SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Hi. I'd like to just cover three topics that were discussed by the leaders and on which there's been a lot of work leading up to the summit.

The first one is the framework for advancing transatlantic economic integration. The three leaders -- President Barroso, Chancellor Merkel and President Bush -- signed this today, and they spent a significant portion of their time together this morning discussing the importance of this agreement and the path that it really lays out for finding ways to reduce barriers to transatlantic economic trade and investment.

The agreement that was signed has three components of it that are worth mentioning. The first is a regulatory focus on finding ways to converge our different regulatory structure and our regulatory approaches when possible, and also reduce and streamline regulations when possible. As we've interacted with the business communities on both sides of the Atlantic, a consistent set of feedback that we've received is that the very different regulatory frameworks pose real barriers to economic advancement and growth in both economies.

So there's a regulatory focus, in terms of determining how to best develop regulations in the future, and also how to reduce the regulatory burden in key areas for sectoral cooperation. These areas include food safety and cosmetics, medical devices, automotive safety, chemicals and others.

Another part of the economic agreement, or the transatlantic economic integration agreement, is a set of priority projects focused on intellectual property rights and secure trade, financial markets, consolidation, investment promotion and innovation and technology. The Europeans often refer to these at lighthouse projects, and the Chancellor specifically spent some time thinking and talking about how important these projects are for the transatlantic economic relationship.

And then, finally, the agreement includes a transatlantic economic council, which is chaired by Al Hubbard on the U.S. side, and Vice President Verheugen, on the European side. And this group will convene key ministerial level members from both sides, as well as key constituents into a common dialogue that will assess the progress and focus of this transatlantic effort.

So there was a good bit of time focused on this agreement and all three leaders really highlighted what an important path this laid out for our future economic activity and advancement. They all noted that the agreement is an ambitious one and the important next step now is getting past the words and really executing on what are a very important set of priorities.

The second topic that the leaders spoke about -- and probably spent the most amount of time in their discussion on this topic -- is the Doha round. And they made it very clear that this transatlantic economic agreement, which focuses on those specific projects and on the regulatory environment is a very different set of activities than the multilateral trade round.

President Bush emphasized the importance he places on that, the importance that it has for the U.S. economy and the European economy, but also for the developing world. And Ambassador Schwab and Commissioner Mandelson were in the room, and there was a good bit of discussion on the progress that's been made, and on the focused next steps that the EU, the United States, and all critical parties need to take in the coming weeks and months to bring Doha to a successful conclusion. And there was a real uniform expression of commitment and goodwill to try to find a path ahead that would satisfy all those involved. So that was the second important area of discussion.

And then third was the energy security, energy efficiency, and climate change discussion. President Bush introduced this topic. They spent, the three leaders, a good bit of time talking about this. I think what was most notable out of that conversation is how much commonality there is around key principles that the leaders have, the emphasis they place on addressing these combined issues of energy security, climate change, and continued economic growth. There was a great deal of emphasis on the importance of technology in addressing that critical agenda. There was a great deal of emphasis placed on the importance of bringing the emerging economies into this discussion in the role that the EU and the United States could play in that. And there was also a discussion around the very different, in some ways, and in some ways similar activities that the various countries have taken.

So President Bush spent a good bit of time emphasizing what he has recently done in the transportation sector in terms of mandatory restrictions on -- or mandatory increases in CAFE standards and the mix of biofuels in our fuel supply. And there was a good bit of discussion around some of the recent steps taken by the European Union, as well as the joint efforts, and the U.S. effort in particular, around technology investment.

Much of this common ground was captured in a summit declaration around energy security, efficiency and climate change. And in that statement, there's a number of common priorities laid out, several that I'll highlight, is the emphasis that the leaders placed on the deployment of clean coal technology and carbon capture and storage technologies. This is an area where we and the European Union agree there needs to be a great deal of emphasis, in not only developing the technology but deploying it around the world.

A second area that is highlighted in the summit declaration is energy efficiency, especially in the transportation sector and in the building sector. A third area that there's a good bit of combined focus and clarity is around the research, development and deployment around biofuels, and developing a common set of standards. The President, as you all know, has a particular interest in that, and he spent a good bit of time during this morning's session talking about biofuels and the U.S. efforts to develop the next generation of technology in that area.

And then, finally, a fourth area of common focus is the methane recovery and use projects, where we and the European Union have a very cooperative effort underway, and we're looking for ways to further enhance that effort.

So those are the three topics. Those took up probably the majority of the sessions this morning, although there were certainly a number of other important political issues raised. So why don't I turn to my colleague and let her talk about those. SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I just want to briefly talk about the political and security issues that were raised today. And I would say that most of the lunch discussion focused on these issues, although one of them was touched on in the earlier session. You will see when these documents are put up on the website later today that there is a statement on promoting peace, human rights and democracy worldwide, and it is a statement that really represents the breadth of the relationship we have with the EU in addressing a number of global challenges.

Let me just highlight a couple of the issues that the leaders talked about. First was Kosovo and the need to quickly come to resolution on the final status for Kosovo, based on Special Envoy Ahtisaari's plan. They discussed Iran and the need to make sure that Iran does not develop a nuclear weapons capability; discussed Darfur, the importance of ending the violence there; our joint efforts in Afghanistan; reinvigorating the Middle East peace process, which the EU has become even more involved in with the reinvigoration of the Quartet process since Chancellor Merkel took over as EU President.

They discussed Latin America. The President talked a little bit about his trip to Latin America and the importance of working together on human rights and basic freedoms in Cuba. And there was also a discussion of the President's malaria initiative and the need to really address this problem.

I think I will stop there and, Kate, maybe turn it over to questions, if that's okay. MS. STARR: Yes, fine, time for questions. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q I'd just like to ask, on the economic integration agreement, what's the relationship between that

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes, that -- they are very much integrated. So as I mentioned, there are these specific lighthouse projects that have been identified by the Europeans, the Germans, and us. And one of those is focused specifically on financial markets. And so the whole effort here around identifying and agreeing upon common accounting standards is one of the area's focus. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Very much. Yes. It's something that I think Chris Cox has been involved in taking a leadership role in. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. STARR: Yes, standard practice, I think, after meetings of this sort is to just to background on the meeting. And also you've got the President a little bit on the record today. So we'll keep it on background, but appreciate your question; noted. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q My other question is basically, the leaders today were talking about progress on climate change

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, I guess a couple of things. If you even went back a couple of years ago, even two years ago, I think the discussion around climate change would have been the discussion in isolation of energy security, as well as economic growth. And what was I think notable today in the comments that President Barroso made, as well as Chancellor Merkel, was the emphasis that they both placed in all three, and the common ground that I think they have with the President in terms of the need to address all three holistically.

The second area that they spent a lot of time talking about and just really brainstorming around was how to engage together in a way that would make bringing the emerging economies into this discussion in a constructive way possible. And so there's now discussions about how to do that and how to do that effectively.

Then the third is the area of technology collaboration and cooperation, and the focus that the Europeans -- the Germans, in particular -- and we are placing on that. So this is not to suggest that there's uniform agreement on all aspects of climate policy. But on those foundation points, there is, and that's what they spent the bulk of their time talking about. And the President said this is a conversation that will continue at the G8 and in other forums, and he talks about it with them regularly. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q It's Olivier, but, close enough. I have one question for each of you, I think. The first one,

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, the agenda is still very much under discussion. But I think the fact that they all agree on the principles that I laid out before are important parts of the agenda. So the need for common action, the need for the right participants, the need for a focus on technology, a need for different approaches at the national level to fulfill a broader global objective. This was what came out of the discussion a bit, was the acknowledgment, I think, that the United States and Germany and the EU more broadly are all taking different approaches to a very common and significant global objective.

