MS. PERINO: Before I introduce Steve Hadley, who is right behind me, the National Security Advisor, who is going to give you a little bit of a gaggle here, two announcements. Obviously we're on our way to Ukraine. I know you always want me to tell you where we're going. (Laughter.)

Next week there will be a Medal of Honor ceremony, posthumous ceremony -- posthumous award, excuse me, for Petty Officer Michael Monsoor. The ceremony is scheduled for Tuesday, April 8th. Petty Officer Monsoor distinguished himself by extraordinary heroism on September 29, 2006, while serving as Task Unit Ramadi Automatic Weapons Gunner for Naval Special Warfare Task Group Arabian Peninsula, in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Also just a note -- you'll recall on March 19th, the President named Ken Wainstein to serve as Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. Today, March 31st, is Ken's first day on the job, and we are pleased to welcome him to the White House. After Fran Townsend's departure, the President was pleased that Joel Bagnal, her deputy, immediately stepped up to ensure a smooth transition at the Homeland Security Council. His judgment and expertise is incredibly valuable, as you heard the President say in a press conference just a few weeks ago. Joel's leadership has been instrumental in allowing the HSC to focus on the key goals and priorities necessary to keep the homeland safe.

I'm going to turn it over to Steve, who will provide you a little bit of an update, answer some questions about the trip, and then I'll follow up at the end. MR. HADLEY: Looking forward to a very good, productive trip. Important for the President to go to Ukraine, show our support for the ongoing democratic transition and reform that's going on in Ukraine. It's an exciting time to show our continued support for their integration into European and Transatlantic institutions.

Also very important to go to Bucharest, not only for the NATO summit, but also to show our continuing solidarity and support for Romania, who is in the last few years, you know, a new entrant into NATO and has really been carrying a lot of water in terms of supporting NATO operations and activities in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Kosovo. They've been a very strong ally, as well as their political and economic systems continue to mature. So it's important, again, for the President to go and support Romania's efforts.

The NATO summit, where a lot of work has been going on, it's going to be, I think, an exciting summit, an interesting summit. Some real issues to grapple with. And I think it's going to be a good result. It's already pretty clear that we're going to have a strong statement about the importance of commitment to success in Afghanistan. They are working on a statement which will draw together in one place and make clear to publics of all of our countries what's at stake in Afghanistan. We think that getting that vision out to the public is very important.

We think we're going to have some countries stepping up and doing more in Afghanistan. You know we've been saying for some time that all of us need to do more in Afghanistan, and I think you're going to see some countries coming up and doing more to support our efforts, particularly in the east and the south. I think that will be a very good thing.

And I think you're going to hear the Afghanistan government reaffirming their commitment, enhancing their efforts. And of course we welcome the participation by the United Nations Secretary General, who will be at the NATO meeting to talk about Afghanistan. And this will also be the debut of Kai Eide, who is the Secretary General's now Special Representative for Afghanistan. And it's important for him to be on board, so that he can start working with our military commander, General McNeil, to develop an integrated political, military plan for going forward and achieving our objectives in Afghanistan.

So we're encouraged by that. We think there will be some progress, continued progress as NATO transforms itself to deal effectively with 21st century threats. We're working together about enhancing coordination among special operations forces, which we've seen are so important in the kinds of security challenges we see in the 21st century. Greater cooperation on missile defense; we think we're going to make some progress on that, on cyber security, and a range of other issues.

So in terms of NATO performing on its commitments, enhancing its capabilities, we think this will be some real progress, and we will think -- we also will have an opportunity to welcome some new members into NATO. There are still some issues associated with Macedonia that are still being worked. We think there will be an opportunity to offer some intensified dialogues to other countries in the Balkans. And of course we'll be dealing with the issue of offering for Ukraine and Georgia a prospect for a movement towards an ultimate membership in NATO. We think that will be important.

The President will then, of course, go to Croatia, which we think will be one of those new members welcomed and offered membership here in Bucharest. And it will be a bit of a -- should that occur, it will be a bit of a celebration for the President and the Ukrainians and the Croatians.

And then finally, the Sochi visit, which is the last stop on the way home, and which is an effort and will provide an opportunity to nail down some areas and emphasize areas of cooperation, make progress on some outstanding issues, and put the relationship in a sound footing so that President Putin and President Bush can hand over a healthy relationship to their successors.

So that's the trip, as we see it. Anything you want to correct or amend, Assistant Secretary Fried? The answer to that question is, "No, you did fine." (Laughter.) ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: Sir, you did great, but as you were speaking, I was reminded of the President's speech in June 2001 -- MR. HADLEY: Yes, this is important. ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: -- where he spoke of a free Europe, whole, free and at peace from the Baltic to the Black Sea. That was a vision that he laid out in Warsaw in June of 2001, and which he has advanced. It was not his vision alone. It started really with President Reagan, President Bush 41, President Clinton. But this President Bush advanced that vision as he advanced NATO's transformation, as well as its enlargement.

And to go -- to start in Warsaw and then to end in Bucharest, on the Black Sea, and look out, is strategically consistent. It's interesting that in 2008 we're still doing and making -- advancing where we started in 2004. MR. HADLEY: I think then to go from there, from the Black Sea, to Croatia, to show that we are also bringing stability to the Balkans after what the Balkans have been through in the last 20 years, I think is a further testament to the progress we have made using these Transatlantic institutions and European institutions to gradually stabilize and bring security and freedom to all of Europe.

So looking forward to a good trip. And as Dan rightly says, a capstone to a lot of American policy supported by Republicans and Democrats over the last 15 years.

