanese democracy. That is, we believe, what you're seeing right now.

The heart of the matter at the moment in terms of the political crisis in Lebanon is there are people, there are groups and outside states who do not want to see the UN-Iraqi tribunal go forward. And that tribunal -- the job of that tribunal is to identify and bring to justice those who are responsible for the murder of former Prime Minister Hariri. That is making some people very nervous and, as a result, you're seeing a lot of the political perturbation within the Lebanese system right now.

QUESTION: So the --

MR. MCCORMACK: And they're -- look, this is a cynical attempt to try to manipulate the Lebanese political system by those outside of Lebanon. We, of course, have no problem with peaceful expression of differing points of view within a political system, but that's not what you're seeing in Lebanon right now. And I just want to make it very clear that the United States stands firmly with the people of Lebanon as they seek to resolve their political disputes within their political system in a democratic way. We are not going to abandon the people of Lebanon for any other cause. We will not trade the freedom of one people for the freedom of another people.

QUESTION: That's clear. The Secretary spoke to Mr. Moussa last week. Is it clear that's the Arab League's position too, to stand firmly for democracy in Lebanon?

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm not going to -- like I said --

QUESTION: For the intimidation of the Prime Minister?

MR. MCCORMACK: Barry, I'm not going to -- again, I am not going to -- you know, I can speak for the U.S. Government --

QUESTION: Well, who are those people that are trying to bring down Lebanon? You talked to --

MR. MCCORMACK: I think it's very clear, Barry. It's the -- I think --

QUESTION: Are they members of the Arab League?

MR. MCCORMACK: We have talked about who is responsible, we believe, for this, Barry. I'm going to leave it to others to describe, to comment on, the Arab League proposal. But fundamentally, it is -- the only opinion that matters is the opinion of the Lebanese people and the Lebanese political leadership.

QUESTION: If they get the chance to be in charge of themselves.

QUESTION: Do you have any -- as a follow-up, do you have any guidance on what the Secretary -- any phone calls she might have made over the weekend to try and rescue Siniora or Ambassador Feltman, what they're doing on the ground to deal with this -- what you called a crisis?

MR. MCCORMACK: She, last week, spoke with Prime Minister Siniora last Saturday. I'm just looking down at a list of phone calls, some phone calls here. She did speak on this Saturday as well with Prime Minister Siniora on the 9th to express her support for him in the face of this political crisis.

There are a lot -- there's a lot of focus on what is happening in Lebanon, and not only from the United States but other states in the region who are -- who have an interest in seeing a stable, moderate, democratic Lebanon. I wouldn't put Syria in that category, very clearly. I think that's a bit of an understatement.

But again, this gets back to the issue that we've talked about for some time here, is that in the wake of the war started by Hezbollah with Israel you have a different political fault line that has developed in the Middle East. You have those states, those moderate Arab states who have an interest in seeing differences resolved through peaceful negotiation. You see on the other side of that line states like Iran and Syria and their terrorist subcontractors, Hamas and Hezbollah as well as others, who through use of violence, terror and extremism don't want to see the cause of democracy and freedom advanced in the Middle East. And that is a fundamental struggle that is ongoing now in the Middle East. We're seeing some of that play out in the streets of Lebanon, in Beirut.

QUESTION: This weekend the six Gulf monarchies decided to launch civil nuclear programs. Given that cannot possibly be for energy reasons, don't you think there is a risk of a nuclear race in the Gulf, in the region?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I would have to -- I have to admit I don't have the details of what they have talked about. I, of course, saw the news stories on the proposal. But this is coming from the Gulf Cooperation Council. We have a very close working relationship and one that has actually become increasingly close over the past months as they perceive the same kind of threats to the region that everybody else has seen that I just talked about in response to the last question.

We stand for countries exercising their right to develop peaceful nuclear energy. President Bush has talked about the importance of seeking alternatives to hydrocarbon-based energy. And part -- one of those is development of nuclear power and we actually have a great interest in working with individual states who have expressed an interest in developing peaceful nuclear energy. The Government of Egypt recently, within the past few months, has expressed an interest in developing peaceful nuclear energy as they are -- they look at their demographics and infrastructure demands going out over the years and they're going to have great energy needs and they have a need for safe, reliable sources of energy and that is one of the areas that they're looking to. I presume that's what these states have an interest in.

QUESTION: Even Saudi Arabia?

MR. MCCORMACK: You know, again, the hydrocarbon resources don't extend out infinitely and, of course, they have an interest, as do many other states, in developing this potential. I haven't -- you know, again, they've expressed an interest in it. I don't know if they're going to -- how far down the road they're going to work to develop those peaceful nuclear energy programs.

There's a great distinction here with Iran, which of course has said that's what it is doing. But the IAEA as well as others have given every indication that is not, in fact, what they are doing. What they are, in fact, doing is trying to develop a nuclear weapon using the cover of a peaceful nuclear energy program and actually, up until very recently, seeking the assistance of the IAEA to develop various nuclear-related projects in Iran. Well, their cover was blown over a period of years and we, in trying to bring this issue to attention, are now joined by many, many other nations, from the IAEA Board of Governors as well as the UN Security Council.

So it's not -- the problem is not with Iran's stated goals. Their stated goal is peaceful nuclear energy. Nobody disputes that right. But in trying to exercise that right, they have, in fact -- they are, in fact, trying to develop nuclear weapon, which abrogates their treaty commitments. That's the problem. It's Iran's behavior, not what they said that they are seeking.

QUESTION: So don't you think this announcement by the CCG could -- or GCC could be seen as a message to Iran that if you develop a nuclear program we can do it, too?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't -- you will have to ask the member-states of the GCC if that's what -- I'm reading it nothing more -- not trying to read anything more or less into what their actual statement is. And from what I have seen, they have an interest in developing peaceful nuclear energy. Make no mistake about it, if Iran were to obtain a nuclear weapon that would be one of the most -- if not the most -- destabilizing event that we have ever seen in the Middle East, which is why we are trying to make sure that that doesn't happen.

QUESTION: But you don't try to prevent the Arab countries to --

MR. MCCORMACK: Again, they have stated an intention to develop peaceful nuclear energy. The problem, again, is not with the desire to develop nuclear energy; it's with behavior. The problem with what -- with the Iranian regime is their behavior and the fact that they are misleading the rest of the world when they say that all they want is peaceful nuclear energy. That is not what they want.

QUESTION: Sean, also on Iran, this Holocaust conference. I believe you talked about it last week.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: But it's ongoing. Just wondering where the U.S. Government stands on that.

MR. MCCORMACK: Still -- you know, again, a conference designed to try to deny the fact that six million innocent people lost their lives in a brutal, despicable manner is just awful. The fact that -- coupled with the fact that this is a regime that says it wants to wipe Israel off the face of the map, this is -- it should be of grave concern to everybody around the world.

QUESTION: Are we making any specific efforts through the Iran office here to sort of counter that message inside Iran?

MR. MCCORMACK: I'll check for you and see what sort of interviews or broadcasting or other types of efforts we have.

QUESTION: That would be great.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, David.

QUESTION: On Sudan.

QUESTION: Oh, on Iran. Well, on their nuclear issue, but I can come back to it.

MR. MCCORMACK: Kirit's not going to yield though.

QUESTION: No, real quick. Just with these students who protested in Tehran the Ahmadi-Nejad speech. Does the State Department have any comment or --

MR. MCCORMACK: I saw the news reports about their protesting. It should be an occurrence that is allowed in Iran. I don't know what's going to happen to these individuals. But I think certainly Iran is not a place where freedom of expression or freedom of speech is encouraged or really tolerated.

QUESTION: So does the State Department have any opinion as to whether this is indicative of --

MR. MCCORMACK: I can't tell you because I don't have the specifics of what exactly happened. I've seen the news reports, but that's it.

Yeah, Elise.

QUESTION: A new topic. I know there were some --

MR. MCCORMACK: Wait a minute. Let --

QUESTION: On the -- Britain and France are putting forward this new draft resolution today --

MR. MCCORMACK: The which --

QUESTION: Britain and France were putting forward this new resolution, sanctions resolution on Iran. And I just wondered, has the Secretary spoken to the Russian Foreign Minister in recent days to try and encourage the Russians maybe to sign on this time?

MR. MCCORMACK: No. She had a meeting late last week with Igor Ivanov, who's the Russian National Security Advisor, but she hasn't -- she has not spoken with Foreign Minister Lavrov -- I'm just looking at my list here -- I don't believe within the past week.

QUESTION: And are you --

MR. MCCORMACK: But we are encouraging them to sign on the resolution.

QUESTION: And are you optimistic that this one is finally going to go through? I mean, there's a lot of talk of it going through before the Christmas holiday break.

MR. MCCORMACK: We're getting to the point where we need a vote, we need a vote. People need to make clear, the states need to make clear, where they stand on this issue.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Yeah, Sudan. Andrew Natsios had meetings over the weekend. Has there been a positive response yet? I mean, the Sudanese Government seems to be kind of inching its way towards accepting.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we're continuing -- we're not there yet. We're continuing to work on it. Andrew is in Sudan. His meetings continue. Beyond that, I don't have much more information. We're not there yet in terms of the implementation of the Addis Ababa understanding in support of Resolution 1706.