So there's a lot of common ground there. I think where there's not been common ground is around the wisdom and effectiveness of a global cap and trade system for fulfilling those objectives. And so there, frankly, wasn't a discussion about that today, but that's been an area where there's not been agreement. But there's certainly more areas of agreement than disagreement at this point. SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Let me just address the question on Kosovo. The discussion on Kosovo -- and you'll see some of this in the statement that they put out -- was on trying to get a U.N. Security Council resolution on Kosovo. They noted the fact that the Security Council has just taken a trip to Kosovo and Serbia. This was at the request of the Russians. That trip just got back over the weekend. There will be a report sometime this week, and hopefully based on that report we'll be able to move forward in a cooperative way and actually get a Security Council resolution. That's a far preferable way to move forward on that issue. And that was what the discussion focused on. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: They really -- their discussion really focused on getting some type of a Security Council resolution. Obviously, there are options outside of that, if that's not possible, but the focus is really on trying to work together through the Security Council at this point to try to get something done. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Hi there. Can you tell us any more about the high-level forum on climate change that Mr. Barroso

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: You know, the high-level forum has been something that has -- was established last year and has become the mechanism by which we have, from the United States, interacted with the European Union on this particular topic. Those dialogues have happened on a fairly regular basis, and that was actually the group that created the statement that we announced today. That group was comprised of a combination of people from the climate side, or the environment ministers, as well as the energy ministers, as well as the economic team.

And one of the key arguments that we've historically made, and that the Europeans have to some degree adopted, is that, again, these topics need to be considered together. And therefore, the people that should be talking about them and considering them are representing all those different aspects of policy.

I'm not actually -- I heard his comment and haven't had a chance to follow up on the second part of your question. I'm not exactly sure of the conference he was referring to. But we can certainly track that down. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: In terms of what happened on the Open Skies, there were no changes in terms of control of the business, U.S. companies. That would have required a role change, and/or legislation -- neither of those have happened. This is really about access to the markets, in terms of flights from the U.S. to Europe and from Europe to the U.S. Issues of ownership will be dealt with in a second stage negotiation that won't start until 2008. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, the Open Skies refers to access to the routes, and access to the various slots at airports throughout Europe and the United States. The ownership issues -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: March. SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: March of 2008, by the terms of the agreement. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Hi. I'm wondering if you can explain what's next in terms of the U.N. international negotiations

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: There was not any detailed discussion of the specifics of that agenda. I think that that is certainly one of the topics that Chancellor Merkel has outlined as something that she'd like to discuss at the G8. And so this is a discussion that's going to take -- continue to take place in the months ahead. The G8 will be an opportunity where the leaders will talk about these issues again.

And that's an interesting forum because you have Japan, who has just recently -- Prime Minister Abe was here last week, and there was a statement on energy security and climate with Prime Minister Abe and the President, and Japan is a member of the Asia Pacific Partnership, so there's a host of endeavors there, as well as Russia, Canada, and the United States, all of whom have common objectives, I think, but different approaches to achieving those objectives.

So the G8 will provide a forum to begin to try to reconcile those views, and I suspect one of the topics might be how those common views come together in a common agenda through the U.N. or other mechanisms for promoting a climate change, energy security and economic growth agenda. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

PRESS CORPS: (Applause.) Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Just hanging out. Thank you so much, it's great to be back. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: All right. Well, on that note, let me announce the President's schedule for today. He received normal briefings in the morning. There is ongoing a meeting with the U.S.-EU leaders in the Oval Office right now. There will be a working lunch with the U.S.-EU leaders at noon, and a joint press availability at 1:25 p.m. That will be a two-plus-two-plus two, for those keeping score.

At 2:15 p.m., a meeting with TransAtlantic Business Dialogue. It is something that was set up by the late Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown, designed to promote closer commercial ties between the United States and the European Union, creates a mechanism to encourage input to foster a more closely integrated transatlantic marketplace.

At 3:45 p.m., a photo opportunity with the FIRST award winners. FIRST was founded in 1989 to inspire young people's interest and participation in science and technology. The President will participate in a photo opportunity with winners of the FIRST Robotics Competition -- they are from Baltimore, Maryland.

Let me also just -- some personal comments -- and I'll try not to get choked up, so I'll go slow. You never anticipate this stuff, it just happens. I want to thank everybody in this room. You guys -- (thumbs up.) (Applause.) I'm getting there. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Thanks. And thanks for the basket. (Laughter.) I want to thank you all. It really meant the world to me. Anybody who does not believe that thoughts and prayers make a difference, they're just wrong. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: I will, thanks -- especially you. Just a couple things about my situation. I'm not trying to feel sorry for myself, I'm just going to stop being choked up, because you guys have been so wonderful.

I'm a very lucky guy. As I told you before, we were, out of an aggressive sense of caution, going to do an exploratory surgery that did indicate that I still have cancer. Now, I know the first reaction of people when they hear the word "cancer" is uh-oh. But we live in kind of a different medical situation than we used to. And I have been blessed to be treated by, supported by some of the finest doctors in the world. What we are going to do -- we had surgery, where we did disclose -- and there are some cancers in the peritoneum and we are going to attack them using chemotherapy -- I'll start chemotherapy this Friday.

The design is to throw it into remission and transform it into a chronic disease. If cancer is merely a nuisance for a long period of time, that's fine with me. There are many people running around -- and I must tell you, I have received a lot of notes from folks who have had far worse cases than I have, who have survived many years with the kind of regimen that we're talking about, which is chemo up front, and then maintenance chemo to continue combating cancer tells.

I won't tell you how it's going to work out, because I don't know. But we obviously feel optimistic, and faith, hope and love are a big part of all of it.

The other thing is that I hope folks out there who may either have cancer or have loved ones with cancer need to know a couple of things. First, don't go it alone. The support I've received from you and from my colleagues at the White House and people around the country has been an enormous source of strength. You can't -- there's no way to quantify it, but you feel it. You feel it in your heart. And in many ways, that may be the most important organ for recovery, to have the kind of spirit and to realize that, in my case, I'm unbelievably lucky and unbelievably blessed -- and really happy to be back.

The other thing is -- so don't go it alone, and the other thing is be of courage. Realize that in an age like ours, things are happening very rapidly in the medical realm. I'm taking a cancer cocktail this time around, a chemo cocktail that's going to contain two agents that were not in broad use two years ago. Things are moving very rapidly, and there's always hope.

Not everybody will survive cancer, but on the other hand, you've got to realize you've got the gift of life, so make the most of it. And that is my view, and I'm going to make the most of my time with you. I'll take questions. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Okay, first, we can cut cameras now, because we have cut to the other portion of our thing.

As far as the Iran supplemental, we have not. So the real question -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: I mean, the Iraq supplemental. Yes. The Iran supplemental would be entirely different. (Laughter.) Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: As one famous host said, "I-r-a-k." Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: No, we're not.

