MR. STANZEL: Good morning. Thank you all for being here. I'll let people have a second to get their tape recorders set up.

At this point you all should have the written statement from the President from last night regarding the passing of Gerald Ford. You should also have a statement from the Vice President, and you should also have the President's remarks from this morning, as well as the proclamation from the President.

I just want to let you all know that subsequent to announcements from the Ford family, I won't have much information about the arrangements. Those announcements will come from the Ford family, so beyond those things, I probably won't have much information for you.

So with that, I'm happy to take your questions. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: -- congressional sources, and I will wait for -- and I would caution you all to wait for word from the family. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: No changes at this point to the President's schedule. Certainly, we will look to any announcements that come from the Ford family about the arrangements and we would have announcements potentially after that point. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: Well, the President certainly has been talking at length with his advisors. The question was regarding arrangements for tomorrow and what we can expect, in terms of logistics, how that meeting will be set up.

That will be a meeting of all the members -- the members of the National Security Council. People that will be in attendance, of course, the President, the Vice President, Secretaries Rice and Gates, General Pace will be in attendance, Stephen Hadley, J.D. Crouch will also be there. And we expect that that meeting will get started fairly early in the morning, and we will -- you can expect, in terms of coverage, the President to have some brief comments for the pool at the conclusion of that meeting.

In terms of the decision-making process, as we've indicated before, this is a time for the President to be talking with his advisors about all the potential options, making sure that due consideration is given to the next steps, making sure that we're thinking through the new way forward in Iraq, to take into account all of the differing views.

We have said it's a non-decisional meeting and the President will announce the new way forward after the first of the year. So the President can characterize the meeting when it concludes tomorrow. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: In terms of schedules, Secretaries Rice and Gates will be arriving today, and the other participants will be arriving tomorrow morning. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: I do not know where they will be spending their evening. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: If there are meetings, we can certainly let you know; but if there are, those would be more informal in nature. Tomorrow is the day for the more lengthy discussions. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: Fairly early. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: We'll keep you posted on the schedule, but the meetings will begin in the morning. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q And there are some threats from Saddam's Baath party over in Iraq, related to Saddam's execution. Would Saddam's execution in any way complicate President Bush's formulation of the new Iraq policy, because if it leads to more violence or anything along those lines -- ... Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: I think we're always aware of the situation and we're always knowledgeable that terrorists and former Saddamists have used various excuses to foment violence, and certainly the goal of the multinational forces, the goal of the Iraqi security forces is to provide security for the Iraqi people, and they will do that going forward. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: I'd refer you to the multinational forces in Iraq, in terms of any preparations that they may be making. But like I said, the enemies of freedom and the enemies of the institutions of democracy have used excuses before, and conversely, have not needed excuses to attack. So the security situation is something that is an ongoing concern in Iraq. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: I don't know that that would be the case. Again, we'll just wait for the Ford family to make announcements about the arrangements and we'll have more information for you at that time.

Toby. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: Because we don't expect decisions to be made at the meeting. So it's non-decisional in that it's still part of the process by which the President is communicating with his advisors, asking questions, probing them for answers, and when he has an announcement to make about the new way forward in Iraq, he will do so. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: Like I said yesterday, I wouldn't characterize the timing of the President's announcement of his new way forward in Iraq. I think it largely depends on how comfortable he is with the information he's receiving, making sure that we've thought through all the parameters of any options. Certainly, I will let the President communicate to you all after that meeting his thoughts about what took place in the meeting. So I'm not going to prejudge the discussions that will take place during that meeting. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: Like I said at the beginning, no; no announcements have been made regarding adjustments to the President's schedule. But we'll certainly look forward to any announcements from the Ford family and make subsequent announcements at that time. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: It is. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Will the days of national mourning or various ceremonies associated with President Ford cause the President to look at a different time line because he might not want to give this new way forward while all the nation is focused on Ford remembrances? ... Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: I'm sorry? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: Not that I'm aware of. If I get more information on that I can let you know. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: That was the last time -- you mentioned the meeting in April -- that was April 23rd in Rancho Mirage, and that was the last time that the President, I believe, met with President Ford in person. But I don't have a characterization of any conversations that may have occurred between the President and Mrs. Ford or President Ford since that time. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: Well, the arrangements have not been announced at this point by the family. So we can advise you about the President's attendance once those announcements are made.

Jessica. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Can you tell us if the President is concerned that expectations have set too high for his announcing this way forward and whether it will be a true solution in Iraq? and his mood, given that public opinion shows a majority of Americans are very unhappy with the war, that all the political leaders are calling for some dramatic change -- does he feel enormous pressure right now? ... Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: I'm sorry, for the family? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: I can get you information on that, Greg, I don't know that personally. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: Well, I hope that Senator Biden would wait to hear what the President has to say before announcing what he's opposed to. President Bush will talk soon to our troops, to the American people and to the Iraqi people about the new way forward in Iraq that will lead to a democratic and unified country that can sustain, govern, and defend itself.

So the President has been listening to a lot of different people, whether it's on Capitol Hill, whether it's members of the Iraq Study Group, whether it's talking with the Iraqis directly, and he appreciates the input. But certainly in terms of Senator Biden, we would hope that he, too, would also wait to hear what the President has to say before announcing his opposition. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: Yes, for decades, on a National Day of Mourning, upon the passing of a President, the federal government has been closed, and that is the expectation that the same thing will occur this year. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: No. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: I'm sorry, say that again. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: We can take a look at that. I don't have any guidance for you on that right now.

Elaine. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: I don't have any information on how the Vice President learned, no.

Jessica. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: Hello everyone. Thanks for being here today. We're on our way to Crawford, Texas, where the President will remain until January 1st.

One quick thing to read out, and then I'll take your questions.

The President this morning placed a phone call to Ugandan President Museveni. He thanked him for his support of the regional peacekeeping force in Somalia, and they had discussions about the tensions in the Horn of Africa.

And with that, I will take your questions. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: Today marks an important milestone in the Iraqi people's efforts to replace the rule of a tyrant with the rule of law, and the Iraqis deserve praise for continuing to utilize the institutions of democracy to pursue justice. Saddam Hussein has received due process and legal rights that he denied the Iraqi people for so long. So this is an important day for the Iraqi people. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: We understand that the Iraqi High Tribunal has affirmed the verdict and a death sentence for Saddam Hussein, and a written judgment will be written soon. So we look forward, as does the rest of the world, to seeing that written judgment. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: As you know, the President after the first of the year will talk with the American people about the new way forward in Iraq. He continues to ask questions of his advisors and he is continuing to think about thinking steps ahead and trying to make sure that all options and all ideas are given the due consideration they need, trying to think through the consequences of any actions and of those options.