QUESTION: Do you know what's holding it up? I mean, where they're holding back? Is it kind of a joint choice of --

MR. MCCORMACK: It gets into a variety of a different issues that really get to what this -- the exact composition and function of one of the various elements of this force and what their role, what their mission is going to be in Sudan.

QUESTION: Is December 31st still the imputed deadline?

MR. MCCORMACK: We're still working on Plan A.

QUESTION: And you'll work into next year on Plan A?

MR. MCCORMACK: We're working on Plan A. We're working on Plan A right now. Yeah. Anything else on Sudan?

QUESTION: Yeah. Could you provide any details of who Natsios has been meeting with and who he plans to meet with? For example, has the President agreed to meet with him?

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm just looking at the list. My very detailed description that I've been provided is he's met with senior government officials in Khartoum on December 10th. I can't tell you who that is, but I do know it is -- that it does not as of yet include President Bashir. I think he still has some -- he's visiting Southern Sudan today, would like to travel to Darfur tomorrow. And our hope is still that at some point before he leaves, he will be able to meet with President Bashir.

QUESTION: And do you have any comment on the attack yesterday on an aid convoy in which 30 civilians were killed in Darfur?

MR. MCCORMACK: We understand -- this was the attack near El Geneina?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. MCCORMACK: There were a number of civilian deaths and we understand that AMIS personnel investigating the crash were taken to a police station for their own protection by local authorities. It is our understanding that they have since been evacuated from the police station and were returned to El Geneina. It is just, from what we can gather in terms of the details of the attack, it's just a terrible event in which some innocent people lost their lives.

QUESTION: You said last week that he had meetings possibly with third parties in London. Do you have any more information on that?

MR. MCCORMACK: All right. Do we have anything else on that, Tom?

MR. CASEY: (Off-mike.)

MR. MCCORMACK: On London, what Andrew's is doing in London?

MR. CASEY: Meeting with British officials.

MR. MCCORMACK: And nobody else?

MR. CASEY: No. I don't have a complete schedule. I know he --

MR. MCCORMACK: We're working on it.

QUESTION: Excellent, excellent.

QUESTION: I understand he's going to be away for ten days.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: This leaves a lot of time unaccounted for.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, he's spending a fair bit of time in Khartoum. I don't have his schedule in -- not Khartoum -- in Sudan. I don't have his complete schedule. But traveling within Sudan chews up a lot of time. Getting there chews up a lot of time. But he's also going to -- he's going to be going on to Chad from here which, again, will take some time.

Yeah. Yes.

QUESTION: Can I return to the guy arrested in Egypt last week or the week before? Any more details on him? Can you reveal his identity?

MR. MCCORMACK: No changes in terms of being able to talk about who this person is. But our expectation is that he will be released and that he will be able to leave Egypt. We're working with him on that particular question. I can't tell you exactly when. But we would hope in the coming days that he --

QUESTION: He's intending to come back to the States?

MR. MCCORMACK: Again, I -- it will be up to him exactly where he comes back to, but --

QUESTION: But when you say released, you mean fully released, not released into your custody --

MR. MCCORMACK: Correct.

QUESTION: -- extradited? You're not --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. I think that the expectation is that he would leave Egypt.

QUESTION: But when you say that, do you mean that you would take --

MR. MCCORMACK: No, no.

QUESTION: -- you would assume control of him, or he's just going to be released full stop?

MR. MCCORMACK: No. He would be -- I don't know if that's the exact term. I think that he would leave Egypt.

Yeah.

QUESTION: I have another question.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes.

QUESTION: I know there were some statements over the weekend, but do you have any comments on the death of Pinochet?

MR. MCCORMACK: It's going to be up to the Chilean people to decide what his legacy is vis-à-vis Chile. They -- you know, when he left Chile, the Chilean people were able to start to come to terms with the period of time in which he led the coalition in -- ruling coalition in Chile. From that, they have built a quite successful state and a state that is a model for many in the hemisphere in terms of their addressing issues of social justice and free trade and freedom of expression and the strength of democratic institutions. And I think that the Chilean people should be commended for that. We, of course, have a good, close working relationship with President Bachelet and her government and we'll continue to do so. But the fundamental assessment of his legacy in Chile and for Chile is, I think, one really for the Chilean people.

QUESTION: Do you credit Pinochet with the -- laying the groundwork for the successes that have occurred since he left office?

MR. MCCORMACK: George, I think that's really -- that's going to -- that's really for the Chilean people to come to terms with in terms of their history. What we do know is that in the wake of his departure from the scene, that the Chilean people have built a very successful country.

Yeah.

QUESTION: I have one more thing. Apparently, Iran has pledged $250 million in direct aid to the Hamas-led government. Do you have any comment on that?

MR. MCCORMACK: I hadn't seen the particular news reports. But it's -- if in fact true, even a pledge of that sort would be really 180 degrees opposite from where the rest of the world is going with respect to this Hamas-led government. I don't know if they'll actually follow through on those pledges. We have heard before from the Iranians when Hamas first took power great pledges about tens of millions of dollars that were going to be flowing into Hamas's coffers each and every single month. And I'm not sure that the Palestinian people ever actually saw any of that money.

QUESTION: And also Qatar has offered to pay the Palestinian school teachers.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right, yeah.

QUESTION: Do you have any more details on that? I know that the Foreign Minister was here last week and the Secretary asked him. Have they come back with any further details on whether the temporary international mechanism is being used?

MR. MCCORMACK: They're -- I think they took on board our point of view on the issue, the point of view of other countries as well, and we're still talking to them about it. But I think that they -- the Foreign Minister -- the Foreign Minister is -- said that he was going to look into the matter personally.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Mr. McCormack.

MR. MCCORMACK: Lambros.

QUESTION: Yes. Do you know if Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during her separate meetings last Friday with the foreign ministers of Russia and Germany discussed also the Kosovo issue and to which extent?

MR. MCCORMACK: It did not come up in the meeting with Mr. Ivanov, the National Security Advisor. It did come up with Foreign Minister Steinmeier. That was actually the topic of their dinner conversation for the most part.

QUESTION: What about Cyprus? This in connection with the EU process for recognition of Turkey to the European Union.

MR. MCCORMACK: They talked briefly about that. The Foreign Minister briefed them -- briefed the Secretary on where the EU stood in its process of discussions with --

QUESTION: Which one, the German or the Russian?

MR. MCCORMACK: The German, Germany.

QUESTION: Just to --

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) about the UN. With the Secretary General at the end of his term -- Kofi Annan, that is -- is there a general commentary on what the U.S. views as his legacy on leaving? Is there any --

MR. MCCORMACK: I think we'll wait till the end of his term before we offer those comments.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:43 p.m.)

DPB # 199, Released on December 11, 2006

Technorati Tags: State Department and Secretary of State or Iraq Study Group and LEBANON, or Israel and Secretary General Annan or Condoleezza Rice, or Middle East and UN Security Council,, or President Bush, and Holocaust Denial Conference, or Augusto Pinochet, and Prime Minister Siniora, or Ban Ki-moon, and VIDEO, or Pakistan, and Six Party Talks

U.S. International Avian and Pandemic Influenza Assistance

U.S. International Avian and Pandemic Influenza Assistance Tops $434 Million

The United States announced today an increase of $100 million in international assistance to address the threat of avian and pandemic influenza since January 2006.

The announcement came at an international conference in Bamako co-sponsored by the Government of the Republic of Mali, the European Commission and the African Union.

Special Representative on Avian and Pandemic Influenza John E. Lange announced that the United States is increasing its original pledge of $334 million, which was first announced in Beijing in January and raised to $362 million in June, to a total of $434 million. The increase includes $36 million in assistance from the U.S. Agency for International Development and another $36 million from the Department of Health and Human Services. The United States has already entered into binding agreements for $324 million of our pledge with implementing partners in the global fight against the highly pathogenic H5N1 virus.

President Bush continues to make avian and pandemic influenza a priority. Additional funding for international assistance is requested in the Fiscal Year 2007 Budget that is awaiting enactment by Congress.

The United States is working with international partners around the world to strengthen preparedness and communication, increase surveillance and detection of the highly pathogenic virus, and enhance global capacity to respond to and contain the disease.

The U.S. Government is providing assistance to combat avian influenza and prepare for a possible pandemic to more than 70 countries as well as to the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Organization for Animal Health and regional organizations. Efforts include deploying experts in human and animal health on emergency response teams; training veterinarians, health workers, and laboratory diagnosticians; supporting research; building surveillance networks and laboratory capacity; providing personal protective equipment such as suits, masks and gloves, as well as decontamination supplies and other commodities; developing stockpiles of non-pharmaceutical and pharmaceutical items; providing technical and humanitarian assistance; and conducting communications campaigns and public outreach.

For further information on the U.S. international engagement on avian influenza, see state.gov/g/oes/avianflu and pandemicflu.gov/. 2006, 1104 Released on December 11, 2006

Media Note, Office of the Spokesman, Washington, DC, December 11, 2006

Technorati Tags: 1918 Pandemic and Influenza Virus or CDC and Pandemic and Avian influenza or Bird Flu and H5N1 or adenovirus and recombinant or vaccines and Epidemiology or Bamako and Republic of Mali

Press Briefing Tony Snow 12/11/06 (VIDEO)

Press Briefing by Tony Snow, FULL STREAMING VIDEO. file is real media format, running time is 44:07. White House Conference Center Briefing Room.