No, so we don't know. Again, this is a question -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: No. And this is a question for Capitol Hill. It's now been passed for five days. We're not quite sure why it's been so difficult to convey it one mile up Pennsylvania Avenue, but we will get back to you when we know. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Well, the President has talked to the Deputy Prime Minister, as you know he's hosted him here, and he's had conversations with him before. Part of -- the President deals with leaders throughout the Iraqi government, and so to speak, with Mr. Al Hashimi, as well. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Not that I'm aware of. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Well, he's saddened by it, but it was the appropriate thing to do. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: That would -- Andre, I'll get back to you on that. MR. JOHNDROE: Yes. MR. SNOW: It's yes. The answer is, yes. Thank you. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: No, but when we have a personnel announcement, we'll make it. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Again, we're -- I'm not going to get into the process. We'll let you know when we have somebody. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Well, again, rather than jumping what you all will be able to hear about, everybody will have statements and questions at 1:25 p.m. But obviously a host of predictable issues before the U.S. and the EU -- economic cooperation, trade, energy, environment, such as climate change, security issues, joint security issues. So last year I know there was a very detailed agenda, and we got through a whole lot of items, and there is a similar situation this year. So I think I'll let the leaders address those in a few minutes. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: No, it wasn't. No. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: I don't think so. I did not see anything in the briefing notes that would indicate -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Yes, it's an annual conference at CENTCOM. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Are we winning the war? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Yes, exactly, welcome back. (Laughter.) You know, April, we're fighting the war, and it's an important thing to understand that the only way to lose the war is to walk away from it, and that this country not only has made a commitment to the people of Iraq, but the people of Iraq have made a commitment in blood and treasure, as well. And we are working to create a situation where that government, in fact, is going to be able to provide for its citizens, not only economically, but most importantly, a democracy that will respect the rights of all, that will protect those rights, and that will be able to stand tall among the community of nations. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: The notion that somehow the United States walks away and there are no consequences I think is the sort of thing that -- it doesn't make any sense. Think of it this way: The United States walks away, who stands to benefit? Answer, terrorists, al Qaeda, the people who are fighting democracy.

One of the reasons -- furthermore, if you are thinking about what goes on within the region, if you are a Middle Eastern power, if you're anybody in the region, and you see this happening, you're going to lose confidence in the United States of America. Let me put it this way: Our allies do not want us simply to leave on a timetable. The Iraqis do not want us to leave. People within the region do not want us to leave, because it does create the possibility of chaos and bloodshed on a horrific scale.

And, furthermore, what it will do is make us less secure as a nation. The fact that it is difficult does not mean that we should walk away from it. As a matter of fact, it is difficult precisely because you have a determined enemy, but we will demonstrate the determination to prevail in Iraq and to help the Iraqis prevail. This is the Iraqis' fight; we are there to assist. And we are building capability on the military side, on the security side, on the economic side and on the diplomatic side. That's part of what will happen in the Baghdad conference.

So the idea -- again, if we turn tail, to use your formulation, what it means is that we weaken ourselves, and we weaken ourselves not only over there, but on our own soil, as well. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: No, the fact is, you understand that a military engagement -- if you describe yourself as weakening yourself every time you respond to an enemy, that doesn't strike me as the proper way to frame what happens in a military engagement of that sort. Americans don't like war. We understand that. But Americans also don't like the idea, I don't believe, of a policy that would strengthen al Qaeda, that would strengthen terrorists, that would weaken the United States, and would make us less secure.

It is a tough decision. The President understands that. And it is something that certainly does wear on the American people. But as Commander-in-Chief, the President has a solemn obligation to keep this country safe -- that is in tough times and in good times; that is also when polls are with him and polls are against him. But his obligation is to keep us safe, and he's determined to do that. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Number one, it gets back to what you're saying. If you try to impose timetables, what you end up doing is you say to enemies, you know, all you have to do is create a little bit of chaos. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Well, if you set a political benchmark with penalties, that would imply that you have a timetable, that you have certain deadlines. A couple of points -- and Secretary Rice made some of these yesterday.

First, the Iraqis, themselves, have set up benchmarks, and they share them. The fact that they do not make progress as rapidly as we might like is frustrating. The President has made it clear, and he said it many times, that the patience of the American people is not unlimited. Meanwhile, as you know, the Iraqis have said -- the Council of Ministers has passed an oil law, and there is still activity along those lines. Some of the other issues may take longer. But the Iraqis share the same goals, and we continue to make it clear to them that they need to do -- they need to take these seriously and they need to move forward as rapidly as possible.

Meanwhile, you also have the situation where terrorists are being pretty clever about it: When things seem to be moving in a certain direction, you go ahead and you set up a series of coordinated bombings that's designed once again to reignite old hatreds between groups, or at least suspicions, and therefore, stall political progress.

So you have a whole series of things that affect the political situation. The Baghdad security plan is designed in a comprehensive way to try to address situations so that you can have more rapid political progress. Do we want to see more rapid political progress? Yes. But do we want to be binding people on the basis of artificial deadlines? No. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Again, I'm not going to negotiate. What's important right now, when we're talking about the supplemental is, let us give our troops the support they need now. We have already been forced to start reallocating money within the defense budget. By the 15th of this month, it's going to become more acute, and all of a sudden, people say they support the troops are going to have to explain why if they support the troops, number one, they drag their feet on sending a supplemental to the White House. Again, they passed it five days ago. It shouldn't -- it's a pretty simple procedure. In fact, I could walk down and pick it up today. But, apparently, it's still -- some difficulty in making its way from Capitol Hill.

But the President understands that people wanted to make a political statement. Fine. Now step forward rather than having military families suffer and equipment -- not being able to replace equipment as rapidly as necessary or proper, let's go ahead and get on with this and get the bill passed. And the President has made it clear that he wants to sit down with bipartisan leadership, bicameral leadership on Wednesday. He's down at CENTCOM tomorrow, and we'll see how quickly we can get it done. He does feel confident and optimistic that we're going to get -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Again -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Again, I think -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: I think what you -- in other words, what you're going to say is, we are going to weaken you if you don't move fast enough. I think the most important thing you've got to do is demonstrate -- number one, you're got to do whatever you can to assist the Iraqis to move quickly. You also have to demonstrate good faith.

A lot of times, you have to ask yourself the question, who are you -- who's behavior are you really going to influence with certain actions? Will you encourage the Iraqis, or will you, in fact, give aid and encouragement to the people who are trying to make the government fail?

Having said that, I'm not going to get up here and start negotiating what may be discussed between the President and bicameral-bipartisan leadership. But he's made it clear what his position is, and he's made it clear for a very long time. People on the Hill have known for three months what the President's position is, and a clear veto message has been out for over a month. And so the fact is the symbolic vote has taken place, everybody come back now; once you finish this up, done your symbolic stuff, come back and do your real work. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Well, I'm not going to -- again, I'm not getting into sort of gaming this other than to say, we work to assist the Iraqis. And the assumption of the question is that the Iraqis don't want progress. They do. It's tough. And, therefore, what you're assuming is they don't really want to do it, but if we punish them, then that will change behavior. And what I'm saying is be careful, because if you set up punishments, you may change behavior for the worse by, in fact, strengthening the hands of the people who want the democracy to fail.

So you have to take all those into account when you're considering policy. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q A point of order, if I may. You've inserted twice, and alluded a third time, that the fact that

MR. SNOW: First, you've got 20 million Iraqis. It is pretty clear that al Qaeda -- their behavior does not -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Well, the Iraqis -- well, no, again, you take a look -- the Council of Ministers has passed an oil law. Now you have to go through the business of getting something passed by the parliament. I would just point you to Capitol Hill, where things are not moving as rapidly as leaders there thought would happen when they convened this year. No, I'm just saying democracy is not always as prim and predictable as one might think.

The second thing is, if you take a look at the Baghdad security plan, there are 80,000 people providing security in Baghdad right now; the majority of them are Iraqis. Iraqis have been laying down their -- laying their lives on the line. They still continue, after numerous attacks on police and military sites -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Well, but you also see that there has been -- well, go to Anbar. What you have seen there is a shift on the part of tribal leaders -- it's been documented in a number of places in recent days that there has, in fact, been tangible improvement because you have seen a change in the behavior on the part of Iraqis who in the past had not been so assertive against al Qaeda.

