President Commencement Address Coast Guard Academy VIDEO PODCAST

President Bush Delivers Commencement Address at United States Coast Guard Academy, Alumni Building, United States Coast Guard Academy, New London, Connecticut PODCAST OF ARTICLE 11:41 A.M. EDT.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, all. Admiral Allen, thank you for that kind introduction. Admiral Burhoe, congratulations on your promotion. Academy staff and faculty, Congressman Chris Shays, state and local officials, distinguished guests,

proud families and, most importantly, members of the Class of 2007: thanks for having me.

It's a privilege to stand with the future leaders of the United States Coast Guard. Before you receive your degrees today, I want to make sure that you have learned your "indoc." What is the Coast Guard?

CADETS: Mr. President, the Coast Guard is the hard nucleus about which the Navy forms in times of war, sir! (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: I probably shouldn't relay that to the Secretary of the Navy. (Laughter.)

I see a few "RCF Warriors" out there. Some of you earned demerits for failing to correct your storage [sic], others got caught crawling under the fence on your way to Connecticut College. (Laughter.) However you got bagged, help has arrived. (Laughter.) In keeping with longstanding tradition, I hereby absolve all cadets who are on restriction for minor conduct offenses. (Applause.) I'll leave it to Admiral Burhoe to define exactly what "minor" means. (Laughter.)

More than 6,000 young Americans applied to join the Coast Guard Academy Class of 2007, and today just 228 will walk across this stage to receive your diploma and commission. You're a select few, and each of you worked really hard to get to this moment: survived R-Day, Swab Summer, and Friday morning drill practice with a kind and gentle soul, Chief Dillmann. (Laughter.) You learned to brace up, do orderlies, square meals, and eat "hamsters" with your "eyes in the boat." You arrived on this campus as "swabs" -- and today you will leave as proud officers of the United States Coast Guard. (Applause.) Your teachers are proud, your parents are thrilled, and your Commander-in-Chief is grateful for your devotion to duty. Congratulations to you all. (Applause.)

You didn't make it to this day on your own. Many of you had the help of a special faculty member who mentored -- mentored you along the way. Others made it only through as a result of the intervention of one man: Hopley Yeaton -- he's the patron saint of the Square Root Club. For the moms and dads, the Square Root Club is an association of students whose GPA is so low that when you take its square root, it grows larger. (Laughter.) Unfortunately, they didn't have that club where I went to college -- (laughter) -- perhaps you'll make me an honorary member. (Laughter.)

Whether you're graduating today at the top of your class, or by the skin of your teeth, your presence on this field is a tremendous accomplishment. And it would not have been possible without the support of the families who believed in you and encouraged you. So I ask all the parents and loved ones here today to stand and be recognized by the class of 2007. (Applause.)

The degree you've earned will command respect wherever you go, and you will carry the lessons you learned here for the rest of your lives. This Academy has tested your minds, your bodies, and your character, and having passed these trials, you now embark on a voyage as officers in the oldest continuous Maritime service.

The history of the Coast Guard dates back more than two centuries, to the Revenue Cutter Service, established under the presidency of George Washington -- or as I call him, the first George W. (Laughter and applause.) Since its inception, the Coast Guard has conducted search and rescue missions, enforced our maritime laws, protected our marine environment, come to the aid of stranded boaters, and helped staunch the flow of illegal drugs and illegal migrants to our shores. And in this new century, the Coast Guard continues to carry out these vital missions.

Americans rely on the Coast Guard in times of disaster. When Hurricane Katrina hit our nation's Gulf Coast, the men and women of the Coast Guard swung into action, hanging from helicopters, pulling people off rooftops and out of trees, and rescuing more than 33,000 people. (Applause.) When storms and floods and tragedy strike, Americans know that they can count on the United States Coast Guard. (Applause.)

Americans relied on the Coast Guard on September the 11th, 2001. After terrorists struck the Twin Towers, the Coast Guard station on Staten Island put out a call for "all available boats," and organized a massive flotilla of military and civilian craft that evacuated hundreds of thousands of people from lower Manhattan. It was the largest waterborne evacuation in our nation's history. And in the days that followed, the men and women of the Coast Guard stayed on the job, assisting operations at Ground Zero, sending chaplains to comfort the bereaved, and coordinating a round-the-clock defense of New York Harbor and other vital ports. In a time of crisis, the Coast Guard did its job, and did it well. (Applause.)

On September the 11th, the home front you protect became a battlefront in a new and unprecedented war. That day, our nation changed forever, and so did the mission of the United States Coast Guard. This service assumed new and essential responsibilities: to defend our nation against terrorist infiltration, and to help stop new attacks before they kill our people.

As part of Operation Noble Eagle, the men and women of the Coast Guard are protecting more than 360 ports and more than 95,000 miles of coastline. Overseas, the Coast Guard is conducting maritime intercept operations in the Persian Gulf, patrolling the waters off Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The men and women of the Coast Guard are serving with courage, and the American people are grateful to live behind your Shield of Freedom.

Soon you'll join your fellow Coasties in carrying out these and other missions. And this Academy has prepared you well for the new challenges you will face in this war on terror. During your time here, you've taken courses in terrorist tactics and counterterrorism strategies; you've studied radiation detection, remote sensing, and the handling of hazardous materials; you participated in military exercises that have prepared you for the threats of this new century.