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow briefs the press and answers questions. 12/11/2006: WASHINGTON, DC: 1:08 EST.

MR. SNOW: Just a little opening note. We are pleased the government of China has announced that next Monday, December 18th, the six-party talks will resume. We do not know the exact location or details of that, but we are pleased about it and will bring you more details as they become available.

And with that, I'll be happy to take questions.

Q President Talabani has criticized the Iraq Study Group's proposal to increase embed U.S. soldiers to improve security forces, police, soldiers. So is it safe to say that that issue or that item is off the table now?

MR. SNOW: It's safe to say that we are continuing to take a look at the best ways to enable the Iraqi government to sustain, defend and govern itself, to be an ally in the war on terror, to be an effective and freestanding democracy. And the President will announce his plans when he's completed the review, and I'm not going to get any further than that.

Q But he won't do it if a sovereign country says -- the President of a sovereign country says, we don't want this?

MR. SNOW: As I said, we will announce it at the proper time. Good question.

Q Oh, thank you. (Laughter.)

MR. SNOW: Thank you.

Q The President has described himself as the decider, talks about how decision-making is such an important part of his job. Hasn't he already formulated what he wants to do?

MR. SNOW: No.

Q So what he learns in conversations that last about an hour or so, that's going to --

MR. SNOW: Well, as you understand -- you're talking about his State Department meeting?

Q And series of meetings over this --

MR. SNOW: It might surprise you to know -- or probably it won't surprise you to know, that before going into such meetings, the President has received fairly extensive briefing papers and other things. And quite often these are the culmination of a long process of reviewing material.

In the case of the meeting over at the State Department today, the President did get a briefing of ongoing civilian efforts, through the State Department, in Iraq. He also got a chance to speak with the heads of four provincial reconstruction teams. And there was some discussion of regional diplomacy. All of those, again, follow on extensive consultations over recent months.

But there are a lot of complex issues still at play. And the National Security Council is working on an overall review. The State Department and the Defense Department have their pieces of this review. And the President is going to hear from all of them. But it's not quite a snap thing, Kelly. I mean, it really is a pretty -- it's a lot of very tough, complex issues, as anybody will tell you, and he's still working through them.

Jim.

Q The President has also said repeatedly in the past that he will pursue a policy even if it's unpopular, even if it's sort of not held by the majority, is not a shared majority opinion. Does that still hold, as far as the way forward in Iraq?

MR. SNOW: Well, you know, what the President is -- let me put it this way: The President is committed to an Iraq that can sustain, govern and defend itself and be an ally in the war on terror -- that also the goal outlined by the Baker-Hamilton commission. And I think it's probably shared by a majority of members of Congress. So the question now comes, how do you do it, how do you move forward. And I'm not aware that there is widespread discontent with those as goals. I just haven't done the polling. But what the President is working on is taking a look at the proper way to achieve those goals.

The other thing -- and this follows on again to Baker-Hamilton -- is that it does seem now that we're at a moment where Democrats who will be coming into power in the House and Senate, now find themselves in a position where, some not merely having been critics, they're now stakeholders in the final outcome and they're going to have an ability to work with the President on a number of things. But it strikes me, as you leaf through there, that you've got something more specific in mind.

Q I did want to follow up on the specific poll that CBS has just done, our latest poll. And it's one item, but there's several.

Q CBS poll?

Q Yes, CBS poll. If that's okay with Lester. (Laughter.)

Q New York Times?

Q "Should the U.S. set a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq?" Fifty-seven percent say, yes, that the U.S. should set a timetable for withdrawing troops. So I --

MR. SNOW: Well, I think the President has made it clear that you do things based on conditions. The President does want to withdraw troops, but you know what --

Q But he's clearly ruled out a timetable.

MR. SNOW: Jim, as I said in response to Terry's questions, I'll let the President announce where he stands on these things when he is prepared to deliver his remarks on the way forward.

Q But you can give us a sense of sort of what his state of mind is, can't you?

MR. SNOW: His state of mind is he's determined and he's determined to work hard on providing the right way forward. What you're asking me to do is to give a characterization of the state of policy. And I can tell you that it remains the President's belief that, yes, you want to withdraw U.S. troops under the proper conditions -- it's conditions-based -- and it is one you are in a position to have an Iraq that can stand up, sustain, govern, and defend itself.

Q Setting a timetable?

MR. SNOW: Like I said, just have to wait and see.

Martha.

Q Can you talk about the role that Bob Gates will play in this? He hasn't been sworn in yet, as he's the new Secretary of Defense. Where will his voice be in the --

MR. SNOW: It's a good question. I know that Secretary Rumsfeld will be running the meeting this week. There may be -- let me get back to you, because I think there may be a role for Bob Gates, but I don't want to get ahead of myself.

Q Can you give us a sense, when you're looking at this and the President says he wants to take a fresh look at this, it seems that the same people who've been running the war and who've been making policy for the last three or four years are the same people who he's relying on to take this look at it.

MR. SNOW: In substantial portion, that is correct, but on the other hand, you've had outside critics in. You have the Baker-Hamilton commission. None of those people were direct stakeholders in what took place. And furthermore --

Q Right, but he's doing his own look, and that would be largely that --

MR. SNOW: But it's also -- look, it's not also as if these folks just sort of sat around and stared blankly in a room and said, well gosh, we've been doing this, we don't have any new ideas. They, themselves, have also had conversations with a number of others, and they've been soliciting ideas so that they can think of creative ways and effective ways of moving forward toward that goal.

Q Did they discuss -- in the meeting this morning, did they discuss this idea for a regional support group?

MR. SNOW: No. On the other hand, in a sense there is one with the Iraq compact. So you do have one. But there was no specific discussion of the recommendation in the Baker-Hamilton commission report.

Q Was anything in the Iraq Study Group report this morning?

MR. SNOW: Not really. Again, this was more a briefing in the sense of taking a look at ongoing efforts and going through a list of possibilities for moving forward. But it did not -- let me put it this way: Nobody said, okay, the Iraq Study Group says this. It just wasn't that -- they didn't mark it up that way.

Q So in his meetings this week, it's not like he's taking the book with him, and say, hey, what do you think about this, or should we try that, or -- he's not bouncing ideas off them?

MR. SNOW: No, and I'm glad you asked that, because these deliberations, I think, have in some ways been characterized as a reaction to Baker-Hamilton, and they're not. This process has been going on for some time. Later in the week I'll get you a more detailed sort of breakdown of how this process has worked, so that I can sort of give some flesh to that characterization.

But it is important to note that the study of the situation had been going on for some time. When it became clear that Forward Together too was not producing the kind of results, and when you took a look at the sectarian violence, it became clear that we did need a new way forward and we needed really to start looking at everything, including the assumptions that had guided earlier operations, the realities on the ground, the evolving situation, how we see the dynamics unfolding, how things are working within the region, where you can expect help. As you see -- again, I'm sort of piling consideration upon consideration, but that's really how the process worked.

Q Tony, just a quick follow up; may I?

MR. SNOW: Yes, sure.

Q What exactly does the President want to do next week, if it's next week, for this speech? Does he want to address the nation, is this just -- I mean, what is his goal here in getting this message out? And will it be a compilation of all of these things?

MR. SNOW: It's not a compilation. What the President is going to -- there is obvious concern in the United States about what's going on with the war. And the concern that the President had stated before, that we weren't doing well enough fast enough. And Americans have a right to know where we intend to go in finding a better way forward, and the President is going to outline that.

It is not -- he's not selecting from a menu, one from column A or one from column B, but instead taking a very good hard look at all of the analysis and all of the opinions, and making decisions based on all the input from advisors on what he thinks is the proper way forward. And at that point, he will -- whatever will be -- and because we still have not decided upon it all, I can't tell you time, can't tell you the place, but obviously, he will want the entire American public to hear it.

Ed.

Q Tony, today the President said that Iraq is the central component in stopping extremists. Has he dropped saying it's the central front in the war on terror? Because he didn't mention that.

MR. SNOW: No. Allow him to vary the phraseology from time to time. It does not mean any change in view.

Q Okay. Republican Senator Gordon Smith, last week, said, "Our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way, being blown up by the same bombs day after day, it's absurd. It may even be criminal," and that he can no longer support this. What is your reaction to a Republican senator saying that what's going on right now in Iraq is criminal?

MR. SNOW: Well, we dispute the "criminal" part, obviously, and at the same time, understand the senator's concern. We share the concern about not doing well enough fast enough. But do not assume that people are simply being blown up. They are on missions. And as General Corelli said last week, "There's not an engagement our people have lost, but it is still important to continue the work of building greater capability and capacity on the part of the Iraqi government and helping them out."

People on both sides are going to have disagreements, much as Joe Lieberman, formerly a Democrat, apparently run out of his party for disagreeing with what was seen as orthodoxy at that time, but Gordon --

Q Republican Senator Smith is challenging the strategy. What he basically said yesterday, as well, was, when you do the same thing over and over again without a clear strategy for victory, that is dereliction, that is deeply immoral. Such is the dispute. He's saying what the President is doing is immoral.

MR. SNOW: Well, then we disagree.