So I think it's very difficult to generalize. There are situations that -- there are differences in situations, neighborhood to neighborhood, within Baghdad. But if you take a look at what the Iraqi people have done -- risking their lives to vote, risking their lives to serve -- I think it is pretty clear that they do, in fact, want a stable democracy, and it is a tough thing to do. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: And there have also been stories of fractures within the Mahdi army. But let me put it this way: We're aware of the stories and we're concerned about them, and those are the kinds of things we do discuss with the Iraqis. It is vital for the success of an Iraqi democracy to have security forces that will enforce the law fairly, regardless of who you are or regardless of what group you belong to. We've said it many times, and that continues to be a point of emphasis. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Again, it's -- if you've taken a look at what's gone on, there has been aggressive action within Baghdad in Shia neighborhoods. At this point, I don't want to get too far into trying to prospect what may happen. Keep in mind, we are not yet halfway into full deployment within the Baghdad security plan, and we're continuing to work with the government of Iraq. But, again, we're aware of the reports, we're concerned about them, and that will be a focus of conversations. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: I don't know -- I can't -- I haven't had a chance to talk with him about it, Mark, but I think -- Secretary Rice made it clear that she was a little surprised, because George Tenet is somebody who served the nation well. And it is a tough business to be director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

But the idea that you're scapegoated was a surprise. He felt strongly about the pre-war intelligence, as did people on both sides of the aisle -- Jay Rockefeller, as well as Jon Kyl. You know, you had three-quarters of the United States Senate standing up and talking -- voting on a war resolution, many people talking about imminent threats. And the intelligence was shared not only within the intelligence community in the United States, with the White House and our intelligence agencies, and the intelligence committees on Capitol Hill, but also foreign intelligence operations.

And, obviously, there were some real problems with that intel, which is one of the reasons why there has also been, on a bipartisan basis, an effort to overhaul in a very comprehensive way the way we go about the business of intelligence. So we do not believe he was scapegoated, but he certainly has his first amendment right to lay out his view. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Tony, what Tenet is saying publicly now is what we were being told privately at the time, which

MR. SNOW: I'm not going to go back and flyspeck, but the fact is that everybody got listened to. And Secretary Rice -- no, Wendell, it's interesting. The notion that somehow going into a time of war that the President would not take seriously every piece of intelligence or opinion he would get from qualified people is preposterous. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Well, that' not the way he operates. I'm sorry, but the President is not the kind of guy who says, tell me what I want to hear. As a matter of fact, you sit in a meeting and you try to do that, you're not going to get very far. What the President wants and demands of his people is -- are their best opinions and their best advice, and that's the way it operates. So -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Well, he got some advice that -- you know, it's interesting, Bill, you can say about any war that Commanders-in-Chief got lousy advice, because wars never work out quite the way you planned. But what does have to happen is that you have to follow through so that you do have success. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Tony, two for you. One is, could you share with us some thoughts about the White House's view

MR. SNOW: Well, obviously, he works very closely with Prime Minister Olmert, and thinks that he's essential in working toward a two-state solution. The President remains committed to it. We're not going to comment on, obviously, internal investigations within the Israeli government. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q The other is that on January 11th, Secretary Rice said that the Iraqi government had two to three

MR. SNOW: I don't know, it's -- again, I would defer questions like that, at this juncture, to folks who are closer to the realities on the ground. It is clear that there has been some progress in some areas. But on the other hand, as General Petraeus has also said, it's going to take a while to continue not only deploying folks in support of the Baghdad security plan, these things do take time.

But, Olivier, the core of your question, is this a violent essential element in having a successful Iraqi democracy? The answer is, yes.

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

MR. SNOW: Thank you, sir. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: You know what, thank you. I have -- I want to thank -- what a selfish idiot. Dana and everybody else in the press office have done an extraordinary job. And that should have been the first thing out of my mouth, because the support I got from the White House was absolutely astounding. So yes, a star has been born.

Go ahead. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Les, I am here to speak for the President, and I guarantee you he is not going to have an opinion, either. The Washington Post can -- has its own editorial judgment, and we will let it stand. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: You're going to follow up on the question I didn't answer. (Laughter.) Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: I don't know. Look, the guy -- I've told you what I'm going to say. We're saddened, and he resigned, and it was the proper thing to do. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

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

MR. SNOW: Wait, I want to step in, because number one, your characterization does not, in fact, square with the facts of trial. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Which would be incorrect. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: That's wrong. That's wrong. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: No, no, no, no. Again, he has his right to free speech and his characterization, but I'm not going to respond to that. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: It's a question that often comes up. There have been a number of occasions, and I've outlined these before, where we have had so-called one on one conversations with Iran in the context of other issues, in Sharm el-Sheikh and other places, where, for instance, if there are to be conversations with the Iranians, these will not be things that betoken a change in the diplomatic status, they will not be on issues that are unrelated to Iraq. And we have had conversations like that with them before. And as a matter of fact, there was at one time an offer to deal on a government-to-government basis on security issues, and it was the Iranians who ended up turning down the offer.

So there may be conversations, but as Secretary Rice said, if there were, they would involve issues such as the impropriety of sending weaponry over the border or the importance of making sure that terrorists are not making their way into the country, the importance of supporting rather than undermining the government of Iraq, and so on. So it is -- it's not the case, in other words, that there would be -- there would not be conversations about other unrelated matters. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: No, but she can control what she discusses, which is unlike what I'm able to do with -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Go ahead, Mark. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Okay, Victoria, yes. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

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

MR. SNOW: Again, that's really a question to address to General Petraeus. The fact is, to get up and make predictions, first, is an act of pure folly because you are always hostage to changing events on the ground and changing situations. What we've been trying to do is to respond as nimbly to changing circumstances and also to learn from them. The President has spent a lot of time ordering people to take a good, close look at everything in Iraq and Afghanistan; we've adjusted tactics and strategy -- to get back to our old conversations -- so that we have a more effective approach that, in fact, makes the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan more capable of standing on their own.

What the timetable may be, I don't know. General Petraeus I think is the person who is probably best suited, and he doesn't try to answer that question definitively because it's not humanly possible. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: That is -- at this point, that is a dispute between the two nations. We think it's important that nations in the region understand the importance of an Iraqi democracy that can stand up and also can serve as a bulwark against terrorism, which is a threat to all nations in the region, whether they be Sunni, Shia, or other. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Well, he apparently thought that it was the proper thing to do, and I will not get into details because I don't know them. Whew! (Laughter.) Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: No, but get back to me, I'll get you an answer. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. SNOW: Thanks, everybody. Thank you again. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Eighty days after President Bush submitted his troop funding bill, the Senate has now joined the House in passing defeatist legislation that insists on a date for surrender, micro-manages our commanders and generals in combat zones from 6,000 miles away, and adds billions of dollars in unrelated spending to the fighting on the ground.

I just spoke to the President in the Oval Office, and as he said he would for weeks, the President will veto this legislation, and he looks forward to working with congressional leaders to craft a bill that he can sign. It is amazing that legislation urgently needed to fund our troops took 80 days to make its way around the Capitol, but that's where we are.