So he will continue to do that this week while he's down on the ranch. And, as you know, he'll be meeting with members of his National Security Council on Thursday to continue to talk about this option. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: You know, I think we characterized it yesterday as a non-decisional meeting, but -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: The meeting hasn't occurred yet, so we look forward to that meeting on Thursday. And I'm not going to say whether or not this will be the last meeting -- that depends on the discussions that occur and depends on the dialogue and how comfortable the President is with that new way forward. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: We have indicated that Secretary Gates, Secretary Rice, the Vice President, Stephen Hadley, of course, the President will be there -- I don't have a full list for you at this point and don't have specific timing of the meeting, but we'll get you that as we get closer. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: That may be your characterization, but I don't have the specific times for when it will start and when it will end, but we'll get you that as we get closer. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: I don't have Secretary Gates' schedule, but that is the day of the national Security Council meeting. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: We haven't made any announcements beyond that, but my expectation is that Thursday's meeting will be the day for those meetings. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: As we've indicated, we suspect that this validates our claims that the Iranians have been meddling in Iraq, but we want to finish the investigation of the detained Iraqis before characterizing their activities. And that's an ongoing investigation that we are working with the government of Iraq on, so we'll have more information when that investigation concludes. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: Yes, and that has been widely reported and they were released back to the embassy. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: Force protection operations like this happen all of the time, and we'll have more information as that investigation continues. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: No information on that front. After the first of the year. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: Yes, you didn't get it? (Laughter.) Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: Well, the President spoke about this at the press conference, he's wanting to make sure that we give all consideration to all the options. It's important the forces -- our forces, coalition forces in Iraq are continuing to take the fight to the enemy, and the President will announce a new way forward when he's comfortable announcing that. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: I don't have any comment on that. And we've discussed -- you know, we've seen a lot of things appear in the papers, and I'll just leave it to the President to make his own announcement. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: I don't have any information on that. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: I don't have any information. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: I don't have any information on that. Did you not get that readout yesterday? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: Okay. I'll see what I can do on gifts and the other thing. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: We'll have more information about his New Year's plans towards the end of the week. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. STANZEL: Eleven a.m. tomorrow, you all are welcome to sleep in. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Before we begin the questions, just a couple of comments on bill signings today, and then I'll be happy to take any questions you have.

Today, the President, accompanied by the First Lady, Mrs. Bush, signed the following bills into law. First, the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment and Modernization Act, H.R. 6143, which reauthorizes the Ryan White Care Act to ensure that Americans in need continue to have access to medical care, anti-retroviral treatments and counseling that will help them live longer lives. The Act also supports HIV testing to prevent the further spread of the devastating disease. The bill demonstrates the compassionate and generous spirit of America and the President was proud to sign it into law today.

Also, the Combating Autism Act. This bill will increase public awareness about autism and provide enhanced federal support for autism research and treatment by creating a national education program for doctors and the public about autism. The legislation will help more people recognize the symptoms of autism. This will lead to early identification and intervention, which is critical for children who struggle with the disorder. The President is confident that the legislation will serve as an important foundation for our nation's efforts to find a cure for autism.

Questions. Terry. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: What the President is asking people to explore are ways to victory in Iraq, which would mean an Iraq that can sustain, govern and defend itself, where the Iraqis, themselves eventually assume full control for the responsibilities of government: security, political, economic, diplomatic and so on. Anything that fits into that description the President will consider. And, therefore, there are a number of ideas that are being discussed and the President is leaving all options open. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: No, I confirmed that there are ideas and I have given you the proper metric. So if people think that that will contribute to the long term goal of victory, it would be reasonable to assume that it would be something under consideration. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: No. We do not comment on tactical moves, reported or otherwise, and I would refer you to the Pentagon for any comments they may wish to make, which I suspect are quite similar to the ones that I've just delivered. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: As I said, we're not going to comment on those things. I think it's important, though -- the administration has been pretty clear about Iran's role in the region, which is Iran has to stop being provocative. It is important that the democracies in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Lebanon are allowed not merely to survive but to thrive and to provide an example and an inspiration for people in the region.

We've also made it clear that Iran needs to suspend uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities. And to that end, the United States, along with some of its European allies, has been trying to persuade the Iranians to suspend those activities in exchange for being able to develop a peaceful civilian nuclear capability, and, at the same time, making available to the Iranian people a lot of things they want, including greater contact with the West.

So let there be no mistake what our position is toward the Iranians. But, again, when it comes to describing any ongoing military activity, that's not something I'm going to do. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Well, number one, there is no decision about the next step forward in Iraq. So the idea that there is a decision and a squabble would be wrong. I've also cautioned people that tonally, it is incorrect to say that the President is in any sort of contretemps with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They work together. The President has a great deal of respect for the chain of command -- in fact, the chain of command, starting with the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs, the combatant commanders, all the way down to the people who are doing the fighting on the ground in Iraq, Afghanistan, and that are serving the nation in uniform. And he's made it very clear, and I think the respect also is shared up the chain of command.

So without commenting on any specific ideas that may be discussed -- and I won't do that -- I can tell you that the notion that somehow there is some sort of feud between the President and the Joint Chiefs would be wrong. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Okay, so I confirmed it. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: What the President does -- let me put it this way: What the President does is he sets the mission. And then combatant commanders figure out how to conduct the mission. And when they ask for resources, he provides them. And that's how it works. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Yes. But, again, keep in mind the President sets the mission. So you define the mission, then you figure out what resources are adequate. This, I think, again, mirrors comments that General Conway has made and also Colin Powell has made, which is you -- when people were talking about surges, the answer is, if it fits into a military plan and you have a good plan for it, then maybe it would be appropriate. I am not commenting on surge; I'm just telling you that regardless of what happens in terms of troop posture or equipping forces or deploying forces or moving or redeploying -- any military decision obviously is going to have to be made in concert with the goal, which is to win in Iraq. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: The President -- in this sense, Helen, the President understands that you cannot win the war without public support. And it is important to continue -- because it's going to be a long war and it is going to need the determination of the American people -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Because as far as we can tell, terrorists don't have any desire to stop entertaining thoughts of terror any time soon. And that the global war on terror, which is not confined to Iraq or Afghanistan, but instead has people who are still committed to committing acts of violence on our shores. The President outlined some of those this fall when he was talking about particular operations that had been intercepted as a result of intelligence that we had gleaned from planners of attacks, that they have no desire to back away, that there's an ideology of hatred that involves not only destroying the United States of America, but also the notion of personal freedom.