You'll need all this training to help keep your fellow citizens safe. In this war, we face a brutal enemy that has already killed thousands in our midst, and is determined to bring even greater destruction to our shores. We're blessed that there has not been another terrorist attack on our homeland in the past five-and-a-half years. This is not for lack of effort on the part of the enemy. Since 9/11, al Qaeda and its allies have succeeded in carrying out horrific attacks across the world; al Qaeda leaders have repeatedly made clear they intend to strike our country again.

In January of last year, Osama bin Laden warned the American people: "Operations are under preparation and you will see them on your own ground once they are finished." Seven months later, British authorities broke up the most ambitious known al Qaeda threat to the homeland since the 9/11 attacks: a plot to blow up passenger airplanes flying to America. Our intelligence community believes that this plot was just two or three weeks away from execution. If it had been carried out, it could have rivaled 9/11 in death and destruction.

This was not the first al Qaeda plot that has been foiled since 9/11. In December 2001 we captured an al Qaeda operative named Ali Salih al-Mari. Our intelligence community believes that Ali Salih was training in poisons at an al Qaeda camp in Afghanistan, and had been sent to the United States before September the 11th to serve as a sleeper agent ready for follow-on attacks. He was ordered to our country by 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, who is now in U.S. custody. Our intelligence community believes that KSM brought Ali Salih to meet Osama bin Laden, where he pledged his loyalty to the al Qaeda leader and offered himself up as a martyr. Among the potential targets our intelligence community believes this al Qaeda operative discussed with KSM were water reservoirs, the New York Stock Exchange, and United States military academies such as this one.

We also broke up two other post-9/11 aviation plots. The first, in 2002, was a plot by Khalid Sheikh Mohammad to repeat the destruction of 9/11 by sending operatives to hijack an airplane and fly into the tallest building on the West Coast. During a hearing at Guantanamo Bay just two months ago, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad stated that the intended target was the Library Tower in Los Angeles. And in 2003, we uncovered and stopped a plot led by another suspected senior al Qaeda operative named Abu Bakr al-Azdi. Our intelligence community believes this plot was to be another East Coast aviation attack, including multiple airplanes that had been hijacked and then crashing into targets in the United States.

There is a reason that these and other plots have thus far not succeeded: Since September the 11th, we have taken bold action at home and abroad to keep our people safe.

To help stop new attacks on our country, we have undertaken the most sweeping reorganization of the federal government since the start of the Cold War. We created the new Department of Homeland Security, merging 22 different government organizations, including the Coast Guard, into a single Department with a clear mission: to protect America from future attacks.

To stop new attacks on our country, we've strengthened our nation's intelligence community. We created the position of the Director of National Intelligence to ensure our intelligence agencies operate as a single, unified enterprise. We created the National Counter Terrorism Center, where the FBI, the CIA, and other agencies work side by side to track terrorist threats across the world. We directed the National Security Agency to monitor international terrorist communications. We established a program run by the CIA to detain and question key terrorist leaders and operatives. These measures are vital. These measures are working. And these measures have helped prevent an attack on our homeland. (Applause.)

To help stop new attacks on our country, we passed the Patriot Act, breaking down the walls that had prevented federal law enforcement and intelligence communities from sharing information about potential terrorist activities. We've transformed the FBI into an agency whose primary focus is stopping terrorist attacks. We've expanded the number of FBI Joint Terrorism Task Forces from 35 before 9/11 to more than a hundred today. And we saw their effectiveness recently when one of these teams helped disrupt a plot by a group of al Qaeda-inspired extremists to kill American soldiers at Fort Dix, New Jersey.

To help stop new attacks on our country, we launched the BioWatch program, placing state-of-the-art equipment in major U.S. cities to detect biological agents. To help prevent terrorists from bringing nuclear or radiological weapons into our county, we're placing radiation detectors in all major U.S. ports. We placed advanced screening equipment and U.S. Homeland Security personnel at foreign ports, so we can pre-screen cargo headed for America. We're determined to stop the world's most dangerous men from striking America with the world's most dangerous weapons. And the Coast Guard is on the front line of this battle. (Applause.)

To help stop new attacks on our country, we've strengthened international cooperation in the fight against terror. A coalition of more than 90 nations -- nearly one-half of the world -- is working together to dry up terrorist financing and bring terrorist leaders to justice. We launched the Proliferation Security Initiative, a vast coalition of nations that are working to stop shipments of weapons of mass destruction on land, at sea, and in the air. With our allies, we have uncovered and shut down the A.Q. Khan network, which had supplied nuclear-related equipment and plans to terrorist states, including Iran and North Korea. With Great Britain, we convinced the leader of Libya to abandon his country's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. The key components of Libya's nuclear program are now locked up in a storage facility right here in the United States. And today the world is safer because Libya is out of the nuclear weapons business. (Applause.)

All these steps are making our country safer, but we're not yet safe. To strike our country, the terrorists only have to be right once; to protect our country, we have to be right 100 percent of the time. That means the best way to protect our people is to take the fight to the enemy. So after 9/11, I vowed to America that we would go on the offense against the terrorists, fighting them across the world so we do not have to face them here at home. And since 9/11, that is precisely what that United States of America has done. (Applause.)

In Afghanistan, we removed a regime that gave sanctuary and support to al Qaeda as they planned the 9/11 attacks. Today, because we acted, the terrorist camps in Afghanistan have been shut down, 25 million people have been liberated, and the Afghan people have an elected government that is fighting terrorists, instead of harboring them. (Applause.)