I would be delighted -- questions. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HADLEY: I really don't want to do that. Countries have their own domestic audiences and we want to let leaders explain their own decisions and frame them in the way they want to frame them. So that's one of the news you can look for coming out of here. So I'd really like not to talk about that. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HADLEY: Well, let's see what we get. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HADLEY: Let's see what we get. We've all been saying that we all need to do more. We've also been saying this is going to be a long effort, and we're going to have to be committed to a long-term effort in Afghanistan. And I think that's true. We need to step it up. I think you'll find the countries are stepping up. That's a good next step; but there are going to be more steps down the road. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HADLEY: It's hard to say. It's a very dynamic -- it's a dynamic situation and there are, sort of, a couple questions. One, how many troops do you need? But the other question is, what are you doing with those troops? And I think one of the things we all have learned is that we need to be moving more and more into a counter-insurgency mode, which is, of course, an effort of troops, about using those troops to provide security to the population. But it is also coupling troops with political and economic steps that rebuild local governmental institutions that people can rely on, that bring economic progress and jobs, that begin to reconstruct.

So this is a complicated equation. And I think what people are recognizing is this is going to be -- it's going to take us a pretty long while to get this done. Obviously we want to empower and transition over time responsibility to the Afghanistans. In the interim we're going to have to have more of a counter-insurgency focus, which means an issue about levels of troops, what those troops do and how to link them up with the civilian assets -- institution-building, reconstruction, economic assistance, jobs that are required -- to stabilize that situation over the long-term. And that's the thing I think you're going to see the Alliance beginning to step up and grapple with. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HADLEY: Whether that word is in, I don't know. But I think you will hear people talking about, very clearly, the need to bring security to the Afghan people and the need to have an integrated strategy of security, institution-building and economic assistance and aid, and economic stimulation. That you are clearly going to hear in the vision statement.

Whether you'll see the word "counter-insurgency" or not, I don't know. But that vision I described I think you will definitely see in the statement. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HADLEY: We may. We're hopeful. We're not going to resolve all our differences. You know, this is a complicated relationship. There are areas where we disagree [sic]*, where we are trying to enhance cooperation. There are areas where we disagree and we're trying to manage those disagreements. And that's the framework in which we're moving forward. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HADLEY: We have talked a lot about it. As you know, the President talked to President Putin about it personally, addressed it in a letter he sent to President Putin. It was a subject of Secretary Rice and Secretary Gates' meeting at the two-plus-two here a week ago. A Russian delegation was here this week, spent a good three days working these issues, including missile defense.

And I think we're moving in a direction where something that some of us have been working for, for a long time, where Russia and the United States could have missile defense as an area of strategic cooperation. Interestingly, that was something that President Putin said when he talked to the press at Kennebunkport last summer. And we are trying to see if we can articulate that in concrete terms.

So it's not done yet. We think we're making progress. We're going to continue to work it. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HADLEY: I think there are two things going on here. One is NATO identifying missile defense as an area where NATO needs to do more, recognizing that it is a threat, recognizing that what we are doing with the Poles and the Czechs is a contribution to meeting that threat; and recognizing that we need to find ways to do more. How to do that to be determined in the future.

So one element is NATO recognizing that this is an area where NATO has to enhance its capabilities. And secondly, working with Russia, so this is something that might be done between Europe, the United States and Russia cooperatively against missile threats coming from the Middle East that potentially threaten all of us. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HADLEY: A notion of what NATO needs to do together coming out of Bucharest. An issue about how Russia might fit and cooperate and be a part of those efforts, that probably is for Sochi or later -- it may not get done by Sochi. There's no deadline here. Sochi is for an opportunity for these two leaders to get together again. It is an opportunity to reach an agreement on missile defense. But, hey, if we don't have it by Sochi, we'll keep working it. There's no deadline here. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HADLEY: We think it's very, very, very important that Georgia and Ukraine, that we welcome their aspirations to be part of NATO, that we have an active engagement in helping them move in that direction. And the President has made clear we think the best way to do that is to offer the MAP at Bucharest, and that's what the President is pushing hard for. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HADLEY: And he's looking forward to a good discussion with his colleagues at Bucharest on this issue, very important issue. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HADLEY: No, no, no. What we're really talking about is a framework of cooperation going forward. But, you know, developing this capabilities is something we're going to do over a period of years. No, it's really trying to establish some basic understandings and a framework of cooperation, that's what we're trying to do. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HADLEY: We've said for a long time that it is very important for the European countries to enhance their capabilities -- a long time. They are not doing enough, they're not spending enough, and I think it's beginning to be clear to more and more Europeans. I hope you will hear the French talk about that issue, because we think that it is important for European nations to have greater capabilities that they can use for NATO missions, for EU missions, and in those cases where, as in Kosovo, NATO and EU are working side by side. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HADLEY: Well, the truth is when countries enhance capability, it's all the same thing. It's the same pool of forces that get called upon for those various geometries. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HADLEY: Look, these guys know each other very well. And they've had a lot of good conversations, they've had a lot of tough conversations over the year. And it was a letter as you'd expect: very candid, very straightforward, very respectful, but very clear; and an effort to suggest areas where the two countries could work together. They had a very good phone call about it, it's been a very good process.

The other thing I want to say is that the consultation process on all these issues I've talked about going into the Bucharest summit has really been a -- again, a very good one. Obviously you've written on issues on MAP and other issues that we've not yet reached consensus -- that's true, there have been good conversations back and forth.

But to give you an example, the President every two weeks now, roughly every two weeks is on a secure video teleconference with Angela Merkel talking about the issues of the day. We've been doing this for at least a year.

So these two leaders -- you know, this is one of the marvels of modern technology and the impact it has on diplomacy. These two leaders know each other very well. In the old days they would get together, you know, once a quarter, twice, three times a year. Now these two leaders can talk for 45 minutes every couple weeks. They know each other very well. They know each other's views well. They have a very constructive working relationship. And it's great because you can put difficult issues on the table, you can have your exchange of views, try to find common ground. It's a very productive process. And I would say to you that the secure video is a terrific tool for strengthening the ties between leaders, and those two leaders have very strong relationships and it's a good thing for Germany and the United States, and it's a good thing for NATO. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Anything else? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I checked before I left if he had made a statement yet. He had not, so I'm waiting for them to let me know. As soon as he does, I'll come back and provide you more on it and a statement by the President as well. Let me just have the respect that he deserves to wait for him to make his announcement. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Yes, there was going to be an announcement at 10:00 a.m., right. We did not get out in front of him in terms of saying what it was. So I'll be back hopefully soon. We'll check right now. Anything else? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Also right about now is what Secretary Paulson is going to be making a speech, but there's a lot of coverage on it if you look at the -- he gave an interview this weekend to the Wall Street Journal, so I think you can get a lot -- glean a lot from that.