So that being the case, it is going to require a commitment over a long period of time to make sure that we deal with the problem effectively. And that's not just militarily -- it means diplomatically, it means economically, it means by example, so that if you have a democracy that demonstrates to people in the Middle East you can practice your faith, you can pursue your future, you can vote for the people who are going to govern you, you can have control over your destiny -- these are things that have not been -- that people in the Middle East have not been able to take for granted. And when they see that they have those options, that in and of itself will probably be the most powerful discouragement to terror imaginable. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: I didn't. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Do you also realize -- I do -- I think people not only understand occupation, people in Iraq also understand -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: And that was a precise characterization you just gave me? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: No, you just used a broad brush on responding. If you wish to get into colloquialism, I'll be happy to go along. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: I think that there are some people -- as a matter of fact, if you take a look at Saddam rejectionists, they're absolutely resisting the occupation. As a matter of fact, their avowed goal -- it's right here in the 90/10 report -- that says that their avowed goal is to push Americans out. Why? Because they want to reestablish the kind of supremacy they enjoyed during the days of Saddam.

There are many people who want to end the occupation and, in many cases, they want to end the occupation because they, themselves, want to restore or to create their own tyranny over the Iraqi people. They do not want to support the goal of a democracy in which the human rights of all are protected and -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: I think what we're -- you know, what's interesting is the government of Iraq and people of Iraq look upon us not as imposing. I don't know how you impose liberty. I think what you do is you -- you impose tyranny and you relieve tyranny by creating the possibility for freedom. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Yes, I talked to her a couple of minutes ago. She's doing fine. And she said, "It's no big deal, and we knew it was no big deal at the time." Frankly I don't think anybody thought it was the sort of thing that occasioned a need for a public disclosure. Furthermore, she's got the same right to medical privacy that you do. She's a private citizen; she's not an elected official. So for that reason she didn't disclose it. But she's doing fine, and thank you for your concern. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: I don't know. Fortunately, squamous cell carcinoma, at least in this particular case, was not dangerous. But let me just say, without having cleared it with her, I'm sure that she would be more than supportive of anybody to go out, and if you think you've got a problem with a change in a mole or some skin problems, go get it checked out by a doctor. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: No, again, there are any number of -- this is a room full of public people who tend not -- and I know you say, wait a minute, I'm different than the First Lady. Well, no, she's a private citizen. And the fact is, she is entitled to her medical privacy. And, again, it's no big deal. In this case, it's just not a big deal. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Well, he's an elected official. It's different. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q He's an elected official and a private citizen. You can make the same claims of a number of people who have public lives. Mrs. Bush has made herself part of this party and this White House's very public face. So my question is, if this were to be something that is a big deal, would the White House feel obliged to share that with the public? ... Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: That I don't know. I didn't ask. There is the confidentiality -- and guess what? Medical privacy also applies to her case in this particular incident. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Yes -- you know what, I didn't. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: No. It's medical privacy, and I'm not going to get into this. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: As you know, whenever there is a medical incident involving the Vice President -- I've been an anchor when these things have happened -- you are notified promptly and immediately; cameras are dispatched to the scene, where people stand and wait and wait and wait and wait, until they can see the Vice President getting back into a limo and returning to wherever he is.

So as you know, the President and Vice President, being the two chief elected officials in this country, if there are important health developments, you hear about it. And we think that that's appropriate. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Let me repeat to you exactly what she said. She said, "It's no big deal, we knew it wasn't a big deal at the time." Apparently, she's wrong about this. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q No, what I'm saying is, as far as encouraging people to be checked. What I'm saying is even though she may not be an elected official, she's a very public official and very well loved. And as someone who has two adolescents who don't like to listen to mother when she says, put on the sun screen, get out of the sun, she could potentially have a great influence on a lot of people's lives, especially young women. ... Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: -- she's had a number -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: This particular one could not. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: You guys are really stretching it. I mean, it is now officially a really slow news day. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Tony, going back to terrorism in Iraq, now we have a new Secretary of Defense, (inaudible) with vast experience in CIA and also terrorism and he's done so many (inaudible) in the area (inaudible). So what do you think now, being a new chief of the Defense Department, how he will (inaudible) those terrorists, including Osama bin Laden and (inaudible)? ... Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Are you talking about the Holocaust remarks? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q The conference, and he again said that wiping out Israel from the world map -- what I'm saying is how seriously administration of President Bush is taking him or his remarks, because he's not only threat to the Jews or the Israelis, but also to their region. ... Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: I didn't say it was totally inaccurate, I said I'm not going to -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Tonally, thank you. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Right. But the fact is, someone has put the message out there that there is this dispute, and it's not the first report that we've had about disputes, disagreements about the way to go forward on Iraq. I'm wondering if this is a reflection of paralysis within the administration. ... Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Well, you'll have to ask the leakers. They apparently are talking to you, so please consult.

Victoria. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Going back to Mrs. Bush, it seems that there are two things going on, in terms of not informing the public and the press. Which was it, was it that it was medical privacy that was the reason for not informing us, or was it that it was no big deal? ... Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Well, I don't know, if you'll be happy to share all your private medical information, maybe we can change it around. But I don't think that's appropriate, nor does the First Lady. She's got the same privacy rights when it comes to her medical information that you and I do. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Yes, in the sense -- let me put it this way: It never occurred to anybody that this would be a big deal. It never occurred -- but suddenly everybody is -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Do you understand -- if you've been -- there are literally millions of Americans who have been through this, and you can ask them whether they thought this was a big deal or not. It was quickly diagnosed. They said, the sore is not going away, we're going to take a look at it. They did. They did a biopsy, they found out it was a squamous cell cancer and they removed it. They did local anesthetic; they removed it. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: No, there wasn't bad information. She had a sore. It wasn't bad information -- that's what she knew at the time. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Again, it's just -- yes, let's -- Bret. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Just a follow-up. You said the President signed the Combating Autism Act today. For that community that fights autism, they are looking for a commitment, I think, from the administration moving forward. And the question for them is, is the President going to put specific autism funding for this new legislation in the FY 2008 budget? ... Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Let me put it this way: The President is confident that this legislation will serve as an important foundation for our nation's effort to find a cure for autism. And you can read into that what you will. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Well, number one, I talked today with State. Yesterday what you had was kind of a typical first day of negotiations with the North Koreans, where they took a maximalist position, and the rest of the people said, come on. And now they've having conversations. There will be continued conversations.