The Taliban and al Qaeda are seeking to roll back Afghanistan's democratic progress -- but forces from 40 nations, including every member of NATO, are helping the Afghan people defend their democratic gains. Earlier this month, Afghan, American, and NATO forces tracked down and killed a top Taliban commander in Afghanistan. His death has sent a clear message to all who would challenge Afghanistan's young democracy: We drove al Qaeda and the Taliban out of power, and they're not going to be allowed to return to power. (Applause.)

In Iraq, we removed a cruel dictator who harbored terrorists, paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, invaded his neighbors, defied the United Nations Security Council, pursued and used weapons of mass destruction. Iraq, the United States and the world are better off without Saddam Hussein in power. (Applause.) And today the Iraqi people are building a young democracy on the rubble of Saddam Hussein's tyranny. In December 2005, nearly 12 million Iraqis demonstrated their desire to be free, going to the polls and choosing a new government under the most progressive, democratic constitution in the Arab world.

In 2006, a thinking enemy responded to this progress and struck back with brutality. They staged sensational attacks that led to a tragic escalation of sectarian rage and reprisal. If the sectarian violence continued to spiral out of control, the Iraqi government would have been in danger of collapse. The ensuing chaos would embolden Iran, which is fueling the violence, and al Qaeda, a key driver of Iraq's sectarian conflict. The chaos could eventually spread across the Middle East, and generations of Americans would be in even greater danger.

So I had a choice to make: withdraw our troops, or send reinforcements to help the Iraqis quell the sectarian violence. I decided to send more troops with a new mission: to help the Iraqi government secure their population and get control of Baghdad. As we carry out the new strategy, the Iraqi government has a lot of work to do. They must meet its responsibility to the Iraqi people and achieve benchmarks it has set, including adoption of a national oil law, preparations for provincial elections, progress on a new de-Baathification policy, and a review of the Iraqi constitution. The Iraqi people must see that their government is taking action to bring their country together and give all of Iraq's a stake in a peaceful future.

Now, in 2007, we are at a pivotal moment in this battle. There are many destructive forces in Iraq trying to stop this strategy from succeeding -- the most destructive is al Qaeda. Al Qaeda knows that a democratic Iraq is a threat to their ambitions to impose their hateful ideology across the Middle East. And al Qaeda knows that our presence in Iraq is a direct threat to their existence in Iraq. Our security depends on helping the Iraqis succeed and defeating Iraq -- al Qaeda in Iraq. (Applause.)

Some in our country question whether the battle in Iraq is part of the war on terror. Among the terrorists, there's no doubt. Hear the words of Osama bin Laden: He calls the struggle in Iraq a "war of destiny." He proclaimed "the war is for you or for us to win. If we win it, it means your defeat and disgrace forever."

Bin Laden is matching his words with action. He attempted to send a new commander to Iraq, an Iraqi-born terrorist named Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi. According to our intelligence community, this terrorist had been a senior advisor to bin Laden, he served as his top commander in Afghanistan, he was responsible for all al Qaeda's military operations against our coalition in that country. Abd al-Hadi never made it to Iraq. He was captured last year, and he was recently he was transferred to the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay.

There is a reason that bin Laden sent one of his most experienced paramilitary leaders to Iraq: He believes that if al Qaeda can drive us out, they can establish Iraq as a new terrorist sanctuary. Our intelligence community believes that, "al Qaeda leaders see victory in Iraq -- the heart of the caliphate and currently the most active front in their war -- as a religious and strategic imperative." If al Qaeda succeeds in Iraq, they would pursue their stated goals of turning that nation into a base from which to overthrow moderate governments in the region, impose their hateful ideology on millions, and launch new attacks on America and other nations. Victory in Iraq is important for Osama bin Laden -- and victory in Iraq is vital for the United States of America. (Applause.)

I've often warned that if we fail in Iraq, the enemy will follow us home. Many ask: How do you know? Today, I'd like to share some information with you that attests to al Qaeda's intentions. According to our intelligence community, in January 2005, Osama bin Laden tasked the terrorist Zarqawi -- who was then al Qaeda's top leader in Iraq -- with forming a cell to conduct terrorist attacks outside of Iraq. Bin Laden emphasized that America should be Zarqawi's number one priority in terms of foreign attacks. Zarqawi welcomed this direction; he claimed that he had already come up with some good proposals.

To help Zarqawi in these efforts, our intelligence community reports that bin Laden then tasked one of his top terrorist operatives, Hamza Rabia, to send Zarqawi a briefing on al Qaeda's external operations, including information about operations against the American homeland. Our intelligence community reports that a senior al Qaeda leader, Abu Faraj al-Libi, went further and suggested that bin Laden actually send Rabia, himself, to Iraq to help plan external operations. Abu Faraj later speculated that if this effort proved successful, al Qaeda might one day prepare the majority of its external operations from Iraq.

In May of 2005, Abu Faraj was captured and taken into CIA custody. Several months later, in December 2005, Rabia was killed in Pakistan. Several months after that, in June of 2006, the terrorist Zarqawi was killed by American forces in Iraq. Successes like these are blows to al Qaeda. They're a testament to steps we have taken to strengthen our intelligence, work closely with partners overseas, and keep the pressure on the enemy by staying on the offense. (Applause.)