What I would tell you from the President's point of view is that we trust Secretary Paulson to put forward what he thinks is a constructive plan that is well thought out, and that we'll be working with members of Congress to get their views. Obviously, none of them have been shy in presenting their opinions over the weekend. And we're hopeful that we can have good, constructive conversations as we move forward. So Secretary Paulson will give his speech. He'll have those details, either from that or if you look at some of the coverage this morning. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I think we'll have to see. I think if there is -- it's a big attempt, but this President doesn't shy away from big challenges -- and also, if necessary, actions in order to address problems. And this is something, if you've looked at some of the coverage, that Secretary Paulson has been working on this package for about a year. So it's not something -- it's not like pulling a rabbit out of a hat. It's very constructive, deliberate thinking amongst the best minds in economics and treasury matters over there at the Treasury Department, among others. And taking input from members of Congress who have a lot to -- they have a lot to offer.

So Secretary Paulson has also over the past year, since he's been Secretary, developed strong working relationships with those members of Congress, which is going to be very important if we're to be able to move forward on this and additional actions we would take if necessary -- as the President has said, if it warrants it. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HADLEY: Good afternoon. On Monday, the President and Mrs. Bush will travel to Europe to participate in the President's sixth and final NATO summit.

The President will first visit Ukraine to celebrate the democratic transition that has taken hold in that country since the 2004 Orange Revolution. He will express his support for the aspirations of the people of Ukraine to see their country take its rightful place within Europe, including within it's transatlantic institutions, as Ukraine continues its process of reform.

The President will then go to Romania so he can participate in the NATO summit and conduct bilateral meetings with Romanian authorities. The President will travel to Constadt, on Romania's Black Sea coast, to meet with President Vasesque at his official retreat. Romania is a close partner of the United States and has proven to be a valuable NATO ally since it joined the Alliance in 2004. The two Presidents will discuss a range of bilateral issues.

The President will then attend the NATO summit in Bucharest. The holding of the NATO summit in Bucharest is testimony to how the process of NATO enlargement has contributed to the successful transformation of Romania and other new democracies in Central and Eastern Europe. The NATO summit will highlight how the NATO Alliance continues to transform itself to meet the challenges of the 21st century. We expect NATO leaders to take decisions to enhance NATO's capabilities to deal with those challenges, including through enhancing NATO's special operations capabilities, as well as pursuing collective defense and cyber and missile attacks.

We also expect allied leaders at the Bucharest summit to invite new members to join NATO, and in doing so, help stabilize the Balkans. As you know, candidates are Albania, Croatia, and Macedonia. The Alliance will reach out to Georgia and Ukraine, making clear that NATO is open to all democracies in Europe that meet the standards of membership. The President believes that NATO would benefit from Georgia and Ukraine as members, and that these nations would benefit from being a part of NATO.

The strongest NATO vehicle to help Georgia and Ukraine prepare for membership, of course, is what's called the Membership Action Plan, or MAP. And the allies will decide at Bucharest whether to accept Georgia and Ukraine's request to begin a MAP program.

After the NATO summit, the President will visit Croatia, to congratulate the people of that country for their impressive reforms that they have made, and for discussions with Croatia's leaders.

Let me go over the details of the schedule, if I might. On Monday evening, March 31, the President and Mrs. Bush will arrive in Ukraine.

On Tuesday, April 1, President Bush will meet with President Yushchenko of Ukraine, and later with Prime Minister Tymoshenko. The President will also have a chance to meet with the leader of the opposition, as well as the Speaker of the Parliament. The President and Mrs. Bush will visit St. Sophia's Cathedral, and a public school where they will view a student presentation on preventing HIV/AIDS. The President and Mrs. Bush will then depart Ukraine for Bucharest, Romania.

On Wednesday, April 2nd, President Bush will deliver remarks in Bucharest and then travel to Constanta to meet with President B sescu of Romania. President Bush will return to Bucharest later that day to meet with the Secretary General of NATO, before participating in a working dinner of NATO leaders.

On Thursday, April 3rd, President Bush will participate in the NATO summit in Bucharest, at which it is expected that allied leaders will take decisions on new members. The President will then participate in a NATO summit meeting with the leaders from nations invited to join the alliance that morning. He will then participate in a Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, so-called EAPC. That will be a working lunch. The EAPC includes all 26 NATO allies plus 23 NATO partner countries from Europe and Central Asia.

After the lunch, the President will participate in a meeting on Afghanistan. At this meeting, NATO leaders will be joined by Afghan President Karzai, Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon of the United Nations, and our other partners in Afghanistan, including the European Union, the World Bank, and all nations contributing troops to the International Security Assistance Force, or ISAF. We expect NATO nations and its partners in Afghanistan will demonstrate their firm commitment to Afghanistan over the long term, with pledges of additional contributions and renewed resolve to help Afghanistan succeed. Together, these leaders are developing a comprehensive approach to strengthening Afghanistan sovereignty and the democratic process.

On Friday, April 4, President Bush will participate in a summit meeting of the NATO-Ukraine Commission, followed by a summit meeting of the NATO-Russia Council. He will also meet with the Prime Minister of Romania. The President and Mrs. Bush will then depart for Zagreb, where President Bush will meet with the President of Croatia.

On Saturday, April 5, President Bush will meet with the Prime Minister of Croatia. The President will also deliver remarks in Zagreb and participate in a working lunch with leaders of those nations who have been invited at Bucharest to join the NATO Alliance. The President and Mrs. Bush will then depart Croatia.