The idea that this is a juncture to start drawing conclusions about the ultimate outcome of the six-party talks is, again, premature. We expect that there will be talks through much of this week, and then they will reconvene at some time next month. We will see how serious the North Koreans are about meeting their obligations under the September 19th agreement of 2005. That really is the centerpiece of our efforts and will continue to be. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Tony, back on the troop surge issue, the Democrats and Republicans have been having almost intra-party debates about this. I'm just wondering if the President is going to weigh -- is that just a sideshow for those of us in the media? Is the President -- the point of the question being, is the President going to weigh the political aspects of all this and the decisions he makes, and the Congress is going to have to deal with them? ... Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: The political -- the President's goal in looking at options for a way forward in Iraq is to succeed. And he thinks about politics in the following way: We have had an election where people made it clear that they think we need a new way forward in Iraq. They are not happy with the progress, and we agree. Therefore, the President is taking a good look at how to succeed, because the American people also want success. And there is a political opportunity for both parties to work together on this one to get it right.

So the President has made it clear to members of Congress that he is open to hearing their ideas about it. And he's had a number of discussions with Democratic and Republican leaders. He will continue to have consultations. He'll be at Crawford next week, but he will be talking by phone or whatever by other people involved in the process, and there will continue to be consultations until he is confident that he has found what he thinks is the best way forward in Iraq.

So to the extent that he thinks about it politically, it is engaging the political community in a constructive way to bring the American public together behind a plan to win, and that's how he looks at it. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Sweep what aside? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Let me put it this way -- again, I hate to keep saying that, but when you say, "sweep" it aside, the President is not going to be cavalier about people who come to him in goodwill with ideas that they think are going to be helpful. But on the other hand, what he really wants is members of Congress, once there is a decision, to move constructively to make sure that our forces have what they need, and also they have a mission that can accomplish the goal of a free Iraq -- a free, democratic Iraq that sustains, governs and defends itself, that helps us out in the war on terror, and also serves as an example to that part of the world.

So again, there is always a political dimension. People have to appropriate money and you have to build public support. And there has been considerable conflict between Democrats and Republicans. And we hope that this time around, as we move forward, that we will move forward in a much more unified way, involving members of both parties. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: No, and I apologize. Call me and I'll get you -- get it to you. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Again, I think we've made it clear that we're disappointed with the decision, and understand that there's an appeals process. We also hope that there's a way for them to get home. So that's our position there.

Les. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Two questions. Reuters reported this morning that the President has just delayed for another six months the 1995 Congress-passed transfer of our U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Israel's capital city of Jerusalem. And my question: In how many other countries of the world do we refuse to have our embassy in their capital, but in another city which resembles Israel locating their embassy in Baltimore? ... Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Speaker-elect Pelosi has announced that she will be speaker of what she termed, and this is a quote, "The most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history." My question: Did the President agree with Mrs. Pelosi's announcement, in view of the reelection of Democrat Congressman Jefferson, Hastings, McDermott, Murtha, and Mollohan? ... Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Is the administration's policy when it comes to Medicare or Medicaid health care coverage, as well as health savings accounts (inaudible) -- part of your policy is to encourage regular screening, health care screening, as well as the importance of early protection and treatment. And if you do that then it avoids becoming a big (inaudible). So I'm just trying to understand the message (inaudible). ... Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: I'm not sure that -- look, as somebody who has been through colon cancer, there's screening for that. The people who have been through breast cancer, there's screening for that. Perhaps I am ignorant, and I'm sure I am, of the situation when it comes to squamous cell cancer, but I'm not sure that there's a regular screening process. However, it's important that people take care of themselves. There is also an element of personal responsibility involved. I don't think, and I think it's a real stretch, Paula, to say that this is a mixed signal. What I'd ask you to do is consult your common sense. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Okay, well, we consider it stressed. Absolutely, take care of yourselves. Get tested all the time -- still do. In fact, I have my next test tomorrow -- day after. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

On the Bulgarian nurses, this is so horrific. The United States has all sorts of means of pressuring. Is there anything stronger the U.S. can do to pressure --
seen at 12:44, 19 December in Whitehouse Press Briefings.

MR. SNOW: Perhaps. But I'm not going to tell you. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Look, our position is clear, which is we think that they ought to be able to return home. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Hello, welcome. I'm ready for questions. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: It's just a situational briefing. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: The situation in Iraq. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: I don't know whether anything specific, but, no, that was not the general purpose. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Again, as we've said all along, the President -- what he has instructed people to do is to get answers back to him as quickly as possible, and that's what they're doing. There is not a hard deadline because the thing you have to look for is to get the answers right, and to have the work done thoroughly. And trust me, when the President calls up and says, I need this as quickly as possible, people tend to move as quickly as they possibly can. So it's "all hands on deck." But there are no hard and fast deadlines. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: That I don't know. He's been in receipt of a lot of stuff, but I do not know the status of some of the things he's asked for. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: I'm just not going to get into the process of whether he's made decisions or what ones those are going to be. I will apologize again, as I will do many times between now and the time he gives the speech, but I'm not in a position to shed a great deal of light on internal deliberations, other than in very general terms. I'm not going to be winnowing out options for you. That's for the President to do. And when he is ready to present the way forward, I will allow him to do it.

It's also worth issuing a note of caution, because quite often people will try to litigate preferred options through the press. And the President will do this in a thorough and proper manner. And we're just not going to get into the business again of trying to evaluate things that may appear in the press. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Well, if you take a look at what Secretary Powell did, he gave a pretty thorough analysis of the situation. And what he said is, "it's grave and deteriorating," and "we're not winning, we are losing. We haven't lost," he continued. Then he went through and started talking about what he thought might be some of the considerations you would use with regard to military power. But the most important thing he said is that the Iraqis are the key to the solution, which we agree.

And if you take a look at a lot of the things he said, it's pretty consistent with what the President has been saying. It is clear he has some disagreements about what he calls phases two and three of the war. Nevertheless, he said if he were still Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, his first question would be, "What mission are the troops to accomplish? Do they have the resources" -- precisely, what is the mission, do you have the resources and troops that are adequate to do so, and so on. Those are very practical questions, and the kind of things that one would expect the present Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and also the combatant commanders to address.