Q Tony, first of all, the --

Q You're just going to blow it off? A Republican senator is saying the President's policy may be criminal and it's immoral, and you're just saying, we just disagree?

MR. SNOW: And what would you like me to say? Should I do duels at 10 paces?

Q Don't you think you should answer for that? You're saying -- you've said from this podium over and over that the strategy is a victory, right? And you have a Republican senator is saying there is no clear strategy, that you don't have a strategy.

MR. SNOW: Well, let's let Senator Smith hear what the President has to say. We understand that this is a time where politics are emotional in the wake of an election. And you know what? Senator Smith is entitled to his opinion. But I'm not sure exactly what you would like --

Q Well, how about answering the central thrust about the strategy, not about, like, politics --

MR. SNOW: Okay, the strategy is pretty simple. If you take a look, for instance -- if you take a look at the Baker-Hamilton commission report, what do they talk about? They talk about building greater capability on the part of the Iraqis so that you can have an Iraqi government that governs itself, sustains itself, defends itself, who's ally in the war on terror is a democracy.

I don't think it's immoral to be a democracy. I don't think it's immoral to have a state that is able to stand up and defend itself against acts of terror. I don't think it's immoral to defend the Iraqi people against acts of terrorism aimed at Muslims.

Q The Senator is not saying that's immoral. He's saying that the U.S. -- he's saying, of course democracy is a great goal --

MR. SNOW: You know what, Ed? Ed, I'll tell you what. You're engaging in an argument and you're trying to fill in the gaps in a --

Q It's not an argument. It's a Republican senator saying it, not me. It's a Republican senator saying it, and he's not --

MR. SNOW: Then tell me exactly what --

Q -- of course he's in favor of democracy.

MR. SNOW: Tell me --

Q Are you saying Republican Senator Smith is not in favor of democracy?

MR. SNOW: Well, I don't know. You just said he said it's immoral; when I listed the elements of the policy, you said that's not what he was talking about. So please tell me what he was talking about.

Q He's saying that day after day, that now U.S. soldiers are patrolling the same streets, that they're caught up in the middle of a civil war -- not about the government there --

MR. SNOW: Okay, here's what's immoral: the killing of American soldiers. We agree.

Jim.

Q All right, no --

MR. SNOW: Look, you're trying to engage me in a debate, the particulars of which I apparently am unaware and can't find.

Go ahead.

Q All right. First of all, today's series of -- the series of meetings this week -- I mean, the President obviously has lots of meetings that we aren't told so much about, that we don't know about. I'm sure he talks to all of these players all the time. So the public nature of -- or the quasi-public nature of this week's meetings, are those to kind of show the public, kind of, as he's going through his deliberations who he's talking to? I mean, why is it so public now? He's also leaving the White House to do these. I mean, what's the intent of this week's kind of public statements about these meetings?

MR. SNOW: I don't know the intent of the public statements, but it's important for the President to be briefed.

Q But he's briefed often, where we're not filled in --

MR. SNOW: Well, there are briefings going on this week that you're still not filled in on. But on the other hand, quite often when you have briefings of this sort, you are. So I don't think it's a gigantic difference. But, you know, traveling to State and traveling to the Pentagon obviously are making the point that the President is listening to key people in this administration.

And by the way, just to get back to play devil's advocate one last time, because I don't remember people getting this whipped up when Joe Lieberman departed from party orthodox, saying, it's a Democrat saying this. The fact is, at a time like this, people in both --

Q But it's Republicans in the White House right now, though, so it's a little different. The Democrats didn't have power on the Hill --

MR. SNOW: Okay, well, I'm just making --

Q But it's not a fair comparison, though. The Republicans run the White House, right?

MR. SNOW: Well, it is when it comes to -- in the context of the ongoing -- but in any event, you're right, I'm getting into the weeds of a pointless discussion.

Q Can I ask you one other follow-up on that, then? What --

MR. SNOW: Let me finish up with Jim, and then I'll come back to you.

Q Gates -- will Gates be in any of these meetings? I mean, whether he's running them or not, will he be in the room?

MR. SNOW: I don't know. That's what I'm trying to find out. I don't know. I know that there are some things under consideration. Let me find out for you and I will get back to you and Martha and everybody else on it.

Q In terms of experts today, how were these experts picked today? Is it because of a certain point of view they may have or --

MR. SNOW: No. I mean, you know who the experts are, and they have been of differing views. For instance, what you do have, you've got an Iraq expert, you've got somebody who is a regional geopolitical expert, you've got three military experts, all of whom at various points have had points of agreement and disagreement with the administration. But they're being brought in because they're smart people who know how to get things done.

Q But will they discussing the particulars of the Baker-Hamilton report with the President?

MR. SNOW: I don't know. I doubt it. They're not brought in to do a book review on Baker-Hamilton. That's not the point.

Q Can you give us the list again of the experts, while we're on the --

MR. SNOW: Yes. Let's see. I know that we've got -- let me find my list here, if I still have it: Stephen Biddle, of the Council on Foreign Relations; Eliot Cohen, of the School of Advanced International Studies; and three retired generals, Wayne Downing, Jack Keane, and Barry McCaffrey.

Q And, lastly, in terms of reconciliation, is that -- do you expect, no matter what happens, that that's still a centerpiece of the administration's policy of getting Sunnis and Shiites together and --

MR. SNOW: Well, I think it's a centerpiece of the Iraqi government's policy, and it's certainly one we support. You are going to have to have a government that coalesces not only across regional, but also sectarian boundaries. Going to have to happen.

Q And is the U.S. -- is the administration going to keep reaching out equally to both sides to kind of help bring them together?

MR. SNOW: Well, there are going to be conversations. As you know, Mr. Hashemi will be in town soon, so it's worth mentioning. I think I cut Ed off, and I was snarky -- so Ed, did you have a further question you wanted to ask?

Q I just wanted to ask you, I'm trying to get at the central point. Senator Smith also said, in his speech, yesterday on ABC, "Let's cut and run or cut and walk, but let us fight the war on terror more intelligently than we have." He's also saying you're not fighting the war on terror smartly.

MR. SNOW: Well, I'm just not sure what he's saying, because I don't know what the specific proposals are. What you have given me -- the blanket use of the term "immoral" tells me nothing because when I outlined both the stated aims and the procedures, you said that wasn't what he was talking about. So I'm not sure exactly what he is talking about, other than the fact that Americans are dying, which I think if you want to talk about the targeting of Americans, you bet that's immoral, and furthermore, so is the targeting of Iraqis.

But there is -- look, the President has made it pretty clear, he's not satisfied with the tactics that have been employed, and therefore we're taking a close look at it. So here's what we ought to do: Let's go ahead and go through this period -- because Senator Smith has said what he's going to say for now -- let's take a look at the review, and let's see if we can have more specific critiques if he wishes to give them.

But on the other hand, this is also -- as tantalizing as it is to see Republicans feeding on Republicans, the more important challenge right now is to build a consensus around success. Now I think you've accepted democracy is -- of course I don't want to make you speak for Gordon Smith -- if democracy is a goal, if an Iraq that can sustain, govern and defend itself is a goal, if turning power over to the Iraqis and building capacity is a goal, and all of those are acceptable, then the question is, how do we work together as a nation to achieve those so that in the end we can be proud of an Iraq that has achieved democracy in the face of terror strikes aimed at citizens regardless of their backgrounds, designed to blow up the country so that terrorism may in fact continue to afflict the lives of people throughout the Middle East and suppress their democratic desires?

And if succeeding in that noble aim becomes a national mission, which we think it should and is, and is thoroughly consistent with American traditions and values, then there's an opportunity for Democrats and Republicans to work together to achieve this in a way that American people can support.

Q Tony, as far as the study is concerned, do you think terrorism has gone down or up because of this study? Because many terrorists in the Middle East are celebrating and also the Iraqi government is against the study, and --

MR. SNOW: I don't think the publication of an independent panel report is going to have any immediate discernable effect on terrorist activities. They operate for reasons that have to do really with trying to destroy American morale and also to try to destroy the government within Iraq.

Q What message you think President or this study has for the terrorists across the globe?

MR. SNOW: I'm not going to -- that's too metaphysical, Goyal. The message of this study was to demonstrate that people in both political parties cannot [sic] operate and cooperate in a serious way to try to come up with recommendations regarding victory in Iraq, which would be the successful conclusion of efforts to create the free-standing, free and democratic Iraq we've talked about.

Victoria.

Q There's a new Newsweek poll that says that 67 percent of Americans would support keeping large numbers of U.S. military personnel in Iraq for no more than another year or two. Now we know that the President doesn't like to take very much notice of polls, and this week he's talking to a lot of experts and listening to them, but it seems that the American people are also speaking very loudly. I'm wondering how much is he going to factor in what they seem to be saying?

MR. SNOW: Well, let me put it this way --

Q And is he going to be listening to them?

MR. SNOW: The President has listened, but the other thing that will be interesting is what I talked about before. Public opinion is not something chiseled in stone. Quite often it's shaped by, among other things, political campaigns. And now there's an opportunity for both parties to work together.

And I think when the President comes out and has an opportunity to make clear what the goals are -- and, again, I don't know that there's widespread disaffection with the notion of a free, democratic Iraq standing on its own, with the United States supporting that, and as Iraq becomes more capable having American forces move out, and to do those swiftly as possible. I think that's something that the American public can support, and Democrats and Republicans alike can support.