Despite our pressure, despite the setbacks that al Qaeda has suffered, it remains extremely dangerous. As we've surged our forces in Iraq, al Qaeda has responded with a surge of its own. The terrorists' goal in Iraq is to reignite sectarian violence and break support for the war here at home. And they believe they're succeeding. A few weeks ago, al Qaeda's number two, second in command, Zawahiri, issued a video in which he gloated that al Qaeda's "movement of violence" has "forced the Americans to accept a pullout -- about which they only differ in regard to its timing." We can expect al Qaeda to continue its campaign of high profile attacks, including deadly suicide bombings and assassinations. And as they do, our troops will face more fighting and increased risks in the weeks and months ahead.

The fight in Iraq is tough, but my point today to you is the fight is essential to our security -- al Qaeda's leaders inside and outside of Iraq have not given up on their objective of attacking America again. Now, many critics compare the battle in Iraq to the situation we faced in Vietnam. There are many differences between the two conflicts, but one stands out above all: The enemy in Vietnam had neither the intent nor the capability to strike our homeland. The enemy in Iraq does. Nine-eleven taught us that to protect the American people, we must fight the terrorists where they live so that we don't have to fight them where we live. (Applause.)

The question for our elected leaders is: Do we comprehend the danger of an al Qaeda victory in Iraq, and will we do what it takes to stop them? However difficult the fight in Iraq has become, we must win it. Al Qaeda is public enemy number one for Iraq's young democracy, and al Qaeda is public enemy number one for America, as well. And that is why we must support our troops, we must support the Iraqi government, and we must defeat al Qaeda in Iraq. (Applause.)

We're thankful to the military, the intelligence, and law enforcement personnel who work tirelessly to stop new attacks on our country. With every plot they foil, every terrorist they capture, we learn more about the enemy's plans and persistence. In the minds of al Qaeda leaders, 9/11 was just a down-payment on violence yet to come. It's tempting to believe that the calm here at home after September the 11th means that the danger to our country has passed. I see the intelligence every day. The danger has not passed. Here in America, we're living in the eye of a storm. All around us, dangerous winds are swirling, and these winds could reach our shores at any moment.

The men and women of the Coast Guard know how to navigate the storm. We're counting on you to help America weather the challenges that lie ahead. As you begin your Coast Guard careers, you can approach the future with confidence, because our nation has faced dangerous enemies before, and emerged victorious every time. Terrorists can try to kill the innocent, but they cannot kill the desire for liberty that burns in the hearts of millions across the earth. The power of freedom defeated the ideologies of fascism and communism in the last century, and freedom will defeat the hateful ideologies of the terrorists in this century.

Victory in this struggle will require valor and determination and persistence, and these qualities can be found in abundance in the Class of 2007. (Applause.)

Your class has chosen a motto: Let Courage Part the Seas. America will be counting on your courage in the years to come. You will take your oath as Coast Guard officers in a time of war, knowing all the risks your service entails. I thank each of you for your bold decision to wear the uniform. My call to you is this: Trust in the power of freedom to overcome tyranny and terror; show leadership in freedom's defense, and character in all you do; be ready for anything. The Coasties who came before you never thought they would be organizing a flotilla in New York Harbor, or patrolling distant coasts in the Persian Gulf. Like them, you will serve in ways you cannot imagine today. But if you bring the skills and creativity you learned at this Academy to every task, our nation's security will be in good hands. (Applause.)

You leave this Academy "strong in resolve to be worthy of the traditions of commissioned officers in the United States Coast Guard."

I respect your passion for service, and the courage of your choice. Your country is grateful, and proud of each of you. Congratulations. God bless. Semper Paratus. (Applause.)

END 12:14 P.M. EDT For Immediate Release, Office of the Press Secretary, May 23, 2007.

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House or Commencement Address and VIDEO, or PODCAST and Coast Guard Academy, or Secretary of the Navy, and Osama bin Laden, or 9/11 attacks and Ali Salih al-Mari or Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and FBI Joint Terrorism Task Forces or BioWatch and A.Q. Khan

Press Briefing Tony Snow 05/22/07 (VIDEO)

Press Briefing by Tony Snow, FULL STREAMING VIDEO. file is windows media format, running time is 27:23. White House Conference Center Briefing Room. PODCAST OF THIS ARTICLE

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow briefs the press and answers questions. 05/22/2007: WASHINGTON, DC: 12:48 P.M. EST.

MR. SNOW: Ready for questions.

Q No one talked about it at all?

MR. SNOW: No.

Q What did they talk about?

Q What was the question?

MR. SNOW: Did the Attorney General come up in the conversations with the Republican leaders? As we said, it was pretty predictable, talking about the ongoing discussions of the budget supplemental, immigration reform, a number of other issues that are still on the docket for the next few weeks and months. People had lots of different concerns. But kind of the two major things were obviously the ones that are top of mind right now, which is the supp and immigration.

Q When you say concerns, what do you mean?

MR. SNOW: I mean when you're talking about things that are topics of conversation. You've got a lot of action and negotiation going on in terms of the budget supplemental. At the same time, certainly among senators, there's been a bipartisan effort to put together legislation on the immigration front. And members of the House and Senate were both sharing their views on how to proceed.

Q What did the President tell them?

MR. SNOW: For them to know and me to remain discrete about.

Q Tony, in the past we've heard that some Cabinet members who have been in the midst of trouble, in the midst of controversy, have gone to the President and asked him, should they resign, and the President has declined.

MR. SNOW: April, you are so overplaying this.

Q No, I'm not. Don't go there. (Laughter.) No, seriously. The AG --

MR. SNOW: Seriously, you are really overplaying this.