He also talked in considerable length about reconciliation, about the political process, all of which are of keen interest, as you know, to the administration. So you look at it, and I think he gave a very thoughtful take on the situation. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q But he also said he agreed with the Army Chief of Staff from last week, that the Army may be close to being broken, resource-wise. How does the President feel -- back in the 2000 campaign, he ran on the notion that Bill Clinton had worn the military down, that there were two brigades, I believe, at that point, that were not ready to report for duty. Is the President concerned that he has had a similar failure six years later? ... Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Well, no, again, if you take a look -- I don't think he was -- because I've got the transcript here, as you can tell -- it doesn't look like it was that definitive. What he is saying is that there are a whole series of things you need to look at. He talked about resource issues, he talked about issues of mission, and so on.

So, again, rather than -- we respect Colin Powell, and it's important that he play a part in the debate. But at this point, the President will continue to look at all the information at his disposal, and all the analysis, and make his own determination about the best way forward. And I can guarantee you that a lot of these considerations and concerns have been raised before. We're aware of many of those issues. Let's just wait until the President announces a way forward. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: One thing you never do is announce when somebody is going to go to Iraq. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Again, I'm just not going to do it. The one thing you want to do, for the security of people who are making trips like that, is not make any announcements about when they're going to be there. He said he will go there soon after being sworn in. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: The President has said -- I don't know if it's a fresh piece of the puzzle, but the President has said that he wants to give the Defense Secretary an opportunity to assess the situation. And he's been getting a lot of intensive briefings about policy, and so on. So, absolutely, he wants them to be able to have fresh eyes on the problem. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: I've already told you it's next year. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: The new year starts two weeks from today. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: You would be wrong. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: The holdup is that when you're taking a fresh look -- I've tried to make the point that this is very complex; and that you try to do it right. So it's not a holdup. What it is, is finishing the job and getting it done properly, so that when the President makes his recommendations, you have taken care of all your diplomatic contacts; you have dealt with everything from people on Capitol Hill to people at the Pentagon; you have thought through the economic issues; you have consulted with regional allies. This is not simply a military decision -- it is a decision that affects civil activities in Iraq, it affects diplomacy in Iraq and around the region, and it also has calculations that bear on the larger war on terror.

To dismiss deliberation as a holdup is, I think, to confuse the nature -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Not at all, Tony. I'm asking what I think is a fair question I hear out of a lot of American's mouths, which is, wait a minute, the pieces of this puzzle really haven't changed for many weeks, if not months, if not years; we have this major course correction coming, but that was announced several weeks ago. So I think it's a fair question that a lot of the American people are asking, which is, what's the wait? ... Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q But is there a new -- is there a new moving part? Is there anything new to factor in, that wasn't here -- I hear what you're saying. You're listing things, but nothing that you just listed wasn't part of the stew pot many months ago. ... Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Helen, you ask that question every day, and I don't know how I can -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: And it's a question he thinks about every day. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Yes, it does. Absolutely. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: And the people who have been killing will kill even more if we walk away. I would turn you to The New York Times op-ed page today, where a Marine Major talks about -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: I'm sorry, does that make it suspect that he's on the ground trying to save lives? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Well, you might want to read it, because the military -- the military attitude is, warriors don't like to be engaged in war if you can have peace, and generals don't like to send people into battle unless they have to. The people who are instigating the violence in Iraq are ones who are determined to kill. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: I think the biggest factor right now -- if you take a look at what's going on, who are they killing? They're killing Iraqis, aren't they? They are primarily killing Iraqis. And what they're trying to do is to destroy hope and peace and democracy. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Could it be they're suffused with hatred? Could it be that people, in fact, who are in unoccupied lands, who have been slaughtering, also do so because they hate people? The question is -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Yes, we are. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Flynt Leverrett, a former NSC official, Mideast expert, also worked in the CIA, has charged that the administration has blocked publication of an op-ed he wrote in The New York Times simply because it's critical of the administration's Iran policy. ... Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: I sincerely doubt that, but I'll try to find out. I don't know anything about it, except, come on, it's not like Flynt has not been out publicly on a number of occasions questioning the administration. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: The White House is not blocking his writings. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: We don't falsely silence critics on national security claims. Now, if there's a legitimate national security claim, I'm sure that that will be made. Let me -- rather than chasing around, I don't know anything about this, so I'll find out. And you can call me -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Can I ask you, then, more broadly, because as you know the administration has been under criticism lately for being incredibly aggressive about chasing down leaks, hard on reporters who have been breaking stories that are classified material, and there's a sense that this administration is more secretive than other administrations. Do you think -- ... Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: No. No, but there has been -- it has been pointed out -- and interestingly enough, also by the public editor at The New York Times -- that in at least one of those cases, they shouldn't have printed the story. And it is legitimate to ask the question, do you compromise national -- you're shaking your head, no, but it's true. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Well, there are only two sets -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: That's right, but there are two sets of stories. And one of them, in fact -- we've complained about two sets of stories, and we worked with them on the Swift stories. So the point is, Jessica, if you worry about the compromising of national security and you think that the lives of Americans or people who are working to help American interests abroad are going to be compromised, yes, you're going to look into it. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: I think it's going to be interesting -- the President will, I think, share with Americans a broader view of what's going on in Iraq -- when he does, in fact, present the way forward -- so that Americans will be able to get a better sense of it. You've heard me say many times, many of us constantly get complaints from military people who say, I don't know what's going on but what you report is not what I do. And so it might be worth trying to provide broader context about what's going on in the war on terror.

Now, there is going to be a sense in which there are portions of the war on terror that you will never know about, and I will never know about, and those come in the context of daily briefings that the President gets, because sometimes there are highly classified attempts. But I can tell you this, that people involved in the war on terror on the other side are doing everything they can to try to kill Americans and to kill them in large numbers. And that, in fact, is the sort of thing that a President has to worry about, that you or I don't have that responsibility.