We understand right now the anxiety about the situation in Iraq. And the President shares it. But on the other hand, the costs of leaving short of victory could be utterly catastrophic for the region and for the United States. The President has outlined that many times, therefore understanding not only what the stakes are for not completing the job, but also with the promise for completing the job. It's important for people to consider.

Q So seeing as they're also saying that they do want a timetable -- both CBS and the Newsweek poll are saying that --

MR. SNOW: Well, as I said, Victoria, let's wait for the President to deliver his speech. My guess is that you will see, when the President is addressing the American people and addressing many of the concerns you're talking about, it will create a basis of support.

Q What I was going to say was it sounds like, if we're not going to leave short of what you're calling "victory," and the American people are saying that they want a timed withdrawal, and they don't want people there after one or two years, those two don't seem to gel unless we can have victory within one or two years.

MR. SNOW: Well again, we'll see. There are going to be the best efforts to succeed as quickly as possible, but nobody has a crystal ball. But the President has made it clear to Iraqis and to the United States that we want to have this succeed, and we want it to succeed as quickly as possible.

Q May I ask one quick one?

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q What role is the Vice President playing this week in the listening?

MR. SNOW: Well, he's listening and asking some questions and he's participating in the conversations.

Q Is he in on all the meetings?

MR. SNOW: He was in the meeting at State, and I assume that he will be in the others, as well.

Q As you mentioned a couple seconds ago, Tony, he's going to meet tomorrow with the Sunni Vice President.

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q What is he getting out of these meetings? And what does he have to show for it?

MR. SNOW: Well, if you're looking for deliverables -- you know, walking out with a sheet of paper saying we did X, Y or Z, you're probably not going to find it. But it's important -- for instance, the conversations with Mr. al Hakim last week were quite fruitful in getting not only another view, it turned out to be a complementary view with what we've been hearing about what's going on politically within Iraq and getting a better understanding of how the various political forces work with one another, and also their relationships with one another, but also the possibility of building that moderate backbone that you're going to need for a successful and self-sustaining democracy in Iraq. I expect the same sort of things to be part of the conversation with Mr. Hashemi.

Now, obviously, a Shia leader will have different areas of concern, and also different ways in which he may be able to offer advice and help than a Sunni leader. But the one thing that they do have in common is they are part of an Iraqi government they both want to help -- they both want to sustain and both want to see succeed. And, therefore, I think it's -- the most important deliverable is greater insight into how we best can achieve that goal, and in a way that's going to fit in with the political sensitivities and sensibilities, and the cultural sensitivities and sensibilities of the Iraqi people so that we can build a stronger case for the Iraqis themselves.

Q Do you consider Hashemi to be a moderate?

MR. SNOW: Well, Hashemi is a man -- Hashemi is a duly considered part of the -- he's the vice president of the country, and he's somebody who has lost three members of his own family to violence during this. And, furthermore, he is somebody who is committed to the success of the government and to going after insurgent and militia groups, and those are all important pieces of the puzzle.

Q Tony, one of the things I'm not clear on, on the last couple of weeks is how broadly the administration is willing to change when it comes to Iraq? Because no one argues and no one questions that in an ideal world -- to use your phrase about (inaudible) -- and you could wave a wand and Iraq would go from what it is to being a democracy that's stable nobody argues that wouldn't be a good thing. People argue that what the administration has done over the last three years hasn't succeeded in bringing those things into being.

If the broad types of far-reaching policies -- whether it's timed troop withdraw, petitioning the country, siding with the Shiites openly rather than trying to reconcile the country -- if the broad changes of policy are being dismissed, it seems preemptively, what does that leave when you have a country that --

MR. SNOW: Well first, let me tell you that nothing --

Q -- is depressed about the war and doesn't believe that victory, as you define it, is attainable?

MR. SNOW: Only bad ideas are dismissed preemptively. We have not preemptively dismissed thoughtful ideas about the way to go forward, and I'm not going to give you any more detail because, again, that is up to the President to announce where he goes.

Now, you may decide at that point that you wish to characterize whether it's "bold" or not. The aim is to be successful, to come up with a policy that's going to achieve our stated aims. And, again, I'll leave it to everyone to try to come up with a proper description when that time comes.

Q Are we talking weeks, though, or are we talking that he's willing to make --

MR. SNOW: Like I said, I'm just -- I have a feeling that different people are going to describe it in different ways, and therefore, I'm not going to characterize it. You're just going to have --

Q How do you see --

MR. SNOW: Unfortunately, you're just going to have to wait. It's going to require some patience, but you'll have to wait until the reporting is done and the President has come up with his policy. I'm not going to do winks and nods. I'm not going to say, big, little, in between. I'm not going to do, hot, cold, warm. Because in a number of cases, there's still important issues that are being worked through and worked through hard by the principals. And again, I think, in deference to the President, let him do the announcing. And then if there is a critique, I'm perfectly happy to entertain it and answer questions about it.

Q Can I ask you one other thing on procedure? The NSC report that's in the works now, is that meant to be, A, something that draws from the Pentagon and State reports, or does it exist separately?

MR. SNOW: Well, let me put it this way: There are reviews ongoing at State and at the Department of Defense, as you know, and the NSC is also incorporating views from throughout the administration in its work. Let me put it that way. As I said the other day, it's not like people are pushing book reports across the table to have the President look at them, but there's a lot of information making its way around. And so -- I know you're interested in the process, but you've got -- State has been doing its work, DOD has been doing its work. The NSC is aware of those and is also compiling an interagency view of what's going on.

Q Is the NSC meant to be the most descriptive of the three?

MR. SNOW: I'm not going to characterize. What's prescriptive is what the President suggests at the end.

Q Tony, following on that, is there a concern in the administration that the expectations are building here for a new way forward, and that perhaps a lot of this stuff is already being done?

MR. SNOW: I mean, look, we certainly live in an expectation-rich environment -- look at the expectations surrounding the Baker-Hamilton commission report. But we're in a war, and it's a tough war, and it's going to require some very sound and realistic thinking about the situation on the ground, what's possible, how you achieve it, how you do it -- and how you incorporate a whole host of concerns, from cultural and political sensibilities in Iraq to the ability -- to the pace at which one can build capacity in Iraq, to the behavior of neighbors and the support of neighbors, and what other parties may do to assist the Iraqis. I mean, there are a whole host of concerns that are coming into play here. And I think to use the phrase Yochi used, there are no magic wands.

But what you do have is a serious look. And I think if people step back and say, okay, this is a tough time, we're fighting a dedicated, determined enemy. We're not just going to walk away, so we're going to have to beat them militarily, but there also have to be other means, as we announced in the National Counterterrorism Strategy. We've got to deny them safe haven. We've got to deny them finances. We've got to deny them their abilities to communicate. We also have to establish examples that are going to repudiate everything they say about the nature of free and democratic life.

So there are a whole series of these things that come into play. And I would just -- I don't want to inflate expectations, I don't want to dash them. I just want people to use common sense and have a fair hearing, because this is important business and it's not meant just for the American public, but also for a Congress that's going to be involved.

Q If I could follow, you addressed it this morning, but could you talk about these reports that the Shia leaders in Iraq are looking to oust Maliki?

MR. SNOW: Yes, it's not true. Mr. al Hakim was in town; he was supporting the Maliki government. And in fact, right before he went in to talk with the President, he placed a call to Mr. Maliki. So it's not -- we don't know how these reports got cobbled together, but they're not true.

Q What's your basis for knowing they're not true?

MR. SNOW: Well, the basis is the conversations that some of our NSC staff have had with people on the ground. So there has been communication between the governments.

Q Tony, why is it that the generals that are meeting with the President this afternoon are not generals who are closer to this phase of the Iraq war?

MR. SNOW: Meaning what? "Are not closer to this phase" -- who are --

Q These are retired generals or the generals who either take part at the beginning of the Iraq war, or were in other wars. Why not have generals who actively dealt with this current phase of the Iraq war, instead of these retired generals?

MR. SNOW: The phase -- how would you define the beginning of this phase?

Q Sectarian violence --

MR. SNOW: Okay, so ever since last February --

Q -- and more mass killings of American troops.

MR. SNOW: Okay, so you're talking about from February on. Most of those people are still in -- the President actually does talk with them on a very regular basis, as you know. I mean, he talks with General Casey, he talks with General Corelli, he talks with all the generals who are chiefly involved, who have been, in fact, involved throughout.

So I don't know -- typically, when you're bringing in outside experts, the other thing that happens is people with long military experience step back and they're going to have their own views and they're going to be somewhat fresh and perhaps different than one might hear from combatant commanders. I don't -- forgive me --

Q You understand what I'm saying?

MR. SNOW: No, I actually don't understand what you're saying. That's why I'm wrinkling my nose in such a way.

Q Well, I don't want you to wrinkle your nose, I want you to pay attention and answer.

MR. SNOW: Are you saying that you -- is there a critic that you would prefer be on the panel? Is that what you're -- I don't know what you're getting at.