The President has been invited by President Putin to visit Sochi in the Russian Federation. It is his intention to accept this invitation and to try to go to Sochi after the stop in Croatia. The details are still being worked on this stop. And the President expects to return to Andrew's Air Force Base from Sochi sometime on Sunday, April 6.

And I'd be glad to answer your questions. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HADLEY: It came up very briefly, and basically the President indicated that a mistake had been made. There was very little discussion about it. You've probably seen the press release that came out from the Chinese side on President Hu's side of the conservation as -- if you noticed, it didn't even get mentioned. So it was a very small part of the conversation. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HADLEY: As you know, we talked before Secretary Rice and Secretary Gates went to Moscow. I think we mentioned that we -- the President thought there was an opportunity to try and consolidate a variety of activities that we have ongoing with Russia, and to resolve some outstanding issues with Russia in kind of a strategic framework that could be the basis for the relationship going forward. We've talked a bit about that. The President had some conversations with President Putin, sent him a letter on the subject. Those were encouraging enough so that Secretary Rice and Secretary Gates went, here in the last two weeks, met with President Putin and their counterparts. Progress was made at that time. A Russian delegation is in Washington today. They are meeting as we speak and continue to have some progress.

So this is an opportunity for the two leaders to meet, assess what progress has been made, and see whether we can come together with a framework that can, as I say, consolidate areas where we're cooperating together, maybe resolve some outstanding issues such as missile defense, and provide a platform for the relationship of the two countries going forward. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q When you say that the allies will decide whether to accept the Membership Action Plan for Georgia

MR. HADLEY: The President has made it clear in his comments that he thinks it's very important that the door of NATO remain open for new members. He's said that he thinks membership would be good for NATO and it would be good for Ukraine and Georgia.

He is in consultation with his counterparts; those consultations continue. We believe -- he believes that NATO should welcome the aspirations of these countries for NATO membership, and that in Bucharest it will result in a clear path forward -- it should result in a clear path forward for those countries coming out of Bucharest.

So let me say that he's very forward-leaning on this issue. But, again, we respect the process that NATO has established, that we will continue consultations that have been quiet consultations -- we think those are most effective -- and we will respect the fact that this is a decision that NATO makes by consensus at the summit. And he will be an active participant in those conversations. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HADLEY: That's all I can say. As I said, he's leaning very far forward. And I think you can get a good sense of his logic from the comments I just made, which restate some things that he's said several times before.

Yes, sir. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HADLEY: The main issue there is to find a way, in concrete terms, to reassure Russia that the radar and missile installation that is planned in Poland and the Czech Republic are, as we say, about potential threats coming to Europe, coming to Russia, if you will, from the Middle East, and are not aimed at Russia. And we are trying to find a formula of measures which would give Russia some confidence on that, that would also be reciprocal with respect to facilities that Russia has offered up that might be part of an integrated missile defense system protecting Europe and Russia, and are also respectful of the sovereignty of our Czech and Polish allies.

The President has talked about maybe we should take a -- maybe the United States, Russia and Europe should work together to develop a regional architecture, as, if you will, equal partners in developing that architecture, that would use resources contributed by the United States, Europe and Russia to provide against a threat -- a defense against threats from the Middle East that could threaten Europe, as well as Russia. That's what we would like to see occur.

And part of that, of course, is a series of transparency measures and confidence-building measures that make it clear that that is a system that is about threats -- common threats from the Middle East, not about threats from Russia.

We think it's very clear it's a very limited system that could be easily overwhelmed by the Russians. But we are prepared to look at some transparency and confidence-building measures, again, respectful of the sovereignty of our Czech and Polish allies, that, nonetheless, would give Russia some reassurance. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HADLEY: We're trying to work with them on the issue of what to do when the START I treaty expires, whether we should look at extending the Moscow Treaty, which, as you know, has limitations on deliverable strategic nuclear warheads; whether there are some transparency and verification and confidence-building measures that should be part of the mix. So that's another issue that we are working on.

There are a number of economic issues where we made good progress; we would like to consolidate that progress, in terms of WTO accessions, a bilateral investment treaty, things of that sort. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Pretty quickly after this trip ends, we're going to hear the public testimony of General Petraeus

MR. HADLEY: Well, as you know, the President met with the Joint Chiefs today. He had an opportunity to meet with Secretary Gates and with Chairman Mullen yesterday. A day before, he had a fairly long video -- secure video conference with General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. So he is getting a good appreciation for the range of their views and their current thinking. Obviously they are going to come forward here with a formal set of recommendations. The second week in April they will have an opportunity to explain those -- their assessment of the situation to the Congress. And after that point, I think the President will have an opportunity to indicate what decisions he has made. So we're in a fairly systematic consultation process.

I will say that the conversations today with the Joint Chiefs were much broader than just Iraq. It was a step back look of what are the challenges we faced here in the next decade, the war on terror generally, the importance of Iraq and Afghanistan as elements of the war on terror, concerns about the health of the force, and some of the reforms that are going on to deal with these problems. So it was a good, healthy conversation.

You know, this is the third, fourth, fifth of a series where the President has found it useful, almost on a quarterly basis, to sit down with the Chiefs and have an exchange of views. They are very rich conversations. They like them, we think. The President certainly enjoys them. And this was very much in -- of course, they talked about Iraq, because that's the issue that's on a lot of people's minds, but it was really of a piece of this sort of fairly regular, now, consultations between the President, the Chiefs, the Chairman and the Secretary of Defense. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q -- a quick follow on the substance of it, though. There's sort of a storyline developing that there

MR. HADLEY: I've seen that storyline, and I think the best thing to do is for us to wait, let General Petraeus, Ambassador Crocker come here, give an assessment of the situation, how they see it, and what their recommendations are going to be. I mean, this has been a good process, a structured process. A lot of speculation in the press. There will be an opportunity to lay the whole thing out, and I think we ought to wait for their testimony.