Q No, I'm not. I'm asking, has the Attorney General -- this Attorney General gone to the President and asked him, should he resign?

MR. SNOW: I have no knowledge of that. I would doubt it.

Q Why would you doubt it?

MR. SNOW: Because.

Q We know Rumsfeld had asked the President --

MR. SNOW: There is no question of the President's support. You really are -- you're over --

Q I am not.

MR. SNOW: No, you are. Trust me.

Q I know of another Secretary who asked the President --

MR. SNOW: I understand, but you're overreaching. I'm trying to be helpful.

Q Tony, two questions. One, this -- Senator Hillary Clinton, for President, she was speaking on Capitol Hill at the Holiday Inn, celebrating the Haitian Heritage Month. She said as far as illegal immigration is concerned, she's very much concerned about unity -- family unity -- because so many thousands of families are waiting outside the U.S. for to come here. And the President should focus on this, that unity for --

MR. SNOW: Well, I'll tell you what's happened. I mean, Senator Kennedy, who certainly is no slouch, and I suspect has those concerns -- and, frankly, Senator Kyl, and others all have concerns about family -- worked together very hard on pulling together a comprehensive immigration bill that was going to balance a whole series of highly complex needs and concerns, beginning with national security, then moving on to the issue of what do you do with 11 million or 12 million illegals; how do you create an orderly flow of people in and out of the United States, so that you do not invite problems in terms of lax security in the future; how do you also do it in a way that's consistent with the needs and dictates of economic growth; and how do you do it in a way that encourages people to act as good visitors, and in some cases, eventually to become good citizens.

So all those are conversations. And what's going to be interesting, I think, is as members of Congress have an opportunity to look through the legislation, they will have a whole series of specific comments. But I think that the most important thing -- and I do feel comfortable telling you this, Steve, about what the President said, which is, people do need time to study it. What has happened is that there were a lot of immediate reactions based on last year's legislation. This is considerably different than last year's legislation. And as a result, we're inviting everybody to take a good, hard look at it. The President thinks it's a good, strong piece of legislation. He understands how the process works. But it is really important to try to deal with all these issues, and seems to be a very thoughtful way to proceed.

Q And the second question, if I may, please. There is also another question. The big problem is the trafficking, as far as the prostitutes and other trafficking from other countries to here and from here to other countries. There was a conference yesterday, I went at the Sheraton in Tysons Corner, sponsored by -- and most of the area police chiefs and CEOs were there. What they are saying is that we have to do more in the administration, as far as trafficking. There was a report by the State Department, also, calling that it's a serious problem.

MR. SNOW: The President has made it clear, and he's spoken often about human trafficking here and around the world, especially around the world. And I daresay he's been quite outspoken about it.

Q Tony, I want to have one more question about the Attorney General here. Is there any thought inside the White House -- the President has showed enormous loyalty to the Attorney General -- is there any thought inside the White House that the Attorney General has not shown the same degree of loyalty to the President, because it should be apparent to him at this point that he is damaging the President and that he should go?

MR. SNOW: No. No, what you're saying is that if you have political opponents who say nasty things about a Cabinet member, that they ought to go. The fact is, Alberto Gonzales has been an effective Attorney General -- and I will point you back to what I mentioned earlier, Jim, which is when you get into the nuts and bolts of what the Department of Justice does, there are no specific critiques about what's going on. Instead, what you have is a controversy about removing six U.S. attorneys; all entirely proper, he did nothing improper. And so the President sees absolutely no need to proceed further.

Q Let me just follow that. If you widen out -- however, it becomes very clear that the Attorney General has become a distraction. And so that, again, it is incumbent upon him to say, Mr. President, I don't want to be a distraction to you anymore.

MR. SNOW: I don't think he's a distraction. The President is perfectly loyal. I think it may be a distraction -- again, a lot of people have been trying very hard to turn this into a big story, to no avail. So the distraction I think is more on Capitol Hill and some who have to report the story, than it is with the President, who is confident in Alberto Gonzales and is concentrating on the other business at hand.

Q But is it fair to say that for Cabinet members and those who have had long relationships with the President, that there is a degree of self-questioning that they must do? Isn't that part of their role, as well?

MR. SNOW: That happens in any administration. Obviously, anybody asks that question when you're serving the President.

Q So it's fair that Mr. Gonzales should be going through that process, as well?

MR. SNOW: I don't want to say it's fair or not; it's natural. You ask yourself, am I doing everything I can for my boss. When you serve at the White House, you serve at the pleasure of the President, and it is an extraordinary honor. And it is -- certainly, anybody up here in the front row, and I do it, myself, all the time, which is, am I doing my best? Can I improve? What do I need to do to do the job more effectively? So that's sort of a standard piece precisely because of the nature and the honor of working for a President.

Q Did the President, in the session today, do anything to try to further inhibit the no confidence vote by talking to Republican members --

MR. SNOW: No. No. It did not come up.

Q Tony, on the war spending bill, indications are that it's going to move forward this week, before Memorial Day. In this White House, is that seen as a victory?

MR. SNOW: What will be seen as a victory is providing, through the end of the fiscal year, the funding and flexibility the forces need. That's what we've wanted all along. But in this particular case, rather than trying to sort of cast this in who wins and who loses on Capitol Hill terms, the President's determination is to follow through on his obligations as Commander-in-Chief to make sure that the men and women fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, and also those who are serving in humanitarian efforts there, in conjunction with the government, that they get what they need.

Q Do you think that this battle with Democrats over the supplemental has hurt the relations between this White House and the leadership?