So the idea that this administration -- look, we believe in a free press, but we also believe in national security. And in the case of the NSA stories, we believe that The New York Times behaved in a way that we do not think was consistent with national security. But this is not the same as waging war on the First Amendment. These kind of disputes have happened throughout American journalistic history, and I'm sure that they will be resolved one way or another. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: We tend not to tell you -- we tend not to tell you until after the conference has been held. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: I don't know. I don't know. I wish I could help you with it; I don't -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Hang on a second. Let me put it this way, we lifted the lid to make sure -- we wanted to make sure that everybody knew about it, and quite often, you do have a clearance process when it comes to stories like this. You don't just come walking out and say, hey, guess what happened. So some of that will have been a product of it. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: I understand that -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: That's right. And sometimes those are left off, and we tell you about them afterward -- for instance, the SVTS we had with Prime Minister Maliki a couple weekends before. But we do, in fact, make sure that we get you briefed on it, and we try to do it as promptly as possible. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Tony, the Iranian President chose to weigh in after the midterm election, saying that Republican losses were a direct result of failed Bush policies. Do you care to weigh in that it seems that the Iranian President is losing across the board in Iran? ... Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: I'm not going to try to read Iranian tea leaves. I'll let others do that. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: I'll refer you to my previous answer. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Right now what he's trying to do is to come up with a working plan to make sure that fewer die in the future so that you can have a position -- I think -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: I think -- the Iranians, themselves, have taken responsibility -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Okay, I'm sorry, the Iraqis, in fact -- I was explaining this to Helen -- are compiling the death totals based on morgue and hospital accounts. And those have been, sort of, the closest to official numbers. And we are taking their word on that. They may be off by some, but you get a general sense. I don't think -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: I don't know. But maybe what you -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Yes, but what -- the purpose is -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: And how will you put that in perspective? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: And how will you put that in perspective. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: The reason I ask the question is, you understand that you have focal points of violence within Iraq, and you also have focal points where there is a considerable amount of progress, and that the most important thing is to go after the forces who are killing those people.

So if you're going to assess the situation, find out -- it's also important to try to match up the sources of the violence, the people who are doing the killing, and the commitment of the government for going after them, whether they be militias or insurgent groups. But these are people who are determined to destroy democratic hopes in Iraq. And the President's chore is far larger than dealing with that human tragedy -- which he deplores -- and it is to come up with ways of going after the people who are responsible for that, so that people who have every right to be able to live in freedom may, in fact, have that opportunity. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: It's one of many metrics, but also, the more important thing is, where is the violence coming from? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Here's -- no, no, the Iraqis have said they want to tally it up, and so you can refer to them. We'll try to do it. But here's the thing: the President has often made the point that what happens if you're a terrorist is if you go in and you kill a lot of people -- you have somebody who is willing to go in and commit suicide and kill 300, they're able to claim victory because they've killed X number, because they have bought your metric, and they have used a single act of violence against innocent citizens as a way of saying to either the Iraqi people or the American people, time to get out.

The most important thing to say is, no, we need to fight to stop people, precisely because the ultimate object should not be merely to tally up the deaths, which at one point somebody can do, but to fight -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: I understand that. And as a matter of fact -- you know what, Kelly, you're right. Every one of those numbers -- you're absolutely right. The number, in fact, ought to redouble everybody's determination to put an end to the viciousness of the people who are responsible for this. So you're absolutely right, it's a very strong and powerful argument for finishing the job properly. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Tony, this morning President signed into law 5682, the U.S.-India civil nuclear agreement in the White House East Room. Do you have anything more to add than this morning, Undersecretary Nicholas Burns, how this agreement will be implemented as far as the growing -- to include 40-plus countries, they have to -- ... Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q And just to follow, another one. U.S. is also selling civil nuclear agreement with China. And China had also agreement with Pakistan. Now there's a triangle. And there's a story this morning in The Washington Post that some civil nuclear agreement with China. So where do we stand as far as this triangle, India-U.S.-Pakistan, India-U.S.-China, China-U.S.-Pakistan? There's a triangle of this nuclear deal. ... Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: No, it's -- the one thing we are working on is nonproliferation, but the dueling triangles there is something where you're making some political assumptions that are contrary to U.S. policy. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Tony, two questions. From Jerusalem, both The New York Times and Washington Post correspondents reported on Friday that Fatah and Hamas gunmen shot it out with each other for seven hours, which left 30 men wounded, but no one killed. And my question: Does the White House believe this was inaccurate reporting, an intentional restraint, or inept shootings? ... Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: It's not an evasion, it's a question -- when you ask about White House belief about a shootout, it -- no, don't -- I know you'll come up and you'll say, I'm sorry, they made me ask this question. So I'm just telling the people that made you ask the question, please come up with something a little less provocative than that so that I can answer a fact question, rather than a -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: No, no -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q All right, I'll ask another one. Yesterday on the Internet, the following news was reported nationwide from the White House, and I quote: "Loaded into press van 2, the pool assumed the proper sobriety of an anticipated church visit, only to be told five minutes later that 'church is cancelled,' no reason was offered." And my question: Did this last-minute cancellation of Episcopal church worship have anything to do with this morning's top of page one reporting of the biggest split of more than 200 years of Episcopal church history? ... Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Well, it's clear that he's had some disagreements about what he considers phases two and three, and there are going to be some points -- but it's interesting that you walk through a lot of the comments he's made yesterday, and it's also obvious that he's taking a pretty sober and practical look at the situation in Iraq, especially when people are considering publicly discussing a number of military options. As a former member of the Joint Chiefs and somebody who was deeply involved in the first Iraq war, he is somebody who understands the kind of practical considerations that go into it. He outlined them. He also understands it can't be strictly military, so he talked about political and diplomatic aspects, all which seem pretty thoughtful. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Well, as I said, there are points of disagreement, but there are also a number of points there where, again, you start looking at the data points that he is reading out and -- for instance, again, the talk about troops. He says, look, I don't know -- he seemed to say that he didn't like the so-called surge idea, but then he said, if I were Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, here are the questions I would ask. And that's a pretty sensible list of questions.

And he says you've got to keep in mind political considerations -- absolutely right. When he says you have to have Iraqis at the forefront -- that reflects a lot of what we've been talking about, too. So if you start drilling down into the answers that Secretary Powell gave, there's a lot that I think reflects a pretty common understanding of the situation in Iraq. There are going to be some disagreements, but there are also going to be some areas of agreement. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Well, I have not heard him respond directly to either, other than to questions that have been asked. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: No, not even indirectly. I know that there have been debates at other levels of the administration about the use of the term "civil war," and in terms of winning and losing, it is -- the one thing we want to be clear -- some sensibilities are probably worth laying out when you talk about winning and losing.

Number one, you've already got a constantly shifting situation on the ground. Number two, do you really want to be saying to people who are fighting -- and according to General Chiarelli and any other combatant commander, they've never lost an engagement -- do you really want to tell them they're losing? The answer is no, because in point of fact, they've been extremely successful in a number of engagements, but it's clear we have to find better ways of dealing with sectarian violence.

On the other hand, we don't want to be accused of looking through rose colored glasses at what clearly is an unacceptable position within Iraq. And so those are the kinds of balances. I think it ends up being more constructive to talk about the facts on the ground, and I'll leave it to you and others to find the proper descriptive label. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: We're not going to -- we're still reviewing the -- Prime Minister Abbas apparently is -- I mean, President Abbas apparently is preparing to call new elections. Let me get back to you. I don't want to get ahead of my brief on that. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: As I said, I think what will restart the peace process is having a Palestinian government that adopts the Quartet conditions of dealing with the Israelis, which is to accept their right to exist, to renounce violence, and to abide by previous treaty obligations. And if you have a Palestinian government that's willing to work with Prime Minister Olmert on the business of putting together two peaceful democratic states side by side, that's exactly what we want.