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

MR. HADLEY: It's very interesting, what's going on. You know, one of the questions -- it answers a couple of interesting questions people have had for a while. One, a lot of people have said, including we, but a lot of critics have said what's lacking is the Iraqi government stepping up, taking responsibility for security, and demonstrating the capability to take responsibility for security. Other people have said there's a concern that this is a sectarian government; that a Shia-led government is going to be unwilling to crack down on Shia militia, Shia death squads.

And what's interesting is that Basra is now a province that has gone to what's called provincial Iraqi control. That is to say, Iraq is now responsible for security in Basra. And as many of you know and as many of you have written, Basra has been an area where there has been a lot of unrest, there has been intermittent violence, there had been very active militias, there's been active -- some -- a high level of corruption, and a real question in the minds of the people of Basra of who's in charge -- is it the government in Baghdad? Is it the governor? Or is it militias and criminal elements?

It's been an issue that people have written about and that the Prime Minister has talked about. And you may remember almost a year ago, maybe more, he went down to Basra and said, it is time for law and order to return to Basra. And what he's really done is take that matter into his hands, go down to Basra, and to assert the authority of the central government, but more to the point, the authority for the rule of law in Basra.

This was an operation we knew about, but it is a Iraqi-conceived, Iraqi-led operation with Iraqi forces, in which the Prime Minister has gone to Basra, where they have responsibility for security, in order to re-establish the rule of law, and to crack down on criminal gangs, and to deal with Shia death squads and others that have stepped outside of the rule of law.

So, yes, the consequence is the militias and criminal groups have reacted with violence. But it is in reaction to an effort by governmental authorities to reassert control in an area which had become pretty lawless. And so in some sense this is an indication of the continued maturation of this government in its willingness and capacity to take increasing responsibility for security. I think it's a very interesting story. You folks are covering it, and it's well worth covering.

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

Q If I can go back to China for a second, two questions about the call today. First of all, was there

MR. HADLEY: Well, look, he takes these issues that you described very seriously. They need to address -- and his purpose -- whether Olympics or no Olympics, these are important issues that need to be addressed. And what the President wanted to do, as he said, was use the relationship he's built with President Hu over time to raise these issues and speak very clearly and frankly with him about them. And it was a very good exchange.

We can -- I think a couple things that struck me about the conversation -- and I would refer you to the readout the Chinese authorities did in Beijing of the conversation -- couple things are of interest. He said that it is China's consistent stand that the Chinese mainland and Taiwan should restore consultation and talks on the basis of the 1992 consensus, which sees both sides recognize there is only one China, but agree to differ on its definitions.

The interesting thing is whether this is an indication or a signal of a willingness to open dialogue on a basis that in previous years had been accepted by both parties. That was very -- pretty interesting. Secondly, I thought it was interesting -- the President pushed very hard on the need to -- concern about violence in Tibet, the need for restraint, the need for consultation with representatives of the Dalai Lama. As you know, there have been consultations between Chinese authorities and representatives of the Dalai Lama in the past. Those have been suspended. The President urged that those be restored as part of a process for Chinese authorities to addressing, reaching out to and addressing the grievance of the people in Tibet.

And I thought it was interesting that President Hu said that the government was willing to continue contacts in consultation with the Dalai Lama as long as -- and, again, as he said, there's an abandonment of Tibetan independence and stopping activities that involved crimes and the use of violence. And of course, as you know, the Dalai Lama has been very public in his views on both the issue of independence and the use of violence.

So again, the question is whether this will turn out to be an opening for a consultation process between Chinese authorities and representatives of the Dalai Lama. So we'll have to see. There were some interesting elements of the statement and I think we'll have to see over time whether they come to fruition in respect to both the Taiwan and -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HADLEY: No, it was a very lengthy exchange. And it was well prepared, and you got a good flavor of it in the release that was issues by Beijing's authorities. It was a serious conversation on really all of the issues, and they were Taiwan, Tibet, North Korea and Burma. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q If I could, questions on a couple of issues. On the fighting is Basra and Sadr City -- does this

MR. HADLEY: I don't know, look, we'll have to see when General Petraeus and Ryan Crocker come back. We are in the early stages of this operation. We're going to have to see how it works out and it sorts out.

I think one of the things I'd in the press that some people have been concerned about is whether this puts the cease-fire at risk, or whether this activity is inconsistent with the cease-fire that Sadr had declared for his forces, originally over six months ago and recently renewed. And, again, this action is not against parties who are abiding by the cease-fire. These are against elements who have stood outside of the cease-fire, have used violence against innocents or to advance their cause, or to people who are engaged in criminal activity.

So I think it's fair to say this is -- this should not put in jeopardy the cease-fire. It's not a move, as we read it, by the central government to repudiate the cease-fire in any way, but is to insist on what we've insisted, and the government has insisted on for months, that people who step outside the rule of law and use violence, whether Sunni or Shia, will be held to account.

We have been -- Iraqi forces and coalition forces have been going against so-called JAM elements and extremists and militias using violence here for some months, and I think you need to see this in that context, and also in the context of going into Basra and doing what the Prime Minister said over a year ago he would do: bring law and order to Basra, which has been a difficult situation. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HADLEY: He has accepted and said he is coming to the NATO summit. As I said, there is a meeting of the NATO-Russia Council. Since it's a summit, it will meet a head-of-state, head-of-government level. And President Putin has said that he will come. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HADLEY: I would expect so. I mean, I think the -- I think Mr. Medvedev is sworn in in May. That's not too far. So I think this is right. But I think it's also an indication by the two leaders that there may be an opportunity here to, as I say, provide a strategic framework for the relationship, identify areas of cooperation, resolve some outstanding issues so that the relationship is in good shape to be handed over to their two respective successors.