MR. SNOW: What we understand is that you've got Democratic leadership in the House and Senate, and there are going to be times when we lock horns. On the other hand, there are going to be times, such as on the Senate side, working together on immigration reform. There was consensus; Democrats and Republicans all said they wanted to get the supplemental worked out before Memorial Day. So I think at a time like this, Bret, it sort of creates a notion that somehow you go through these big mood swings, and people are shocked that politics will erupt. Well, of course, it erupts. But the most important thing to do is try to move forward effectively and get people's business done. And we hope that's what happens here.

Q One more thing, on another topic. This is not asking you for a book review, but Al Gore's new book is out, and he says that Saddam Hussein posed no threat and that President Bush, "forged evidence that Hussein was seeking to develop atomic bombs."

MR. SNOW: Well, the second is false, and the first is in contradiction to Senator Gore -- then Vice President Gore's prior statements. So I'll let him rectify those differences.

Q To follow up with the supplemental, it seems like the White House is close to consensus, and at least there are Democratic aides who are telling our colleagues on the Hill that there are some points that the White House has agreed to -- first, of course, no time lines; second, some benchmarks that are tied to reconstruction aid; and also an increase in the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour. Are these things that the White House --

MR. SNOW: We are not going to discuss any of those things. As I've said, one of the reasons why I think the talks have been able to proceed is that we are not floating trial balloons, nor are we responding to trial balloons. I think when both sides have worked out what they think is an acceptable agreement, I will let them do it. It is inappropriate to try to cherry-pick different items that somebody may have called you and asked about, because as you know, quite often people do that for their own reasons. I don't want to say yes or no to any of these things. I'm just going to say, "no comment."

Q You're saying it's not not true?

MR. SNOW: I'm saying I'm not commenting on it, because that is -- we've been pretty consistent on that.

Q You set the precedent, as you said earlier, that because you said you didn't want all the other extraneous items in the war supplemental, you're not going to accept the minimum wage?

MR. SNOW: I didn't say that. I said I'm not commenting on those reports.

Q But you did say something -- paraphrasing what you said, you said, we already said that we weren't going to deal with it.

MR. SNOW: We've said that we resist attempts to try to put extraneous things on the bills.

Q Tony, if the Alberto Gonzales situation is not a distraction to the President, is that because his advisors have not brought it to his attention?

MR. SNOW: Again, if you take a look at the -- the question is, has this changed the way in which the Department of Justice functions? Has it affected any core function? The answer is, no.

Q So have his advisors brought it to his attention?

MR. SNOW: The President doesn't need advisors to draw to his attention the fact that the Attorney General has been called to Capitol Hill and other people who have worked for the Attorney General have been called to Capitol Hill. He understands these things.

Q What was his response to the testimony last week of James Comey?

MR. SNOW: No response that I'm aware of.

Q One more quick one on President Carter. Now that he's said that his remarks last week were maybe careless or misinterpreted, are you willing to say that he is maybe more relevant?

MR. SNOW: He's a former President of the United States, and he certainly makes his views known, and I think it's always important to treat the office with respect.

Q On the Attorney General again. You've got Monica Goodling testifying, I think, tomorrow. What do you anticipate from her testimony --

MR. SNOW: Don't know.

Q -- and what happens if you continue to lose support of Republican senators?

MR. SNOW: Again, those are all a bunch of "what ifs," none of which -- I'm just not going to play the "what if" game.

Q Isn't there a point where the support for him -- for the Attorney General is so low --

MR. SNOW: Again, the question is, is he doing his job or not? And the answer is, he's doing his job, and he's doing it effectively.

Q Tony, thank you. Two questions. In regard to what a Washington Post editorial hailed as breakthrough on immigration, which the President supports, the Chairman of the Republican Party in Texas, Tina Benkiser, said this: "It will be yet another colossal failure in dealing with the massive invasion of our country. It accomplishes nothing more than to compromise the security of the American people." And my question: Does the President believe this Texas Republican leader doesn't know what she's talking about?

MR. SNOW: Let me tell you what the President believes about the legislation, rather than trying to pick a personal fight, which is always more tangy, but less useful from my standpoint.

The legislation actually commits more resources to border safety and security than has ever been committed in the history of the United States, and far more than was originally contemplated by Republicans as recently as a year ago. The President is keenly aware of concern about border security, which is why, before the program can even proceed to the next step, it requires having 370 miles of fence built, 200 miles of vehicular barriers, and the ability to have electronic surveillance over more than a thousand miles -- UAVs, radars -- and also the ability to respond quickly.

The other fact is that the administration, already having taken steps to beef up the presence on the border, has, in fact, reduced the number of illegal crossing and, therefore, remains committed to it. We certainly understand the concern of many Republicans and Democrats about border security and think we have done a good job on it. And it's important to note also that in many cases, people have had reactions based on somebody else's paraphrase of the legislation, rather than a thorough and careful reading, which is why we invite people to take a look at it, because when they do, they are going to see that there is a serious commitment here.

I'll give you a classic example. Duncan Hunter thinks that only half of the fence that was proposed in a bill that he wrote is going to be built. No, all of it is going to be built. But the fact is, you can't move on to the next phase, the temporary worker program, until you've got 370 miles built. That's more than 200 miles getting constructed in the next 18 months.