So you have to have a Palestinian government that's going to be willing to work with the government of Israel. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Again, the President has said before that we are winning. Look, what Colin Powell is saying, we're not winning, so therefore we must be losing, and then he says, all is not lost. So I'm just -- I'm not going to get -- what I am saying is that we will win and we have to win, and that's the most important -- that's the most -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: I'm just -- I'm not playing the game anymore. It's one of these things where you end up -- it all ends up trying to -- you're trying to summarize a complex situation with a single word or gerund, or even a participle. And the fact is that what you really need to do is to take a look at the situation and understand that it is vital to win, that there is -- by winning, that means to have an independent Iraq that really does stand on its own as a democratic and free state that supports us in the war on terror. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Again, the President -- that's why I'm just -- I think at this point it ceases to be fruitful to jump into this. We think that what is happening is we are going to win and that we need to find better ways of dealing with the sectarian problem.

Paula. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: The White House will cooperate with Congress as is necessary, given whatever investigations come up. That's the way it works. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q And also, with respect to defining winning and losing in this war, do you believe this war passes the test of proportionality, where the number of lives lost far outweigh the previous conditions before the United States took the preemptive strike? ... Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: I'm sorry, Helen, that's Kurds. That's just one part of the country. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: I'm sorry, run that -- look, at this point, the six-party talks -- you're getting way ahead of yourself. The most important thing to do is to have the North Koreans commit to abiding by the conditions laid down in the September 19, 2005 accord. And when that happens, then there are going to be opportunities to talk in great detail about a number of things.

But what's going on right now is that we're having the first stages of these conversations within the six-party talks, and when the North Koreans have in fact met those obligations, then we can talk in some detail about what may lie forward. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Oh yes, absolutely. And we will continue to do so. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Okay. Yes, that is Nick Burns. Here's what we're going to do, I'm going to give you a quick readout of the President's schedule, and then I will turn things over to Nicholas Burns, the Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs. And we'll talk for a few minutes about the Indian civil nuclear bill, which will be signed into law at about 10:45 a.m. by the President. He will take any questions on that and then I will come back and take on any other questions you may have.

As you know, Bob Gates was sworn in this morning about -- what, 7:03 a.m., is that what we think -- 7:03 a.m. The President then had breakfast with the Secretary of State; normal round of briefings; at 8:30 a.m., National Security Council meeting, which is why all the cameras are pointed at folks who have been walking into the West Wing. The topic is Iraq. There will be a meeting with the Secretary of Defense in the Oval Office afterward.

Then at 10:45 a.m. the signing of H.R. 5682, the United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act. At 11:25 a.m., a meeting with Jewish leaders in the Roosevelt Room; there will be a photo release. A ceremonial swearing in for the Secretary of Defense at 1:15 p.m. The President will have economic policy time -- topic: energy issues -- and a Hanukkah reception at 5:30 p.m.

Also this morning at 10:00 a.m., Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Fran Townsend will speak at the National Press Club about progress the U.S. has made in executing the actions in the six months since the national strategy for -- the pandemic influenza implementation plan was released.

So without further ado, I will -- we'll jump to other questions. First I thought I'd bring up Nick to go ahead and talk a little bit about the India civil nuclear legislation and answer any questions you may have, and then at that point, we'll let him step aside and you can toss whatever you wish at me.

Nick -- where's Nick? There he is. UNDERSECRETARY BURNS: Good morning. Nice to see all of you. Tony told you that the President is going to sign this India civil nuclear legislation this morning. I'd be happy to take any questions, but let me just give you a little bit of background.

This is a major initiative for this administration, and, indeed, for the United States, because what the legislation does, it permits United States companies to trade in nuclear fuel and to invest and to construct nuclear power plants in India for the first time in three decades; and legislation specifically exempts India from the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1974, and as it was amended in 1978 after a series of India nuclear tests in the 1970s. And when that happened, the Congress at that time, and President Carter, decided that we would shut down the possibility of any American investment or trade with India in the civil nuclear realm.

Now that was important because it essentially put India into isolation for three decades, and India was walled off from the rest of the world, had to develop its own nuclear power industry, its civilian nuclear power industry on its own, and it was a source of major discord and discontent between every administration since that of President Carter and that of President Bush.

The President decided in the spring of 2005, when Secretary Rice went out for her first trip to South Asia, that we wanted to end that isolation; that it was in the interests of the United States to have India fully participating in the nonproliferation regime, and have India have the benefit of American technology and American investment. And the common commitment and advantage was it would break through this terrible problem in U.S.-India relations that had really limited the relationship for three decades.

And so Secretary Rice proposed this on behalf of President Bush in March of 2005. When Prime Minister Singh came to the United States -- some of you may remember -- in July of 2005, the two of them issued a joint statement, announced their intention to essentially bring India in from the cold and relieve its isolation. And then we negotiated between July 2005 and March of this year the provisions of the deal, which the President and Prime Minister then announced when the President visited Delhi in early March of 2006 -- and some of you were on that trip.

So this bill, passed by a wide -- by a bipartisan consensus in the Senate, and in the House by a very, very wide margin for the first time in three decades, would allow us to trade with India.

Now, those are the facts. I think there's a larger story here, and that is that the United States is making a strategic move to build a new relationship with India. And this legislation is the symbolic centerpiece of it. And I was in India just 10 days ago, and I can tell you it's the national story in India, because they look at it as the Bush administration, the United States, essentially accepting India on an equal basis as a global power. And we believe that there's a basis for India and the United States now to become strategic partners in the world. The President and Prime Minister have outlined a broad initiative, series of initiatives, designed to bring the two countries closer together.

This has always been the ultimate unfulfilled relationship since partition in 1947. I think every American administration since then, beginning with President Truman, has had the ambition to have a full relationship with India. It's never been -- it's never materialized. We think it's materializing now.

India has supported the United States in trying to isolate Iran on Iran's nuclear weapons research programs. India is a major proponent of democracy worldwide. It's the largest democracy in the world, soon to be the largest country in the world by population. It's a country that sees, I think, a strategic interest crossing with ours, intersecting with ours. And so we think this legislation represents a larger attempt by the administration to establish a good relationship with India.