Q I'm not supplying anyone. I'm just asking, viewing the names that are on the list, you have those who are retired, those who are not involved with this element of the war -- that is plain and simple -- versus bringing in the ones that are involved, and to mix the group, versus talking to them by phone --

MR. SNOW: Okay. Well, first, with all due respect, General Abizaid, General Casey, General Corelli and others are consulted regularly. I don't think it's necessary to come in and have them have a colloquy with retired generals. Their job is to be working on the war and making progress in the war and helping find a better way forward, which is what they're doing. And it is not in the absence of presidential attention or conversation. So the President has richly met your criterion of people who have been involved since last February.

Q And a follow up, can this war be won militarily?

MR. SNOW: It has always been said that it cannot be won strictly through military means, because you do need an Iraqi government that is going to have the capacity for a civil society in which Iraqi rights are protected, where people feel a shared stake, where you have an economy that can offer jobs and prospects, where you have an educational system that works, where the basic services are up and running. All of those things -- I mean, none of that is new, and the characterization of, "winning militarily" has never been one that --

Q I'll rephrase. Have we lost the military portion of this war?

MR. SNOW: To use General Corelli's formulation last week, no.

Q Tony, two questions. On these briefings, is the President asking many questions?

MR. SNOW: Yes. It's typically his nature. There were some presentations, especially -- well, there were presentations both from State Department employees and also by folks on the provincial reconstruction teams. But on the other hand, he asks a lot of questions. And, you know, certainly not above stopping somebody as they make their presentation, asking a few pointed questions, and sometimes the conversation will move off in a different direction as a consequence.

Q And one question on phraseology. For months and months, you have defined, the White House has defined success in Iraq as Iraq sustaining, governing and defending itself.

MR. SNOW: And being an ally in the war on terror.

Q Well, that's what you and the President have purposefully, it seems, added --

MR. SNOW: Actually, you go back to the --

Q -- in the last two weeks, really, on a regular basis.

MR. SNOW: No, go back and look at the speeches that he delivered during the summer, you'll find it in there.

Q It's not a purposeful addition in just the last few weeks?

MR. SNOW: No, it's been in the lexicon for some time.

Q How far back should we look?

MR. SNOW: I'm not going to do your homework. We've got fancy ways of finding it out.

Q Oh, I'm going to do my homework, but I want to hear what you have to say.

MR. SNOW: I don't know.

Q Is the briefing today at State and tomorrow at Defense, is this status reports or recommendations from people on --

MR. SNOW: Rather than recommendations, let me put it this way: They're a discussion of options, and the President can ask and explore various options that people have for dealing with a variety of situations.

Q Is it a menu of options, or are these agencies saying, here's what we should do?

MR. SNOW: It's a menu.

Q With no weighting of them?

MR. SNOW: No. The President is the one who makes the decisions.

Q Did he hear anything today he hadn't thought of before, or was new?

MR. SNOW: I don't know. He heard a lot of things, but I don't -- since I have not received each and every briefing paper that crosses his desk -- some are proprietary to the President, and the President, alone -- I cannot characterize for you.

Q On Baker-Hamilton, was there anything in there that this administration hasn't already considered?

MR. SNOW: I don't know. Again, good question; I don't know. I mean, there are some -- again, I don't know.

Q Tony, two questions. One on Iraq, and if I may, the holocaust conference in Iran. On Iraq, if I heard the President correctly this morning, he said Iraq is a central point. He was using the words "a" or "an" letter there, rather than "the." Is that a change --

MR. SNOW: Okay, "the." No, it's, again -- when you have a change -- when you have a one-day change in locution it does not mean a tectonic shift in policy.

Q Do you have any words of wisdom about this holocaust conference in Iran? Anything you want to say about it?

MR. SNOW: No, I just --

Q Can you elaborate or say anything more about the results or the expectations the President has for next six-party talks?

MR. SNOW: We now go back to taking a look at the September 19th accords. That is going to be the basis for further conversation. Obviously, in the end you want a non-nuclear Korean Peninsula, you want the ability -- if the North Koreans not only step away from the nuclear program, what becomes available to them are a host of options, all good for the Korean people, North Korean people. So we really are back now to -- the purpose will be, as it was before, to take a look at the September 19th agreement and figure out if the North Koreans are serious about moving forward.

Q Can I ask about one more time on this holocaust conference?

MR. SNOW: No, I just -- no, because I have not spent any time studying it, and I don't want to -- I just don't want to talk about it.

Q -- not upset or anything?

MR. SNOW: Like I said, I don't want to talk about it. It is certainly -- look, let me put it this way: one of the great horrors in human history was the holocaust and one -- as a matter of fact, when one thinks about the holocaust and one thinks about the, one, destruction of human lives because folks practiced the wrong religion or did not, in fact, behave in precisely the way a totalitarian despot saw fit -- one of the things that the world said at that point was, never forget. And we should never forget what totalitarian despots can do when they say that people who do not share their particular view, whether it be on religion or something else, must die.

That's partly what we're fighting in terms of al Qaeda. It's a similar type enemy. And one should always remember the importance of looking back and also looking forward on the dear price people pay when they do not address a menace before it has an opportunity to become even worse.

Q A couple of quick things. Could you describe the sense of urgency there is for the President in trying to bring this to a conclusion, because you aren't yet sure when you're going to present it, so --

MR. SNOW: As I pointed out a number of times, Kelly, the sense -- there's a sense of urgency where the President says, I need it done as quickly as possible, but you also need it done right. We expect that it's -- that we're approaching the conclusion to that process, but until final determinations have been made, and before the President has made a final decision, I just don't want to give you a time stamp for it and then have to come back and say, whoops, we were wrong.

So out of an abundance of caution, I'm not giving you a firm date on anything. But on the other hand, people are working very hard at it. You take a look at this week's calendar, there's an enormous amount of attention, not only on the part of the President, but also all those involved in shaping policy on working this problem.

Q Tony, in the public aspect of some of these events, as you indicated he has meetings all the time, but by making them public, are you trying to demonstrate to the American people a certain level of his consultation? Could you speak to --

MR. SNOW: I think it's important that the American people be aware both of his consultation and his level of concern about getting it right.

Q Tony, you mentioned that the State Department meetings were going to be a lot about the regional implications of Iraq. Did the issue of Iraqi refugee flows come up? And does the President think that the U.S. aid to Jordan, for example, should increase since they're bearing such a high --

MR. SNOW: It did not come up, and I'd refer you to State for competent answers on that, because I don't have it.

Les, and then Paula.

Q In the back.

MR. SNOW: I heard you Paula.

Q Two questions, Tony. The Washington Post reports that yesterday in New Hampshire, Senator Barack Obama was trailed by what they termed "a huge media hoard" of more than 100. And presuming that Senator Obama's remarkable impact has not struck you speechless, Tony, does --

MR. SNOW: Les, you're clearing the room. Hurry this up. (Laughter.)

Q -- does the President, as the head of the GOP, believe that Senator Hillary Clinton is seriously concerned about this Barack boom? Or does he think it's more of a --

MR. SNOW: Did you just ask me what the President -- the Republican President thinks about internal Democratic politics?

Q Yes, as the head of the GOP.

MR. SNOW: Again, the President, I think -- as I've tried to make clear, the President is worried about matters of global war and peace, and he'll allow the Democrats to conduct their own primary process when that process does, in fact, begin in earnest.

Q Okay. From Mexico City, The New York Times reported on December the 1st that the swearing-in of new President Felipe Calderon, which was attended by President George H.W. Bush, included whistles, cat calls, fist fights, screamed insults, pushing matches, and lasted only two minutes before the new President and his predecessor left the room under heavy guard. And my question: What was the President's reaction to this wild event, and what was his father's reaction?

MR. SNOW: Sounded almost like a Joe Gibbs' press conference. (Laughter.) Apologies to Joe, before we go further. No, no reaction to that.

Paula, go ahead.

Q First of all, I'd like to thank you for calling on me after the press corps started to leave.

MR. SNOW: Well, I'm sorry to hurt your feelings. I was trying to be fair in calling on people as I saw them.

Q Okay, well, anyway, you mentioned earlier that it's important to win the war because of the catastrophic consequences if we fail.

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q Well, last week Vice President Gore -- former Vice President Gore mentioned that the consequences of this war would pale in comparison to what will happen to the environment and the economy worldwide if global warming is not addressed before it reaches the tipping point, as far as greenhouse gas emissions. So I just wondered, do you agree with him?

MR. SNOW: Vice President Gore has spoken often and passionately on the subject. There is considerable dispute about some of his -- the scientific underpinnings of his claims. Nevertheless, this is an administration that understands concerns about greenhouse gasses and has done more than any other administration, including the one to which Senator Gore, or former Vice President Gore belonged and addressing greenhouse emission levels and pursuing clean sources of energy and pushing aggressively to make sure that this country not only is cleaner, but also more energy independent for years to come.

So it is -- look, he's free to give speeches.

Q As you know, though, when he was in the former administration, there were proposals on climate change, but they weren't supported in Congress.

MR. SNOW: Well, what was interesting is -- that's right, as a matter of fact, there was a vote on the Kyoto climate treaty that went down 95-0 in the United States Senate. One of the co-sponsors was Bennett Johnston, the other was Chuck Hagel. And it did not get a single vote and was never again pushed by that administration.