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

MS. PERINO: We still don't know when we will get the bill. We don't know when we're going to get the bill, so we'll make that decision once we have it. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Well, the President has said that he wants to get the money to the troops as soon as possible. And so as soon as we get the bill, the President, as you could imagine, would make good on his promise to veto it, and then we'll take it from there. And you can assume that the President would soon meet -- quickly after that -- with the congressional leaders in order to start work on the bill. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: A little bit too early to preview, but the main point is the President is going to veto the bill, and then get to work with the congressional members on the next step. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Dana, the latest CBS News poll has 64 percent of those polled in favor of setting timetables for

MS. PERINO: I've said it many times before, and I'll just repeat it. We understand that Americans are tired of this war, they are weary, and they are frustrated, and they want the troops to come home. We want the troops to come home as well, and you're talking about a date for withdrawal. The President is the Commander-in-Chief. He stands on principle. He does not make decisions -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: His principle is that he is not going to put our troops into the position of having a date -- a surrender date without providing the Iraqis the chance that they need in order to get the political reconciliation that they need. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Look, I'm not going to -- I can't tell you exactly how your poll ran, or how the question was phrased. I do think that the American people would understand that rashly pulling out quickly, without conditions being right on the ground, is dangerous for the long-term security interests of the United States. Now it is incumbent upon this administration to explain why we think that is the case, and I understand that there are people who disagree, people who are ready for the troops to come home. The President strongly believes that setting a date for surrender is not the way to do that. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Let me just follow once on that, because I think what's most interesting in this poll is that two

MS. PERINO: Jim, you've covered the White House long enough to know that this President does not make decisions or change with the wind as the polls change. He understands that it's not popular. He understands how he could be popular, but he's going to continue to have the principled stand that he has. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q This isn't an issue about popularity at this point, it's a question of which path are you going

MS. PERINO: Jim, one thing I would say is that it's not just the President who believes that a precipitous withdrawal is a bad idea. General David Petraeus, who was on Capitol Hill yesterday and gave a press conference today, has said similar, as did the Iraq Study Group, the Baker-Hamilton group, as did the National Intelligence Estimate that is the consensus of the 16 intelligence agencies that looked into this issue. They all said that a precipitous withdrawal would be devastating for Iraq and for the region, and then ultimately have negative consequences for the long-term security of this country. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: What the President has asked is that -- he understood last November that people wanted a change in the war. He himself said he wasn't satisfied with the way that it was going. And so he took pains to have a comprehensive review in order to create the Baghdad Security Plan now being implemented by David Petraeus. What the President has asked for is for the Congress to give -- and the American people to give this plan a chance to work.

And what you heard from David Petraeus this week -- I'm sorry, I should call him General Petraeus -- is that he doesn't have all the troops there that he's asked for. That should be about mid-June, he said, when they will all get there. They're having small signs of success, the sectarian violence is down, but we have the spectacular bombings from al Qaeda. And he said that sometimes, you start to -- he can see progress on the ground, but that can be overtaken by one spectacular bombing by al Qaeda in a major market that kills hundreds of people. And these are not just -- this is not just killing of American troops. These are innocent men, women, and children of Iraq who are trying to go about their daily lives.

And the American troops are there to help try to protect them and to allow this new government to get the de-Baathification law finished, and get the oil law finished. And we understand that it's very difficult for them, but we also -- I can assure you that the President is constantly in contact with Prime Minister Maliki, pressuring him and pushing him and showing him how to lead that country so that it can be one that can sustain, defend, and govern itself. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Dana, why isn't it working? I mean, General Petraeus talks about -- the security situation is

MS. PERINO: Well, I think if you listen to David Petraeus, it's not exactly where we were last year, and that he has said the sectarian violence is down by a third. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: There has been some progress. And granted -- and President -- we recognize that there are many issues, like those three that I just mentioned -- the de-Baathification law, and the oil law, and the provisional regional elections -- provincial elections -- has not moved forward fully, it's not finalized. But there has been progress and steps forward. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: It is key. It is absolutely key. But I think that everyone should keep in mind, we have a fully functioning democracy that's been in place for 200 years. Our Congress, it took them five years to pass one energy bill. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: And I think that they are starting to make some progress. The oil law has now -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

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

MS. PERINO: The President has said -- well, I think the way that I would look at it is that the President has said, we're going to try the surge to try the -- to quell the violence there in Baghdad so that the government can have a little bit more time. And as I've just told you, General Petraeus said they're just about two months into the surge, and they don't have -- he doesn't have all the troops there that he wants, and it's going to take a while.

And as I said yesterday, General Petraeus will provide an assessment towards the fall, and that's, I think, when -- I think that's how I would look at the time frame. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Can we also go to something you said this morning, which you said, opponents of the administration

MS. PERINO: And he specifically also said, and this is a quote, "We still have difficult work to do in a dangerous country, which needed [sic] to be rebuilt." He also said, "The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time." And he has also said -- let me remind you what he said on January 10th -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: What the President has said -- what we were talking about then was the fighting -- we toppled the Iraqi government, we toppled the Iraqi army, and that was a pretty quick succession of events.

But what the President then said, and he said on January 10th, is that he acknowledged many times that the U.S. underestimated the insurgence and the foreign fighters' ability to foment sectarian violence and to perpetrate terrorist attacks. And then he also said, "Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me." Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: The President -- because of what -- I think that if you only take the one line, that the end of combat operations -- major combat operations, that's true, but the President also -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Okay, well -- and that's what I meant by that this morning. And we have explained it many times. And you know what? I have a feeling I'm just on the losing end of this battle because the left has decided to believe what they want to believe, which is that the President was saying that the war was over and the troops were coming home. That's not what he said, and I just told you specifically what he said, and I encourage people to read the whole speech.

And that ship -- I'll get to you in a second -- USS America [sic] Lincoln had been deployed for well over its stated period. It was supposed to be gone for six months, and I think it was several months later, that they were coming home. And it was the ship that -- that mission was accomplished. And the President never said, "mission accomplished" in the speech, and people use it that -- now I understand that that's what the banner said, I understand that. But I'm telling you what the President -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: But Martha, what the President said is that the transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time. It is -- we still had difficult work to do in a dangerous country which needed to be rebuilt. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I would certainly hope not. I think that if that's true, that it is very troubling that Democrats would be so cynical to use our troops in that way, to use troops for a political PR stunt, and to withhold money from the troops and their families. We already know the hardships that are happening from the military based on this.

And I also think that given that they say that they want to provide funding for the troops, it is curious why they didn't appoint conferees for two weeks, and I'm not sure if that had anything to do with this particular timing. I know that their on-the-record quotes are saying that it's just a coincidence, but certainly, the background chatter that they're providing to you anonymously would lead you to -- would only lead me to conclude that they are using the troops for their own political PR stunts. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: There's a key difference. One is that -- a couple of things. We did not provide the Congress the detail in the request that we did this year with the budget. In fact, we provided it to them later than when the budget came out. This year, we heard their complaints, and we got the request for the supplemental to them the same day as we sent up the regular budget of the United States.

In addition to that, there were some complaints, but the major key difference is, last year we knew that eventually -- that we were going to get a bill that the President could sign. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q The point is, though, that it took 40 days longer for a Republican Congress to pass a war funding

MS. PERINO: No, I don't think that we're exaggerating at all. I think if you look at the words from the military, from Secretary Gates and General Pace, that those are real things, and this stage in the war is different than last year. We're in a surge right now. And I think the other thing that they're looking at are some of their long-term procurement contracting issues, that they need to have this money now.

I think you can't underestimate the importance of realizing that we realized that we would get a bill last year that we could sign. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q But on the question of major combat operations, isn't it more broadly just that, when you said

MS. PERINO: As I said, the President has acknowledged numerous times that he and the administration underestimated the sectarian violence and the ability of al Qaeda in Iraq to foment these spectacular -- I'm sorry, to perpetrate these spectacular bombings, in which hundreds of innocent people are killed. And he said that where any of those mistakes were made, that the responsibility rests with him. And I think that the American people can rest assured that their Commander-in-Chief, number one, takes on that responsibility, and number two, has only the best interests of their security in mind when he makes these decisions. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I'm going to leave that to General Petraeus, who said that it would be sometime in the fall in which he would give an assessment. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Dana, looking beyond the veto, you said that the President will be talking to members of Congress

MS. PERINO: I know that those are all the questions that are burning on your mind. I am not going to negotiate from this podium. I think the best thing to do is let the President get the bill, veto it, and then as I said, you could assume that he would be meeting quickly with congressional leaders. And I'm going to let them talk about it from there. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Sheryl, I'm not going to negotiate at all from here, give any sort of signal in any which way or form.