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

Q Mr. Hadley, I was wondering -- back to China and the phone call today -- was there one particular

MR. HADLEY: Well, there are a couple things. One, the Taiwanese election presents an opportunity to encourage China to reach out to Taiwan and to try and resolve differences, and the President did not want to let that go by. And that election, of course, was just this last weekend.

Secondly, there seemed to us to be -- we have talked a lot about Tibet. The Secretary of State has made some comments. We've sent messages through a lot of channels. Particularly since the President was going to be talking to President Hu Jintao about Taiwan, he wanted to use that as an opportunity to talk about Tibet. And in some sense, the message is the same. There's an opportunity here and China needs to seize it.

Three, there have been ongoing discussions, as you know, on North Korea, an effort to get North Korea to come forward with a complete and correct declaration. This has been going on for a while. It's time to bring this to conclusion. As you know, China, as part of the six-party talks, has been critical in this conversation that members of the six-party talks together have had with North Korea. It was time, I think, for the President to signal to Hu Jintao that it's time for all the parties of the six-party talks, including China, to reengage with North Korea. And, again, if you've got that agenda, you don't want to not talk about Burma, because Burma is a very important issue, and China has real influence on it.

So you put all those together, seemed like a good time, and seemed like to be a fairly robust agenda. And as you can see from the readouts by the two sides, it was a very substantive conversation. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q And a quick follow-up on Georgia and Ukraine. You mentioned the aspirations of the MAP invitation

MR. HADLEY: The President has talked about this. As you know, he takes the freedom agenda very seriously. And when countries aspiring to democracy works in progress, come forward and say, we would like to join your Atlantic institutions, he's strongly inclined to say, yes, because what we've seen about the prospect of NATO membership -- and again, what is on the table here is not NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia tomorrow. What it is for them is to get into this program, which is one that allows countries to prepare for membership. And, again, that process can take a fairly long time, is fairly rigorous. Standards have to be met.

But what we've learned in our experience in Central/Eastern Europe is that can provide a useful framework to encourage countries to make the right decisions they need to make to advance their own reform and democracy. And certainly the President is strongly inclined to want to help countries, aspiring democratic countries, on the road to greater democracy, to use all the instruments we can to help encourage that activity. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HADLEY: Two more. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HADLEY: Well, I think part of it is for these two men to meet face-to-face and get to know one another. This is obviously one of our most important relationships. It's longstanding. The relationship is in very good shape. The two men have had one meeting, I believe, when the President was in Australia here about a year ago. They've had a good telephone conversation. The most important thing, I think, is for the two leaders to establish a good personal relationship and, in their public comments, to make it clear to the people of Australia and people of the United States that the relationship between those two countries, which has been so important to both sides, is strong and will endure under new leadership in Australia. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HADLEY: Australia has been a terrific partner.

Yes, sir. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Can I ask two real quick? One is, to what extent do the framework discussions with Russia relate

MR. HADLEY: Well, we'll have to see. I mean, I was advised that President Sarkozy is in London today. He made a statement talking about that he would come to Bucharest with some positive statements about France is willing to help and maybe increase its role in Afghanistan. Obviously that would be a very positive thing.

These things, in terms of the issues at the NATO summit and the strategic framework agreement, these are on separate tracks. We've been very clear that NATO is not a threat to Russia. It's interesting that these NATO summit will feature a meeting of the NATO-Russia Council, which was a mechanism by which Russia is able to engage with NATO. As you know, many people have forgotten there are Russian personnel who are actually assigned and serve in NATO Headquarters. There is an active program of engagement between NATO and Russia.

So I think these are really separate issues. And there is an opportunity -- there's an opportunity to advance our agenda at NATO. There's also an opportunity, through the Sochi visit, to try and advance a relationship and our agenda between the United States and Russia, and the President is going to try to take advantage of both.

Sorry, thank you very much. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. HADLEY: One follow on Afghanistan. Yes. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Hello. I have one scheduling update for you. Well, actually -- I'm sorry -- two. Tomorrow, National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley will do an on-camera briefing at 3:15 p.m. on the President's upcoming trip to Ukraine, Romania and Croatia. Again, that's tomorrow at 3:15 p.m. So that will be our on-camera briefing tomorrow.

And then on Friday afternoon, the President will travel Freehold, New Jersey, where he will visit a company called Novadebt. During his visit he will tour the facility and make a statement on housing. Novadebt is approved by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development as a housing counseling agency providing pre-purchase default foreclosure and home equity conversion mortgage counseling. For example, when a person calls the HOPE NOW Alliance -- the homeowner's HOPE hotline, Novadebt is one of the companies that they would be referred to, so that they could get the help that they are seeking. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

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

MS. PERINO: You know what, let me get answers to you on that. I'll have Carlton do it. I'm hereby asking Carlton to do that. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Freehold, and the company is Novadebt. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: A couple of things. You're referring to the Medellin versus Texas case that the Supreme Court just recently announced. It's about an 89-page decision of which we are currently going through, both here and at the Justice Department. One thing that's critically important to remember is that the arguments of the United States in this case in no way condoned or defended the heinous crimes of which Jos Medellin was convicted.

The Solicitor General in this case argued on behalf of the United States that the President has the authority to compel a state to comply with provisions of a legally ratified treaty -- in this case, one between the United States and a foreign power -- regarding a provision of the International Court of Justice. In their decision today, the Supreme Court disagreed and said that the President does not have that authority. They recognized that there is an international obligation to comply with treaties, but that the President of the United States does not have the legal authority to compel a state to take that action.