So I think what it is -- you need to understand, Paula, that in this country, people really do place a value on a clean environment. There are companies making lots of money right now talking about how clean they are, and good for them. When you -- one of the studies done some years ago indicates that when a society reaches a certain level of prosperity, you move from simple desire to gain affluence to a desire to do other things, like clean the environment. And I think the American public is probably as aggressive on that front as any on the face of the Earth.

And if you take a look at the percentage improvements in air and water quality in this country versus the rest of the industrialized world, you'll find that we're without peer. And having said that, we support all efforts to do a better job within constraints that are going to allow people to maintain their freedoms and their jobs.

Q I have one more question then. Why did the President, in your goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, put it in terms of intensity which, if you meet those goals, could still end up increasing overall greenhouse gas emissions by 2012?

MR. SNOW: Well, because what you have here is a developing world. And if you take a look at overall greenhouse emissions, as you know, Paula, they are increasing worldwide. And part of the big debate now is whether all parties, including rapidly-growing economies, are going to be party to agreements of that sort. You will also find that, with a couple of exceptions, none of the European countries have been able to meet those goals.

Q Thank you.

MR. SNOW: All right, thank you.

END 1:51 P.M. EST, For Immediate Release, Office of the Press Secretary, December 11, 2006.

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House or Tony Snow and VIDEO, or Iraq Study Group and six-party talks, or State Department, and Baker-Hamilton commission, or Baghdad and Iran or Bob Gates and National Counterterrorism Strategy or Iraq and Prime Minister Maliki or Baghdad and Shia or Sunni, or Iraq Study Group, or National Security Council,

President, State Department, Iraq (VIDEO),

President Bush Meets with Senior State Department Officials on Iraq, FULL STREAMING VIDEO, United States Department of State, Washington, D.C.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all for coming. I just had a briefing with senior policy advisors here at the State Department. I want to thank you for your hospitality, Madam Secretary.

We talked about a lot of things. We talked about what's taking place on the ground in Iraq, particularly from the perspective of the State Department. I must tell you, there are some fantastic, brave souls who are heading PRTs, provincial reconstruction teams. These are our civilian components on the ground there in Iraq. And we got a briefing from Baghdad with one of our PRT leaders here in Washington about the challenges and the tasks to help this Iraqi government get a country that can sustain and govern and defend itself.

No question in my mind, there are some very brave State Department officials who are engaged in this really important endeavor. And I want to thank them and their families. I appreciate the advice I got from those folks in the field. And that advice is an important part, an important component of putting together a new way forward in Iraq. Like most Americans, this administration wants to succeed in Iraq, because we understand success in Iraq would help protect the United States in the long run.

We also talked about the neighborhood, the countries that surround Iraq and the responsibilities that they have to help this young Iraqi democracy survive. We believe that most of the countries understand that a mainstream society, a society that is a functioning democracy, is in their interests. And it's up to us to help focus their attentions and focus their efforts on helping the Iraqis succeed.

I appreciate so very much the Iraqi leadership taking the lead in its neighborhood. After all, one of the things we're trying to do is help this government get on its feet so it can govern and it can conduct its own foreign policy. But the role of America is to help this young democracy survive.

I'm looking forward to continuing my deliberations with the military. There's no question we've got to make sure that the State Department and the Defense Department are -- the efforts and their recommendations are closely coordinated so that when I do speak to the American people, they will know that I've listened to all aspects of government, and that the way forward is the way forward to achieve our objective: to succeed in Iraq. And success is a country that governs, defends itself, that is a free society, that serves as an ally in this war on terror.

And the reason why that's vital is because Iraq is a central component of defeating the extremists who want to establish safe haven in the Middle East, extremists who would use their safe haven from which to attack the United States, extremists and radicals who have stated that they want to topple moderate governments in order to be able to achieve assets necessary to effect their dream of spreading their totalitarian ideology as far and wide as possible.

This is really the calling of our time, that is, to defeat these extremists and radicals, and Iraq is a component part, an important part of laying the foundation for peace.

And so Madam Secretary, thank you for the briefing. I want to thank your team here in Washington for their good work, and I thank those out in the field who have shown such incredible bravery to do the hard work necessary to secure our country.

Thank you all.

END 11:58 A.M. EST. For Immediate Release, Office of the Press Secretary, December 11, 2006

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House or State Department and Iraq or Secretary of State James Baker and provincial reconstruction teams or Iraq Study Group and National Security Council or Middle East and VIDEO

Space Shuttle Discovery Launch STS-116 (VIDEO)

LIVE LAUNCH AND MISSION VIDEO NASATV: REAL MEDIA PLAYER amd WINDOWS MEDIA PLAYER, LAUNCH VIDEO Discovery’s Night Launch Sends STS-116 to Station

Space Shuttle Discovery and a crew of seven astronauts lifted off Saturday from Kennedy Space Center at 8:47 p.m. EST. High Resolution Image and STS-116 GALLERY

After reaching orbit, Discovery’s crew set to work to open the payload bay doors, set up computers and equipment and check out the shuttle’s robotic arm. Heat shield inspections will begin Sunday with a station docking scheduled for Monday at 5:05 p.m.

The STS-116 crew members will dock to the International Space Station, install the new P5 truss structure and perform three spacewalks to rewire the station for electricity generated by a solar array delivered in September.

STS-116 will also swap crew members when mission specialist Sunita Williams becomes a flight engineer for Expedition 14. Taking Williams' place aboard Discovery for the ride home is European Space Agency astronaut Thomas Reiter who has lived aboard the station since July.

Technorati Tags: NASA or STS-116 and space shuttle Discovery or Kennedy Space Center and Live Video or VIDEO and Return to Flight mission or International Space Station and astronauts or space shuttle and Discovery or orbiter and physics or Space and astronomy or Jet Propulsion Laboratory

2006 Presidential Christmas (Holiday) Card

KANSAS CITY, Mo. (Dec. 1, 2006) — The White House has selected Hallmark Cards, Inc., for the sixth year in a row, (Clinton Era Cards by American Greetings) to produce the official 2006 presidential holiday card.

The cards will be mailed to friends and family of President and Mrs. George W. Bush, as well as to foreign dignitaries. Presidential Holiday Cards

Sample Past White House Holiday Cards Hoover || Roosevelt || Truman || Eisenhower || Kennedy || Johnson || Nixon || Ford || Carter || Reagan || Bush || Clinton

Complete List Past Presidential Christmas Cards !933 - Present. George W. Bush 2001 - Present || Bill Clinton 1993 - 2001 || George H.W. Bush 1989 - 1993 || Ronald Reagan 1981 - 1989 || Jimmy Carter 1977 - 1981 || Gerald Ford 1974 - 1977 || Richard Nixon 1969 - 1974 || Lyndon Johnson 1963 - 1969 || John F. Kennedy 1961 - 1963 || Dwight D. Eisenhower 1953 - 1961 || Harry Truman 1945 - 1953 || Franklin D. Roosevelt 1933 - 1945

The card image is an exclusive design of an outside view of the Oval Office in December.

Artist James Blake was chosen by President and Mrs. Bush to create the original artwork that is featured on the front of the card. Blake is well-known for his still life and landscape work.

Blake’s painting of the Oval Office is reproduced on the card as a tip-on on elegant ecru stock with a deckle edge. An embossed gold foil presidential seal highlights the insert page.

President and Mrs. Bush selected a Psalm to be incorporated on the card with a brief message.

The message inside the card reads:

Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.
– Psalm 119:105.

May the light of the season shine bright in your heart now
and in the new year.

Hallmark’s presidential card project leader Dan Stifter was thrilled to be able to work on the card. “I am honored that Hallmark was once again chosen to help the Bush family continue the important annual tradition of sending holiday cards,” Stifter said. “Card-sending is a great way to stay in touch with family and friends, which is especially important during the holiday season.”

Work began on the holiday card in June when a team from Hallmark began collaborating with President and Mrs. Bush.

Hallmark began making Christmas cards for presidents in 1953, when Dwight D. Eisenhower started what has become a White House tradition. The company has created at least one card for each administration, with the exception of the Clinton administration (Clinton Era Cards by American Greetings). The 2006 card is the 39th official card created by Hallmark for the White House. In 1982, Hallmark donated its Presidential Christmas Card Collection to the National Museum of American History, a part of the Smithsonian Institution. The Hallmark Visitors Center, adjacent to the Kansas City headquarters of Hallmark Cards, Inc., also displays the Presidential Christmas Card Collection.

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House or Laura Bush and Christmas tree or Hallmark Cards and holiday season or 2006 Presidential Christmas Card and Santa Claus or Barney and Miss Beazley and Artist James Blake or Pageant of Peace and Deck the Halls

Freedom Calendar 12/09/06 - 12/16/06

December 9, 1872, Republican Pinckney Pinchback (R-LA) becomes nation’s first African-American governor.

December 10, 1869, Republican Gov. John Campbell of Wyoming Territory signs first-in-nation law granting women right to vote and to hold public office.

December 11, 1895, African-American Republican and former U.S. Rep. Thomas Miller (R-SC) denounces new state constitution written to disenfranchise African-Americans.

December 12, 2003, President George W. Bush nominates African-American Alphonso Jackson as U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

December 13, 2001, “No Child Left Behind” Act to improve public education for all children passes House; signed into law by President George W. Bush.

December 14, 1829, Birth of African-American Republican John Langston; served as
diplomat in four Republican administrations, and in U.S. House (R-VA).