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

Q The President has accused the Democrats of holding up funding to the troops. But it's the President

MS. PERINO: No, Matt -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: No. For several weeks the Democrats have known that if the bill, in its current form, is sent to him, that he would veto it. They've also said that they don't plan on cutting off funds for the troops. And given that, since they don't have and they know they don't have the votes to override the President's veto, it is their responsibility to send the President a bill that he can sign. They said -- they insisted on sending him a bill that they knew he couldn't sign. They insisted on sending him a bill that he would veto. And what he had said is, I will reluctantly do so, and then we'll have to get about the business of working on a bill that I can sign. And as you -- as Sheryl's question just indicated, we know that they're going to do that. So the responsibility rested with them.

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

Q Dana, as the time line issue is lingering, and Americans are in the polls saying they're tired

MS. PERINO: I'm sorry, I don't understand what your question is. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Of course there's pressure. And that's why the President kind of changed strategy in January, and is hoping that the American people and the Congress would give the new strategy a chance to work. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I think the President feels pressure to accomplish the mission, fulfill the mission that he's promised to the troops and to their families, and -- why are you looking at me like that? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I'm answering your question. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: April, what I'm saying is that the surge, as General David Petraeus explained today, he doesn't have all the troops that he has said that he will need in order to fulfill his mission. And so the pressure is to let that process get underway and let the troops get there so that they can fulfill it. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: It's not going to take 10 years. He said they'd be there by mid-June, April. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: No, none of us have said it's going to happen immediately. We have said that we are up against a very determined enemy. This is a sworn enemy of the United States who are being helped by other sworn enemies of the United States. This is very serious. We are deluding ourselves if we think that we walk away, that everything is going to be okay, and that we can just let that region fester and not have any consequences for it, and not have to suffer the consequences of our actions here in Washington. And that is why the President has the principled stand that he does. And he is the Commander-in-Chief, with the long-term national security interests of this country in mind with every step of the way.

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

Q The General today said that, essentially, this is not an open-ended commitment. He talked about

MS. PERINO: As one would expect. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: We are very clear-eyed about the situation, and we are also very heartened and honored that General David Petraeus is leading this mission. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: The President is determined to win in Iraq. I think that the bill that they sent us today is mission defeated. And the President wants us to win in Iraq, not only just for the long-term security interests of this nation, but because 12 million people in Iraq came out and they voted, and they wanted a new government and they wanted a constitution. And they said -- they wanted -- they thanked us for allowing them that opportunity, and now we have a responsibility to help that young government stabilize, to get themselves some laws that will get on the books, and will establish some political reconciliation.

Granted, Martha, this is very tough going; it is slow going. But we have to have slow, focused, persistent work, and encouraging patience on behalf of the American people. As you said, there's a -- there's this talk about an American clock versus an Iraqi clock, and sometimes the two don't tick at the same time.

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

MS. PERINO: Can we stay on Iraq, just in case, and then -- anybody else on Iraq? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q I have one more about the oil law, de-Baathification, the constitution stuff. Is it your thought

MS. PERINO: Jim, I'm not going to answer that hypothetical, because al Qaeda is in Iraq. They have said this is the battle for them to win. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I'm not going to start the stop watch on the Iraqi government. We encourage them to do it soon. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: No, it's not. Listen, the Iraqis also want progress, and they want it fast. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q But there's been lots of reports this week that say, regardless of the terrorist activity, there

MS. PERINO: I think that even in our Congress, you can find people who say that we're never going to get an immigration bill this year, or we're never going to be able to get No Child Left Behind reauthorized. Look, we're all working towards it. This is a new democracy, and I think that they deserve a little bit of time to be able to get things done. That's what our -- that's what we offer our Congress, as well. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I'm not going to do that to them.

Go ahead. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Let me go to Ben. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Part of the Democratic plan is to hold the Iraqi government accountable. And the President often

MS. PERINO: I think that -- well, one, I think that the President realizes that one of the -- you don't necessarily work with a government that way, with a sovereign government that way. The President has said he's not -- his patience isn't unlimited, and the American patience isn't unlimited. We've also -- as I've said, I mean, nobody wants peace and stability in Iraq more than the Iraqis. So they feel a lot of pressure on themselves in order to accomplish what is going to be very hard for any democracy. And it would be hard for this Congress to be able to pass those things through.

It's very complicated. But I think that we have to look at this objectively. One of the things that they did do that they are being held accountable for, is they passed a bill in Iraq to spend $10 billion of their own money to start help rebuilding that country. And I think that that shows commitment on their part.

Let me go to Martha, and then Sarah. Okay. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I saw a newspaper report about that. I don't know. I just -- what I do know is that what the President has said is that this will be a generational war, and I think that people who have -- understand that the enemy that we face -- and I know that Admiral Fallon is one of them -- that this is going to take a long time. I don't know. I'd have to -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I'd have to refer you to Admiral Fallon. I saw a briefing about that -- I'm sorry, a report about that. But there's no doubt that it's going to take a generation in order to help stamp out this enemy. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Go ahead, Sarah. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Sarah, I've answered that question several times today. I'll refer you back to the transcript.

Keith, go ahead. I'm just -- let's move on. Keith. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I think that's kind of ridiculous question. I mean, there's -- sorry, I usually don't say those things, but I do think that that one was. Look, there is nothing wrong with political appointees providing other political appointees with an informational briefing about the political landscape in which they are working. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: What, you think that we should just look at the CBS/New York Times poll and make our decisions based on that? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Jim would agree. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: The motivation is to provide people information. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Why are you asking me these questions? You're asking information, as well. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: My point was that you're asking -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: These are information -- they're informational briefings about the political landscape. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I think it sort of goes both ways. I do know that political appointees around the government -- I used to work at an agency, and you are interested in -- the reason that you're here working for the President is that you want to support his policies and his agenda, and so it's good to get information from time to time. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I think that these briefings -- well, I know the Clinton administration had similar briefings. Where did they originate? I don't know. I couldn't give you a date. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Can I follow up? I just wondered why, then, did, according to apparently six witnesses that have

MS. PERINO: I never talked to Scott Jennings about that. I think that -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Well, I'm not going to speculate as to what he would have meant by that or not. I mean, he could have meant that that was an inappropriate comment to make in front of other people and talked about that off line, instead of embarrassing her in front of -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Checking with Counsel's Office and talking about informational briefings about political landscape, that that is okay, that that is acceptable; there is nothing in the law that says you can't do that, it's not unethical. And it is something that is absolutely reasonable and appropriate, to provide political appointees with information about the landscape in which they're working. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: "What if?" "What if?" I'm not answering "what ifs," Ed. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q But you don't know the answers to those questions, do you? I mean, how can you make a blanket