While we urged a different result, we respect the Court's decision and will abide by it. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Well, remember the narrow focus of this case in regards to how we should deal with this one particular issue, and it only is in regard to Jos Medellin and 50 others -- it was 51 total people. It was not as broad as some people, I think, have reported. But, of course, since we urged a different result, we're disappointed with the decision, but we're going to accept it, and we're going to be reviewing it in regards to the impacts that it may have. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Dana, when was the President first briefed about the missile parts that were mistakenly sent to

MS. PERINO: I do know the President was briefed. I don't know exactly when, but it would have been recently. But he appreciates that they are taking action and there is a full investigation underway, and he's glad that the result is that they got the parts back. But he'll be interested to hear what the results are from that investigation. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

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

Q Last week you said that President Bush is concerned about the name issue and he expects a solution

MS. PERINO: Well, we continue to encourage Greece and Macedonia to reach an agreement before we get to Bucharest so that we can deal with this issue prior to getting there. But if it's going to take all the way -- take all the time up to the NATO conference, then that decision will be made there. But certainly the President believes that they should be able to work this out. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I'm sorry, NATO is the -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Okay, got it. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Therefore, I'm wondering if you are in a position to ask NATO to grant a kind of extension of three

MS. PERINO: I think what -- we should take first things first, before we get ahead of ourselves. Let's let them continue to work together. I think that the time factor is a forcing event, and that they should be coming together to work this out before we get to NATO. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

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

MS. PERINO: No, I think that you have to look at the ruling in its totality in that the Supreme Court -- and again, I'm not a lawyer, so I'd refer you to the Justice Department for the technicalities of it all -- but the Supreme Court recognized that there was an international obligation to comply with a legally ratified treaty in the United States, but their point was that the President of the United States does not have the authority under current law to compel a state to act. And as I said, we'll be reviewing the legislation and I'm sure people on Capitol Hill will, as well. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I don't know, and we'll have to see. But obviously, the President -- President Bush and President Calder n have spoken recently about improving the border area, especially, to make sure that we're dealing with criminality. We are assisting the Mexicans in that regard. We realize that we have a difference of opinion when it comes to the death penalty. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q On troop levels in Iraq, The New York Times is reporting that General Petraeus recommended to President

MS. PERINO: Well, a couple of things. One, the President gave a speech Wednesday, March 19th, in which many headlines were similar to the ones that you read about today. So the President is in a process of getting briefed by his senior advisors, both those that are on the ground and here at the White House, at the Defense Department and at the State Department. So, across-the-board, the President is getting all of this input, taking it into account before he makes a decision. And those decisions aren't going to be made public until he's ready to make them public.

And I think it's prudent for him to allow Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus to come back and provide information to Capitol Hill. He'll continue to consult with Capitol Hill before he makes a decision on the way forward. But he's made -- he's not been shy about saying that we will have to make sure that the gains that have been achieved over this past year not be erased by acting too quickly in bringing troops home. Remember, all of this is conditions-based. So from the very beginning, if I go back to January 2005, President Bush at that point thought that we would be able to start announcing troops coming home. That didn't happen because of the Samarra mosque bombing and the violence that ensued. So then in late December 2006 and January 2007, the President made another decision based on conditions on the ground, and that was to send more troops in.

Nine months later, in September of 2007, the President makes yet another decision based on conditions on the ground, and that was that because of the success we've had some troops would be allowed to start coming home. And I would just point to you there's a pattern here, that the President listens to the commanders on the ground and makes decisions based on that regard. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Are you talking about the situation in Basra? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: The President was briefed this morning by General Lutes during his morning briefing. He was also briefed yesterday by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. This is an Iraqi-led and Iraqi-initiated operation, and this is what we have been wanting to see the Iraqis do, is to take on more responsibility.

The Iraqi government high school pledged even-handed enforcement of the law that is being borne out today. The surge created new opportunities and, in fact, created many more Iraqi security forces. They are better able to maneuver and responded to crises. They're a little bit more flexible, they're certainly better trained, and they're dealing with extremist networks and terrorists throughout Iraq.

Basra is one example of that. And as press reports note today, Prime Minister Maliki made a brave decision to go into a very difficult situation where you have terrorists and insurgents that have infested the area. And he has taken his forces down there and are working with them.

As to whether or not MNFI is providing any sort of air cover or something that, I'll have to refer you to them, because things are unfolding quite rapidly. But that's why we are there, to help just in case they need it.

I think the way we would characterize this is that it was a bold decision by the Iraqis. Many of these militias are backed by the Iranians. And especially when it comes to the special groups that are part of the Sadrist movement that are not following the guidance of Muqtada Al-Sadr and have continued to fight even during the cease-fire. So I would characterize it as a bold decision, precisely what the critics have asked to see in Iraq, more movement by Iraqi security forces. But obviously this is one of the first times that they've had such an entrenched battle, and we'll be there to support them if they need it. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Year-to-year comparisons? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Well, a couple of things. One, on the housing, I just mentioned the President is concerned enough that he's going to spend a day, both talking tomorrow about the economy overall, regarding the stimulus package and the business support that was in that package for tax relief that some businesses are already taking advantage of. There's another component which is the checks that will be going out and reaching people's mailboxes. Over 130 million Americans are going to get rebate checks once they file their tax returns. And that money will be -- largely, we believe, will be spent and will get money pumped into the economy, which is a good thing.

And the third element is the housing situation, where we have a large oversupply of housing which is forcing prices to come down. And while we had a good number yesterday in regards to existing home sales increasing in February, we don't take a lot of comfort in just one month's numbers. So we believe that this is going to take a little bit more time to shake out, both in regards to the housing number, as well as consumer confidence. We think it's going to take a while for that improve. MS. PERINO: Hi, Bret. I'm sorry, Mike. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q No relation. (Laughter.) Dana, I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about the President

MS. PERINO: They had a very good meeting following on from their meeting that they had in January. The President said to the King that he had very fond memories of his trip to the Middle East, and he was favorably impressed by the Kingdom of Bahrain. We have a lot of cooperation with them in regards to the nuclear civil agreement that Secretary Rice signed yesterday. We think that -- obviously the President is a big supporter of nuclear power. We're pleased to see a country like Bahrain take on this issue, because they are looking forward into the future.

They spent a little bit of time talking about the Gulf security dialogue and the importance of cooperation in that regard. Iran is always a topic when the President meets with these countries, and so they talked a little bit about that, as well. The meeting was not as long as usual because the President had recently just seen him, and he was anxious to take him over for lunch, and then he took him upstairs in the White House for a tour of the residence.