Benefits of this deal: It's going to cement the strategic partnership, number one. Number two, it's going to strengthen the nonproliferation regime. Some of the critics of this legislation said early on that it would somehow weaken the regime, because India is a nuclear weapons power, and we would allow American companies to trade in the civil side.

Mohamed ElBaradei, the Director General of the IAEA, has come out consistently in the last six months to say he thinks it actually strengthens the nonproliferation regime, because we're bringing the largest country in the world into the system. Fourteen of India's 22 nuclear power plants will immediately come under IAEA safeguards; they haven't been for the last 30 years.

So the international community is going to have now a much greater confidence that what is happening in India is under international purview and all the future civilian power plants to be constructed -- and there will be a lot of them -- all of them will come under safeguards in the future. So we think in 10 or 15 years, 90 percent of all India's nuclear facilities should be under safeguards.

That brings India into the system, and that, therefore, strengthens it. Especially at a time when two of the countries inside the nonproliferation system, Iran and North Korea, are cheating on their international commitments, it's important to bring a country that has not cheated, India, that has protected its civil nuclear technology, into this international system.

There are also going to be energy and environmental benefits to this deal. India's coal accounts for about 50 percent of India's current energy usage, and India would like to reduce its dependence on fossil fuel. They have an ambition to build immediately eight 1,000 megawatt civil nuclear reactors, and they will come from overseas. They'd be of American design, we hope, or perhaps some other foreign design. We think American companies, like Westinghouse, should have a leg up when it comes to competing for this. It will reduce India's dependence on fossil fuels; it will be better for global climate change and air pollution.

India, of course, right now is outside the Kyoto regime, but a country that's contributing in a major way, unfortunately, negatively to CO2 emissions. So we think it has that benefit, as well.

So pleased to have bipartisan support. This is a big day for the relationship. And I'm happy to answer any questions you've got. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Why are you proliferating nuclear weapons, basically -- because India will be allowed to produce more on the nuclear weapons side? And also, it isn't cheating, because it never signed the nonproliferation treaty. So why don't you give civil nuclear to every nation, and bring them all into a great relationship that you want? ... Read more Comment (0), Email this.

UNDERSECRETARY BURNS: It has been a concern for a long time. And the question that we had to face and the Congress had to face was this: We have isolated India for 30 years, in the hopes that India would give up its nuclear weapons. India is certainly not going to do that. So the question is, do you keep India outside of the proliferation system for civil purposes and continue to wall it off, as we've done for the last 30 years, which has not worked? Or, do you bring the vast majority of its nuclear power plans under IAEA safeguards, and therefore, have a much better way to monitor what happens in India and be assured that India is living up to its international commitments? We thought that was a good bet, as did the majority of Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

UNDERSECRETARY BURNS: No, India has sufficient stores of uranium to produce nuclear weapons, a greater number, if it wanted to. But India actually has a fairly modest nuclear stockpile and has been a very responsible steward of it. So we faced a real world problem, and a choice -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

UNDERSECRETARY BURNS: We don't see it that way at all. And the choice was continued isolation, which gets you nothing, or bringing India into the international system with all the benefits strategic, and energy, and environmental, and proliferation, that I said.

And in answer to your question, Mohamed ElBaradei, not an American, who is Director General of the IAEA, he came out on March 2nd, the day that President Bush was in Delhi, and made this deal to say that he felt it would actually answer your concern, it would actually stem proliferation in the future, because India has not sold its nuclear technology anywhere. It hasn't sold it outside of India; it certainly hasn't let it go on the black market, as some countries have. And so it's a positive example of a country that's been abiding by the civil commitments. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

UNDERSECRETARY BURNS: Actually, they're not permitted to sign the NPT. When the NPT was agreed to, the treaty said that there should only be five nuclear weapons powers in the world. India came along three or four years later, in the mid-1970s, as you remember, conducted a nuclear test. It's not possible for India to join the NPT as a nuclear weapons state.

And so this agreement does not speak to nuclear weapons, but it does allow them, and allow us to have civil nuclear cooperation.

Thank you. Yes. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

UNDERSECRETARY BURNS: There are some -- I think the -- this is the major hurdle. The major hurdle was the agreement between India and the United States, number one, and the votes in the Congress. There was a big vote in the House in favor, in July; a very large vote, 85 to 12 in the Senate, in December; and then this conference bill that passed, I think by acclamation in the Senate, and by a wide margin in the House last week.

In the next few months we have to conclude a civil nuclear agreement, it's called a 123 agreement, between the United States and India. It will essentially be a codification of the last 18 months of our negotiation. So there aren't any major issues left to decide. And then India will have to negotiate an IAEA safeguards agreement with the IAEA, which Helen was referring to. And then we hope the rest of the world will then take the step that we've taken, that we take today, and we hope the Nuclear Suppliers Group -- this is the group of 40 civil nuclear countries in the world -- will agree by consensus that all of them will lift their restrictions on India, as well.

How long will all that take if we're in fifth gear and move real fast at the beginning of 2007? I would hope we could do all that in six months. And this will represent a major sea change in the way the world works, in India's acceptance in the world. It's also, I think, in many ways the emergence -- it details -- it speaks to the emergence of India as a global power, and the acceptance of India by the United States and the other powers in the world. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

UNDERSECRETARY BURNS: I'm confident. Russia, Germany, Britain, France, and Japan and Australia have all announced publicly they'll support. I was in China three weeks ago, talked to the Chinese. I do not believe the Chinese will block this. I think they will agree to consensus. There are some countries -- Ireland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland, the Nordics -- that have had some questions. But we're hopeful that they will join consensus. And I think they will. I think all eyes were on the United States. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

UNDERSECRETARY BURNS: All eyes were on the United States. They wanted to see if the Congress would support it. Now they've seen that in a bipartisan basis. And you have Senator Biden and Democratic Party Congressman Lantos, Senator Lugar, Congressman Hyde were the four who took the lead in this. You've seen the leadership of both political parties; a vote in favor of this. On the Democratic side, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd all voted for it.

So I think that the rest of the world is seeing that we're united in the United States, that we're willing to take this step forward. And there's a strong sense that India should be rewarded for the fact that during the last 30 years, while we've had a disagreement with them on the issue of nuclear weapons and nuclear testing, they've been very responsible, unlike some of their neighbors, and they have not exported their technology. They've protected their nuclear technology.

And so having them inside this nonproliferation system worldwide is going to strengthen us. Having the largest country in the world -- soon to be largest country in the world by population -- outside, just didn't make a lot of sense in the 21st century. Read more Comment (0), Email this.