MS. PERINO: You're asking me to prove a negative and I can't -- nobody can do that. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: The question is whether or not the political briefings are inappropriate, unethical or unlawful. And the answer to all three of those questions is, no. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: "Even if," "Even if," I'm not -- you can -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Right, but what I'm saying is you don't -- I have not spoken to Scott Jennings about this, I don't think that I will. If the Office of Special Counsel wants to look into this, they are more than welcome to -- but I'm not going to get into the middle of someone else's investigation. I'm not going to do it. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: As a general rule -- as a general matter, yes, they had approved them. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Not necessarily, no. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I think that's what -- yes, of course. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I didn't say that. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: No. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: If the Office of Special Counsel wants to inquire about something, that is their right and I'm not going to say whether or not it's appropriate or not. He can inquire and talk to the Counsel's Office about it. We've worked cooperatively with them in the past, and we will do so this time, as well. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Dana, I need to clarify something, get you to clarify something really quick. You just said that

MS. PERINO: Oh, I think there's a distinction -- I think that that was about the global war on terror, and I think your question was specifically about the surge. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: As I've said several times, General Petraeus has said that he won't know until the fall, at that point he'll give an assessment. And I think that the President will defer to his commanders on the ground for those assessments. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Wow, is this, like, hypothetical question day? (Laughter.) I'm not going to say. I think that the President is going to listen to his commanders on the ground, he's going to get an assessment for General Petraeus -- but he's not going to wait until the fall to get an assessment from General Petraeus, they talk quite often -- sometimes weekly, or more. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q I want to ask about former CIA Director Tenet's new book coming out. He says, in defense of enhanced

MS. PERINO: Well, Goyal, first of all -- Wendell, sorry -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Sorry, I was looking at Goyal. I have not seen the book. I'm not going to comment on the book. What you're suggesting is, does the President support torture. The United States -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: The President wants our intelligence agencies to follow the law and to make sure that they get the information

that they can get in order to protect this country. That's what he supports. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: This is like a hypothetical question day. I can't look 10 to 15 years in the future. What I can tell you is that this President, and I'm sure future Presidents are going to have the responsibility of protecting the American people. We're ensured that the intelligence agencies follow the law and make sure that any information that is needed from suspects that are picked up, that those laws are followed and that that information is used -- any information gleaned from it is used in order to protect the American people, or our allies around the world. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I'm sure that there might be some people who disagree with the United States on that, but I've never heard anything -- I've never heard anything or witnessed anything specific about that. And I think that our allies, who we share information with, are supportive. I would just have to point you back to -- and this has nothing to do with enhanced interrogation techniques, that I know of, but last August, when we worked with the Brits in order to prevent a spectacular al Qaeda attack of blowing up airliners over the Atlantic Ocean. We share information with our allies in order to protect innocent men, women, and children from terrorists who want to kill us. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q But again, I'm talking about the interrogation techniques used on, in particular, Khalid Sheikh

MS. PERINO: Wendell, look -- I don't know anything more than what the President or George Tenet have said. And I'll just -- I'm just going to have to leave it at that. I can't look at -- I can't look in a crystal ball 10 to 15 years down the road. It would be wonderful if we would believe that terrorists are not going to exist in the world 10 to 15 years from now. But I'm not going to -- nobody can make that prediction. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Go ahead. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Dana, first of all, you've done an excellent job in Tony's absence. We look forward to his return

MS. PERINO: As I said, I'm the President's spokesman. I provided that comment yesterday because I speak for him. I also know that the President provides a personalized letter to everybody, every family who loses a family member in the war on terror. And what I meant by it would be inappropriate for the President to get involved is that there is a command influence issue. And when the Department of Defense is investigating something, it would be inappropriate for the President to insert himself in that process. He believes that Secretary Gates and General Pace and others that came before them were honest in their assessments of what happened. They found out that there was a question of wrongdoing, a question of a cover-up, and that's why we have the information that we have now and that's the way our system of government works. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q As far as the President learning that his death was from friendly fire, you said yesterday that

MS. PERINO: I'm getting that just because there is no indication the General McCrystal memo ever made its way to the White House. There's just no recollection on the part of anybody else that the President would have learned about that before the funeral that was held on May 3rd. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Yes -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Yes, I expressed so yesterday. Absolutely.

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

Q Dana, two quick questions. One, as far as global war on terrorism is concerned, Iraqis want to

MS. PERINO: What I can assure you is that there are people all around the world that are united in trying to hunt down Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q And, second, just quick. Yesterday President spoke about malaria, no more malaria. And there

MS. PERINO: What's your question? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: When the President talked about Malaria Awareness Day it was not just in Africa -- obviously, that's a huge problem, but we recognize that malaria is something that hurts men, women and children all around the world, especially the children.

I'll take one from Lester and then we'll be done. Les, go ahead. Just one. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I've got to go. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Yesterday, a Republican National Committee cited the AP report that Democratic National Chairman

MS. PERINO: Let me decline to comment now. I'll take a look at the comments; this is the first I've heard of them. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Good morning. President had his normal briefings at 8:00 a.m. At 10:00 a.m. he will have a photo opportunity with the 2007 national and state teachers of the year. That will be in the Oval, stills at the bottom. And then at 10:20 a.m. the President will make remarks in the Rose Garden to that same group of folks. Mrs. Bush will introduce the President. And the teacher of the year will make remarks, as well. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Don't think there's any music to start that up again. (Laughter.) And it might rain on that parade, as well. And then this evening the President and Mrs. Bush will visit with the Prime Minister of Japan, and his wife, Mrs. Abe, at the Blair House. And then there will be a welcome at the North Portico that's open to press, and then the President and Mrs. Bush will host a social dinner with them, as well. Mrs. Bush's office said that it will release the dinner menu this afternoon -- the much anticipated dinner menu.

This morning I'm going to do the same routine that we did yesterday, since we have an upcoming U.S.-EU summit on Monday, but tomorrow morning we're all going to be up at Camp for the Abe visit, so we thought this was the best way to get you a preview of that. Senior Directors Rod Hunter and Judy Ansley will talk to you a little bit about that U.S.-EU summit, and then I'll follow up with all the other questions you have. DIRECTOR ANSLEY: Good morning. On Monday President Bush will welcome German Chancellor and EU President Angela Merkel, and European Commission President Barroso to the White House for the annual U.S.-EU summit. This will be an opportunity for these leaders to discuss our strategic partnership and to explore ways that we continue to expand our areas of cooperation across a broad range of issues: economic, foreign policy and security.

What I'd like to do is just briefly run through the schedule for the events on Monday. The summit will begin at 10:00 a.m. with a 20 minute restricted meeting for the leaders, where we expect they will just talk about whatever issues of the day they want to. That's a really very unscripted meeting. Then it will follow with an expanded meeting for about an hour and a half, where they will discuss economic issues, energy security and climate change, and begin a discussion of some of the foreign policy issues.

That will be followed from 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. by a working lunch, where they will continue their discussion on foreign policy and security issues, followed by a press availability with the three leaders. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

DIRECTOR ANSLEY: East Room. We're working today with the EU on the full range of global challenges. This is no longer a relationship that's just about bilateral issues. I'd like to address just briefly some of the foreign policy and security issues that we expect will be discussed during the summit, and then I'd like to turn it over to Rod for discussion on the economic issues.

In the foreign policy area, our joint goal is to advance freedom, democracy, and human rights worldwide. And we're working, really, globally with the EU on this, from resolving the final status of Kosovo, with the goal of supervised independence; to bringing freedom and security to the last dictatorship in Europe, in Belarus; to the Middle East where through a revived Quartet process we're hoping to restart the peace process, with the goal of two states living side-by-side; to Lebanon, where we're engaged heavily with the EU in ending the crisis there this summer; Iran, I think our work with the EU 3 in trying to prevent nuclear weapons capability in Iran is probably one of the better examples of the successes we've had; also, in both Afghanistan and Iraq, we're engaged very much with the EU on our comprehensive approach, certainly, in Afghanistan, and they're also providing quite a bit of assistance to the government in Iraq.