So the point here is when you talk about invasions, when you talk about sort of a number of those characterizations, you have to keep in mind what the President has proposed. This is not the bill the was laid out before Congress last year. It is serious, it is substantive, and the President does support it because he thinks it's good for security and also because he believes -- and I think the chairman of the Texas Republican Party would probably agree -- it's important to know who is here illegally. This bill gives us the capacity to do that for the first time. It gives us the capacity to make sure whether people are working or not. It also allows those who are involved in legal work, in law enforcement, to be able to narrow down the focus not to 11 million people, but to those who really do present a clear and present threat, or a conceivable threat to American safety, so that we can go ahead and deal with those sorts of problems and get the people out of the country.

Q Second, Tucson's Arizona Star reports that the governors of Arizona and New Mexico have written the President, protesting the State Department's recruiting 120 Border Patrol agents for $134,000 a year, to send to Iraq, which the governors say makes no sense because we should be focusing on supporting our nation's security efforts along the Mexican and Canadian borders. And my question: Why is the President allowing the State Department to do this?

MR. SNOW: What the President does is -- number one, you've got to keep in mind that these are not inconsistent. Sending people over to do work in Iraq is not inconsistent with sending people to the border. And --

Q They're taken from the Border Patrol -- we need people at the border.

MR. SNOW: Well, again, have you been -- I don't know if you've noticed, Les, but what we're talking about is 18,000 people on the border. That is twice the size of the Border Patrol inherited by the President.

Q They don't have them there yet.

MR. SNOW: They are building them up at a speed that is unprecedented in American history. You know that as well as I do.

Q Could I ask you to clarify one thing about your sense of the situation involving the Attorney General and its effect on the Justice Department? Are you saying that the Justice Department has not been adversely affected by the recent events involving the Attorney General?

MR. SNOW: Jim, I don't know. It is a gigantic operation. Has it changed the ability to prosecute cases, to go after drug dealers, to try to take a look at antitrust, to investigate things on the civil right front? Has it done that? It is not clear --

Q How about as far as federal prosecutors who feel a sense of --

MR. SNOW: Career federal prosecutors are completely untouched by this.

Q How is that? You don't feel that morale --

MR. SNOW: Because they're civil service. As a matter of fact --

Q You don't think this has affected morale in the Justice Department at all?

MR. SNOW: I don't know. I don't know, but I think what, again, you have to ask yourself how prosecutions continue apace. What has happened is that you had some appointees who were replaced and they were replaced by career prosecutors, in some cases, on an interim bases.

Q I'm just saying, do you think the people who do the heavy lifting, that there's been no adverse effect on morale?

MR. SNOW: I just don't know, Jim. I think, again, I think a lot of people are trying to fish and to make far more out of this because there is the prospect of congressional hearings. But again, if you take a look at something as large and vast -- you start calling out the U.S. attorneys office, does that mean you're not prosecuting cases? Does it mean that you're unable to make the normal sorts of judgments about how to prosecute or not?

The fact is that law enforcement is something where people spend a lot of time developing professional capability and they do their jobs. And especially after they get out of Washington, D.C., quite often they're spending their time thinking about what are the things on my desk today? And they think in very practical terms about how to proceed.

Q When you say that the Iraq supplemental has to give the funding and flexibility to the troops, what in the supplemental provides that flexibility? What do you mean, "flexibility"?

MR. SNOW: We've always talked about the ability of generals or commanders on the ground to make decisions about how to deploy resources effectively in response to changing challenges on the ground.

Q And when is the deadline to get this done? If the House stays in over the weekend --

MR. SNOW: I'm not -- the House and Senate have both sort of set informal deadlines. Speaker Pelosi says she wants it done before Memorial Day; Leader Reid wants it done before Memorial Day; we want it done before Memorial Day. I think at this point, everybody hopes to get it done in a timely basis, but those conversations have to continue.

Q Is the President optimistic from what he hears from Josh Bolten on this?

MR. SNOW: I'm not going to characterize, but all along he's thought we'd get -- he has said many times he's optimistic about getting to where we need to be.

Q Do you have a preview of the Coast Guard address tomorrow?

MR. SNOW: He's going to talk about the war on terror and remind people about the kind of people that we've been fighting. He'll talk a bit about al Qaeda and some of the challenges that we continue to face.

Q Tony, I have one more Al Gore book quote. (Laughter.) "The President deceived the public by suggesting that Iraq was involved in 9/11." He says, when the administration continued to "make bold and confident assertions that leave the impression with 70 percent of the country that Saddam Hussein was linked to al Qaeda and was primarily responsible for the 9/11 attack, this can only be labeled deception."

MR. SNOW: Unfortunately, the Vice President* probably has been listening to people who have deliberately misled him. The President has made it clear over and over and over that there was no relationship between Saddam Hussein and September 11th. And again, from my own personal experience, when we would go on the day of the State of the Union address -- the State of the Union address in 2002 I guess, or 2003, the question arose, "Do you think that Saddam is linked to September 11th?" The President said, no, we have no intelligence to link Saddam directly to September 11th. So he has never tried to make that tie.

And what the Vice President is doing -- it's been tried by a lot of other people -- which is to take something the President hasn't said, expose it as a "lie" and then beat him up for it. The President told the truth. So I don't know -- I don't know if they're going to do a reprinting of the book to try to get the facts straight; fact checkers may have to take a look at it. These are highly complex publishing issues, and I can't be an expert on them.

Q Tony, you also realize Mr. Cheney had talked about an operational link, perhaps, between al Qaeda and Saddam, talked about Mohammed Atta having a meeting -- there's been a lot of --

MR. SNOW: Right, but that's an entirely separate issue from the quote that was read by Bret.