December 15, 2000, President-elect George W. Bush nominates Colin Powell as first African-American Secretary of State.

December 16, 2003, President George W. Bush signs law creating National Museum of African American History and Culture.

“Our commitment to fairness means that we must assure legal and economic equity for women, and eliminate, once and for all, all traces of unjust discrimination against women from the United States Code.”

Ronald Reagan, 40th President of the United States

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

Presidential Podcast 12/09/06

Presidential Podcast 12/09/06
Subscribe to Our Odeo or podnova Podcast Channel and receive the weekly Presidential Radio Address in English and Spanish with select State Department Briefings. Featuring real audio and full text transcripts, More content Sources added often so stay tuned.

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House radio address or Prime Minister Tony Blair and Iraq or Secretary of State James Baker and Congressman Lee Hamilton or Iraq Study Group and National Security Council or Middle East and PODCAST

bush radio address 12/09/06 full audio, text transcript

bush radio address 12/09/06 full audio, text transcript. PODCAST and, President's Radio Address , In Focus: Renewal in Iraq .

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

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. This week, I held important meetings at the White House about the situation in Iraq.

On Monday, I met in the Oval Office with one of Iraq's most influential Shia leaders, His Eminence Abdul Aziz al Hakim. We discussed the desire of the Iraqi people to see their unity government succeed, and how the United States can help them achieve that goal.

On Thursday, I had breakfast with Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain. We discussed the sectarian violence in Iraq and the need to confront extremists inside Iraq and throughout the region. The Prime Minister explains it this way: "The violence is not ... an accident or a result of faulty planning. It is a deliberate strategy. It is the direct result of outside extremists teaming up with internal extremists -- al Qaeda with [the] Sunni insurgents, [and Iran with] Shia militia -- to foment hatred and thus throttle at birth the possibility of non-sectarian democracy."

The Prime Minister and I also discussed the report I received this week from the Iraq Study Group, chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton. Their report provides a straightforward picture of the grave situation we face in Iraq. The Iraq Study Group's report also explicitly endorses the strategic goal we've set in Iraq: an Iraq that can "govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself."

The report went on to say, "In our view, this definition entails an Iraq with a broadly representative government that maintains its territorial integrity, is at peace with its neighbors, denies terrorism a sanctuary, and doesn't brutalize its own people. Given the current situation in Iraq, achieving this goal will require much time and will depend primarily on the actions of the Iraqi people."

I agree with this assessment. I was also encouraged that the Iraq Study Group was clear about the consequences of a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. The group declared that such a withdrawal would "almost certainly produce greater sectarian violence" and lead to "a significant power vacuum, greater human suffering, regional destabilization, and a threat to the global economy." The report went on to say, "If we leave and Iraq descends into chaos, the long-range consequences could eventually require the United States to return."

The Iraq Study Group understands the urgency of getting it right in Iraq. The group also understands that while the work ahead will not be easy, success in Iraq is important, and success in Iraq is possible. The group proposed a number of thoughtful recommendations on a way forward for our country in Iraq. My administration is reviewing the report, and we will seriously consider every recommendation. At the same time, the Pentagon, the State Department, and the National Security Council are finishing work on their own reviews of our strategy in Iraq. I look forward to receiving their recommendations. I want to hear all advice as I make the decisions to chart a new course in Iraq.

I thank the members of the Iraq Study Group for their hard work and for the example of bipartisanship that they have set. The group showed that Americans of different political parties can agree on a common goal in Iraq and come together on ways to achieve it. Now it is the responsibility of all of us in Washington -- Republicans and Democrats alike -- to come together and find greater consensus on the best way forward.

As part of this effort, I met this week with House and Senate leaders from both parties, as well as senior members of the Armed Services, Foreign Relations, and Intelligence Committees. We had productive discussions about our shared duty to forge a bipartisan approach to succeed in Iraq. The future of a vital region of the world and the security of the American people depend on victory in Iraq. I'm confident that we can move beyond our political differences and come together to achieve that victory. I will do my part.

Thank you for listening.

END For Immediate Release, Office of the Press Secretary, December 9, 2006

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House radio address or Prime Minister Tony Blair and Iraq or Secretary of State James Baker and Congressman Lee Hamilton or Iraq Study Group and National Security Council or Middle East and PODCAST

Discurso Radial del Presidente a la Nación 12/09/06

forre el audio de la dirección de radio 12/09/06 por completo, transcripción del texto. (nota de los redactores: ninguna lengua española mp3 lanzó esta semana, apesadumbrada) PODCAST Discurso Radial del Presidente.

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

Buenos Días. Esta semana tuve reuniones importantes en la Casa Blanca sobre la situación en Irak.

El lunes me reuní en la Oficina Oval con uno de los líderes shiita más influyentes de Irak, Su Eminencia Abdul Aziz al-Hakim. Discutimos el deseo del pueblo iraquí de ver a su gobierno de unidad lograr el éxito - y cómo los Estados Unidos puede ayudarles a alcanzar esa meta.

El jueves desayuné con el Primero Ministro Tony Blair de Gran Bretaña. Discutimos la violencia sectaria en Irak - y la necesidad de enfrentar a extremistas dentro de Irak y a través de la región. El Primer Ministro lo explica de la siguiente manera: "La violencia no es un accidente ni el resultado de mala planificación. Es una estrategia deliberada. Es el resultado directo de extremistas del exterior aliándose con extremistas internos - al Qaeda con los insurgentes Sunní, (e Irán con) milicias shiitas - para fomentar el odio y así estrangular al nacer la posibilidad de una democracia no-sectaria".

El Primer Ministro y yo también discutimos el informe que recibí esta semana del Grupo de Estudio sobre Irak - presidido por el ex - Secretario de Estado James Baker y el ex - Congresista Lee Hamilton. Su estudio ofrece una imagen clara de la grave situación que enfrentamos en Irak. El informe del Grupo de Estudio sobre Irak también endosa explícitamente la meta estratégica que hemos fijado para Irak - un Irak que pueda "gobernarse, sustentarse y defenderse".

El informe agrega, y cito, "En nuestra opinión esta definición implica un Irak con un gobierno ampliamente representativo que mantenga su integridad territorial, que esté en paz con sus vecinos, que niegue asilo al terrorismo y que no brutalice a su propio pueblo. Dada la actual situación en Irak, lograr este objetivo tomará mucho tiempo y dependerá principalmente de las acciones del pueblo iraquí."

Estoy de acuerdo con esta evaluación. También me siento alentado de que el Grupo de Estudio sobre Irak fue claro en cuanto a las consecuencias de una retirada precipitada de Irak. El Grupo declaró que tal retirada podría, y cito, "casi con seguridad producir mayor violencia sectaria - y conducir a "un vacío de poder considerable, mayor sufrimiento humano, desestabilización regional, y una amenaza a la economía global". El informe continúa diciendo "si nos retiramos e Irak desciende hacia el caos, las consecuencias a largo plazo eventualmente podrían exigir que Estados Unidos regrese".

El Grupo de Estudio sobre Irak comprende la urgencia de hacer las cosas bien en Irak. El Grupo también entiende que mientras el trabajo por delante no será fácil, el éxito en Irak es importante - y el éxito en Irak es posible. El Grupo propuso un número de recomendaciones ponderadas sobre una manera hacia delante para nuestro país en Irak. Mi administración está estudiando el informe, y seriamente consideraremos cada recomendación. Al mismo tiempo, el Pentágono, el Departamento de Estado y el Consejo de Seguridad Nacional están terminando sus propios análisis de nuestra estrategia en Irak. Espero con interés recibir sus recomendaciones. Quiero escuchar todo consejo al tomar las decisiones para trazar un nuevo rumbo en Irak.

Agradezco a los miembros del Grupo de Estudio sobre Irak por su difícil labor, y por el ejemplo de bipartidismo que han dado. El Grupo mostró que estadounidenses de diferente partidos políticos pueden llegar a un acuerdo sobre una meta común en Irak - y llegar a un acuerdo sobre formas de alcanzarla. Ahora será la responsabilidad de todos nosotros en Washington - tanto Republicanos como Demócratas - de juntarnos y lograr un mayor consenso sobre la mejor forma hacia delante.

Como parte de este esfuerzo, me reuní esta semana con líderes de ambos partidos de la Cámara de Representantes y del Senado - así como con miembros de alto nivel de los Comités de las Fuerzas Armadas, Relaciones Extranjeras e Inteligencia. Tuvimos discusiones productivas sobre nuestros deberes compartidos para forjar un enfoque bipartidista para alcanzar el éxito en Irak. El futuro de una región vital del mundo, y la seguridad del pueblo estadounidense, dependen de la victoria en Irak. Yo confío que podemos dejar atrás nuestras diferencias políticas, y unirnos para lograr esa victoria. Yo cumpliré con mi parte.

Gracias por escuchar.

### Para su publicación inmediata, Oficina del Secretario de Prensa, 9 de diciembre de 2006

Etiquetas De Technorati: Discurso Radial del Presidente a la Nación, y Presidente Bush, o Primer ministro Maliki y Líderes de Shia, o Su al Hakim de Abdul Aziz de la eminencia, o Primer ministro Tony Blair de Gran Bretaña y Grupo de estudio de Iraq o Consejo de la seguridad nacional y Fuerzas armadas