Latin America is an area that will certainly be a topic of discussion -- agreement between us that we should continue to spread development and human rights throughout Latin America. And of course, that's a particular issue of our President. And in Darfur -- a lot of discussion with the EU about how we can end the genocide in Darfur.

On the security area, we'll be working together -- we'll work together to try to increase our information flow so we can disrupt terrorist activities and also disrupt terrorist financing. That will be a big priority. Proliferation, very much the same type of thing, trying to disrupt the financing for those that are trying to seek weapons of mass destruction and trying to disrupt that flow.

I think I will stop there and let Rod talk a little bit about the economic issues, which will be a big focus of the summit. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

DIRECTOR ANSLEY: He'll actually -- last year when we did the summit in Vienna, they actually went through the whole list of issues. They hit on all of them, and we'll hopefully have a statement that will address all of those. DIRECTOR HUNTER: Good morning. We would imagine that three -- there would be three issues in particular that would -- economic issues that would be covered by the leaders. First, Doha. This is a top priority for the leaders. They each recognize the importance to continue global growth, but also, and especially for developing countries, of a successful Doha Round.

Second issue, the transatlantic economic engagement. Chancellor Merkel has shown leadership in putting this at the top of her agenda. We have extensive economic integration with the European Union already, and extensive engagement by various government officials. We're going to be -- I mentioned the leaders will be talking about how we can streamline that ongoing cooperation which we have with the Europeans and -- with a view to encouraging growth and further integration.

The third issue, as Judy mentioned a moment ago, will be climate, energy security and economic growth, three issues that need to be discussed together. These are priorities for the leaders, as you know, and as part of those discussions, I would imagine that a central point will be the role of technology development -- innovation and technology as a way to solve the challenges on those three inter-related issues. And this, of course, being an area where the President has shown particular leadership, as demonstrated with the State of the Union address. And then the third part of that would be the need to incorporate, or to draw into this discussion emerging economies. DIRECTOR ANSLEY: Be happy to take any questions. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q What about the argument that America is going to lose out on globalization to India and China;

DIRECTOR HUNTER: I think the leaders view this as -- that further integration is actually an opportunity for our peoples, ours and the Europeans, to take advantage of their opportunities to create better lives for American citizens and for Europeans. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

DIRECTOR HUNTER: I don't think I would agree that we would lose all of our jobs. In fact, as you've seen at the present, our unemployment rate is at all time lows, and our growth has been pretty strong. The global growth has been pretty strong largely because of integration over the past -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

DIRECTOR HUNTER: I'm sorry? (Laughter.) Read more Comment (0), Email this.

DIRECTOR ANSLEY: They do address that. I think they had a little discussion of that last year, and we'll see if comes up again this year. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

DIRECTOR ANSLEY: They discussed, obviously, that there are some problems in certain areas, some in terms of population growth, some in areas in Europe where population isn't keeping up, quite frankly. So it's really an issue that spans a lot. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

DIRECTOR ANSLEY: We fully expect that they'll raise that again this year. I think the President would welcome that. You know that he made an announcement of an initiative in Estonia when he was there to try to modernize our visa waiver program, to enhance security, and also allow it to be expanded, so that some of these newer European Union countries might be able to get into that program. So it's something that he discusses frequently with Europeans and with the EU, so we expect that that will be discussed, as well. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

DIRECTOR ANSLEY: His initiative was to have a change in the law, and until the law is changed, the countries won't qualify under the old standards. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

DIRECTOR ANSLEY: No, other than just, I would imagine, a renewed commitment to try to get that legislation. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q You mentioned climate as one of the three issues on the economic side. And, obviously, this is

DIRECTOR HUNTER: Well, actually there's a lot more agreement than so much being at odds, as I think you just described it. There's much we agree on. One, about the challenge, and man's role in creating that challenge. There is, I think, general agreement about the importance of developing the innovative technologies which will help us transition to a less burdensome, on the economy, with fewer greenhouse gas emissions.

So the questions, I think, are more about means, rather than the ends. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

DIRECTOR HUNTER: The leaders will have had a number of opportunities, and will have a number in, as you point out, the coming months to discuss these issues. As I say, there's probably a lot more agreement than meets the eye on climate change. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

DIRECTOR HUNTER: No. (Laughter.) Read more Comment (0), Email this.

DIRECTOR HUNTER: I'm not sure that I'd call it friction, but -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q It's a little facile to say they agree about the ends, but not the means. We all want world peace

DIRECTOR ANSLEY: I think that it's likely that there will be a statement that they'll agree to on this issue. I mean, what will be in it and what the outcome will be, I don't know at this point, but we fully expect that there will be a statement that addresses the issues, as Rod described them, of energy security, climate change, economic development, which is how we addressed it last year in Vienna. I don't have details on -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

DIRECTOR ANSLEY: Well, they have pretty good discussions in these meetings, and I think they'll discuss the full range of things. But as Rod said, there's broad agreement on the issues of certainly what the problem is, and the need to address them, and we can discuss -- the leaders will discuss the various ways of how they want to go about getting to some conclusions. But there certainly is no disagreement on there is a problem and it needs to be dealt with. And as you say, there will be a number of opportunities over the coming months to advance this. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

DIRECTOR ANSLEY: It won't be on the agenda as such. If it is raised, the President will certainly be more than willing to discuss it. DIRECTOR HUNTER: One last? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

DIRECTOR HUNTER: I think we should wait until we see -- actually see the statements on Monday. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Can you discuss climate change in the context of national security, as well as energy security?

DIRECTOR HUNTER: Well, as I mentioned at the outset, the way the leaders look at this issue, and the way they framed it last year is that climate change needs to be viewed in -- together with energy security, as well as continued economic growth. And I think you'll see them framing it in a similar way in this context. We need to encourage diversification of fuel sources away from energy sources that are -- produce greenhouse gas emissions. DIRECTOR ANSLEY: Thank you. DIRECTOR HUNTER: Thanks. MS. PERINO: Okay. Terry Hunt. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Yes. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I'm not going to put a time on it. But I think -- it will be very soon. We need to see when we get the bill. But it will be very soon. Obviously the President has said that we need to get the process over with, in terms of them sending him a bill and him vetoing it so that we can take the next step. So it will be soon, but I can't give you a date, or time. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Well, I noticed that yesterday there are anonymous Democratic sources who are saying that this was their strategy and that an on-the-record quote from the Senate Majority Leader's spokesman saying that that is preposterous. I wonder which one is accurate. And I think that if it is the case that they withheld money for the troops in order to try to play some ridiculous PR stunt, that that is the height of cynicism, and absolutely so unfortunate for the men and women in uniform and their families who are watching the debate -- and you would hope that that is not true, although it does make you wonder, why did the House wait so long to appoint conferees? There were no conferees appointed during that two-week break.

And I would just remind you that I know that our opponents for years have tried -- have misconstrued that speech. I would encourage anybody who's actually going to write about this to go back and read that speech and what it was about and what the USS Abraham Lincoln was doing, how long they had been gone, way past their six-month deployment. I think they were gone nine to 10 months. They were expanded, and their mission was accomplished. The President never said "mission accomplished" in his speech.

And I would just hope that the cynicism on the Hill doesn't run that deep, but I wouldn't put it past them. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: No, Helen, that's not what I was -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Helen, that's not what I was talking about.

But that's not what Terry's question was. What I was saying is that it is cynical if they withheld money from the troops in order to have a PR stunt. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Caren. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Just similar to what I had said before, which is, obviously we have good relationships with our friends on the Hill, and when you have good relationships with people, you can have disagreements. And in this one, I think that the President would respectfully disagree. Read more Comment (0), Email this.