Q Some people don't view it as a separate issue if it contributes to a view in the general public that there was some Iraq tie to 9/11.

MR. SNOW: Well, again, you had Abu Musab al Zarqawi on Iraqi soil; you had reports that there were, in fact, al Qaeda members on Iraqi soil before the war began. That's in the intel that you saw before the war.

So, again, I think what happens is that people are trying to -- you know, if at first you don't succeed, try to figure out another angle by which you can go after the President, where everybody saw the same intel -- at least in those early days after September 11th, they all basically agreed to what they had seen. The President has been straight about the intel.

Q In the search for a successor to Paul Wolfowitz, are you looking for someone who will continue his anti-corruption drive?

MR. SNOW: Again, I'm not going to get into any general characterizations, other than to say that it is absolutely vital for the World Bank to be an effective vehicle for trying to alleviate poverty in the Third World. Obviously, any time you have corruption in a lending institution, that works against those goals. But you want to figure out how best to do it, and so that is going to remain the focal point.

Q When do you expect to have a new --

MR. SNOW: Don't know.

Q Don't know?

MR. SNOW: Don't know.

Q Separately, is the United States seeking to gain the release of the American scholar being held in Iran and accused of fomenting a revolution?

MR. SNOW: We are not commenting on the case. We certainly know that the Iranians have leveled charges, but we're not commenting on the case.

Q -- is reporting that the White House might be preparing a second surge in Iraq. Can you tell us something about this?

MR. SNOW: Right now, we're -- the question is, a second surge to Iraq. No, we're in the middle of the Iraq plan that General Petraeus put together. And what you have is the movement of forces in, trying to create conditions of greater security within Baghdad. And at the same time, there are also ongoing efforts, especially in Anbar, to try to create conditions of greater safety, and those have clearly enjoyed some success recently. So, no, the story is wrong.

Q If this plan doesn't work, is there any way it can --

MR. SNOW: So far the indications are that things are moving forward in a positive direction. It seems to me that it's highly premature to be asking what happens if it fails, when you've got success in Anbar, when you do have continued efforts to build greater capability, going after bad actors wherever they may be within Baghdad. You're still moving forces in -- we're not going to get all the forces in for some time yet, to have a full buildup. So those are the kinds of questions that really don't make sense when you're in the process of carrying out your mission. What you do constantly is assess how you do a better job, and they do that each and every day.

Q Regarding the violence in Lebanon, do you have any indication or evidence to link --

MR. SNOW: No, I mean, the most important thing is that the violence has got to end. And militia violence is something that was targeted by U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559. It is noteworthy that Syrian officials recently did warn or at least threaten potential security problems in Lebanon as a result of the establishment of the Rafik Hariri tribunal. But I don't want to try to draw you a causal link there. The fact is that there is a situation now that is unacceptable violence, and we support the Siniora government, and so, for that matter, does the international community.

Q When you say the timing was meant to disrupt the tribunal --

MR. SNOW: I didn't say that. I said that it recently threatened potential security problems. The tribunal is something, that you know, that the Syrians have resisted. They certainly have been involved in Lebanon before. And the Assad regime remains an organ of state terror. So all those are facts. But again, at this point, we're still studying exactly what's going on, as one would expect. But the most important thing for us is that the Siniora government be able to continue building itself effectively. Now, again, the Siniora government has been fighting back in the refugee camps, and it does continue to enjoy the support of its allies.

Q To follow up on that, is the administration considering shipping materiel, equipment, or weapons to the Lebanese government?

MR. SNOW: Again, I'm not aware that there have been specific requests. On the other hand, we do, in fact, supply that kind of support to the government of Lebanon when it is necessary.

Q I'm trying to understand your argument on Gonzales. You're basically saying that the Justice Department is so big, and that the machinations are already so much in place that it really doesn't matter who is leading or what's going on.

MR. SNOW: No, I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that there's a controversy about six U.S. attorneys which, while it is splashy here in Washington, is a very tiny slice of the overall responsibilities and obligations of the U.S. Department of Justice. And the question is, has the Department of Justice been forced into a situation where it cannot function because people are calling former members of the Justice Department to the Hill, or that they're trying to look for Karl Rove emails. The fact is, the Justice Department is comprised of a lot of highly competent, dedicated, career civil servants who continue to do their jobs. And the President --

Q The issue is Republican senators, even, saying that Gonzales is no longer an effective leader of that department. Is that not important?

MR. SNOW: The President disagrees with them -- six senators, and the President disagrees with them, respectfully.

Q Any luck on finding out about the President's policy on wearing seatbelts?

MR. SNOW: Well, it's always important to wear seatbelts, especially when driving slowly on the ranch. (Laughter.) But I think it's, in point of fact, something that -- we encourage everybody to wear their seat belts.

Q -- Secret Service person here at the White House ask the President and all occupants --

MR. SNOW: No, but I'll tell you what -- the Secret Service, I guarantee you, looks after the President and is absolutely determined to ensure his safety in every way possible.

Q Thank you.

MR. SNOW: Thank you.

END 1:15 P.M. EDT

*former Vice President

Technorati Tags: President Bush and White House or Tony Snow and VIDEO, or budget supplemental and United States Senate, or Department of Justice, and Judiciary Committee, or Senator Hillary Clinton and Attorney General Gonzales or Senator Kennedy and President Carter or Al Gore and podcast