I'm going to go to Mark first. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

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

MS. PERINO: Okay. So if you remember a few weeks ago, I said that the President would be getting several briefings and giving several speeches on Iraq on the lead-up to it. A couple of weeks ago when the President went to the Pentagon and he met with the Joint Chiefs at the Tank, they call it, that meeting focused on long-term capabilities and long-term issues that we're looking at in terms of the 21st century -- much more broad than just Iraq, but, of course, Iraq was a little bit of the conversation.

Then the President had two hours yesterday with Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus, among others -- the whole National Security Council -- focusing specifically on Iraq and getting an assessment of where we are, six months now after the report in September. Then yesterday afternoon he went to the State Department for meetings that looked at the long-term transformational issues at the State Department.

So then tomorrow when the President goes to the Tank, he will again meet with the Joint Chiefs, but they will focus specifically on Iraq. So that will -- that's the difference in terms of those two meetings.

Then Thursday, the President's speech on Iraq will provide an update on the political and economic situation in Iraq. So we're trying to cover all the bases, but not all at once. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Sure, I think that there will be a little bit of that, but the President really does think that it's important not only to talk about the security gains in Iraq, as he did last Wednesday at the Pentagon, but to also talk about the other two important pillars, which are the economic and political aspects.

If I could mention one other thing that the President talked to with the King of Bahrain, which was in regards to Iraq. He thanked him for agreeing to send an ambassador back to Baghdad, which he thinks is very symbolic of the progress that Iraq is making.

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

Q Dana, two quick questions. One, can you give us little more details on yesterday's meeting with

MS. PERINO: Well, we have a little bit of time before we have to say "now or never." We've got several months to continue to work with them. And actually that deal is supported by bipartisan members on Capitol Hill, as well, so they're helping to move this along. But, Goyal, I did not get an update on that meeting, so if I could follow up with you later, I will. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q And second, now Pakistan has a democratic government interjected and now I think there's a clear

MS. PERINO: The President this morning called the new Prime Minister, Prime Minister Gillani. They had a very good conversation and talked about the broad relationship that the United States has with Pakistan. And in that conversation, they both agreed that it is in both of their countries' best interests to continue to fight terrorists and extremists. So we anticipate continued cooperation.

Deb, did you have one? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Just had a question on food safety. A House subcommittee has held six hearings now looking at

MS. PERINO: A couple of things. One, yes, the President is fully aware of the situation. And last summer, he asked Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike Leavitt to lead a task force to review these issues. And the food safety aspect of import -- all of our imports is critically important and something that we are working on in terms of how do you deal with this issue.

And one of the things Secretary Leavitt suggested was to try to deal with it more at the source, to prevent the problem from occurring in the first place, before any problems arrive in the United States. In addition to that, we've asked for an increase in food safety inspection budgets. So I am not familiar with all of the hearings Capitol Hill has had, but we are working in a cooperative way with Congress to try to reach an agreement.

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

MS. PERINO: I don't believe he personally knows any one of them. The pardon attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice regularly provides the President with recommendations, and the President yesterday approved 15 pardons and one commutation of sentence. The U.S. Office of the Pardon Attorney spent late yesterday and early this morning notifying all of those people first before we made the announcement, so that they didn't read about it in the newspaper first.

The President considers these clemency recommendations as they come in to him. But I don't believe he knew any of them individually. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: It was just on a regular course of business, and the pardon attorney provides recommendations and then the President made the decision yesterday. So, nothing specific on the timing. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Can I do last one here, sorry, for her. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Hello. As you know, we have the Easter Egg Roll going on, on the South Lawn at the moment. And then this morning I told you President Bush met with his National Security Council, including General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, who beamed in from Baghdad, regarding Iraq and their upcoming testimony in the way forward. He will be getting additional briefings on Wednesday, at the Pentagon, from the Joint Chiefs and Secretary Gates, among others. And that is all in the lead up to April 8th and 9th, when Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus will provide Congress an update on Iraq. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: No, I don't have anything that I can provide you. Obviously it was a classified briefing. It was a meeting in which the President could hear frankly from them -- from a variety of people, including Admiral Fallon, who was there, from CENTCOM, as he has been in the past. So I don't have anything in detail I could provide you. And the President will get additional briefings from the Defense Department and then we'll work our way towards the President being able to make public whatever he thinks is the next step, but that won't be until after the testimony. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Not yet. But it will be soon after. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: President Bush thinks that every single loss is tragic, from the very first several years ago to the ones that sacrificed yesterday. And he's extremely proud of the courageous men and women in uniform and all that they've done to help protect Iraqis, to protect each other and to protect this country.

Most of the families of the fallen that he meets with have one request of the President, which is: Do not let my loved one's sacrifice be in vain. And the President assures them that he is committed to staying and fighting and winning. And one of the reasons he's taking such careful deliberation over the next few weeks as we lead up to the April time frame is because he wants to make sure that the gains that we have secured over this past year are cemented and that we lay the foundation for Iraq to have a democracy where they can govern, sustain and defend itself right there in the Middle East.

The enemy we face is brutal. They have killed thousands of people around the world, innocent men, women and children. And they have killed our soldiers as well. And the President believes that taking the fight to the enemy is the best way to combat them for our own national security. But he definitely feels the loss. He gets a report about every single soldier who passes away, and he always pauses a moment to think about them and to offer a prayer for their loved ones and their family and friends. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: There have been, but the vast majority have all asked him not to allow that sacrifice to be in vain. But certainly there are some. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Well, he has said that repeatedly, and that is true for the I think almost nearly a thousand families of the fallen that he's met with. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Helen, as you know, as he said many times, he was the one responsible for making the decision to go to war. He didn't make it lightly. And as Commander-in-Chief, the hardest thing that you do and that he's done, and that any Commander-in-Chief before him and those in the future, the hardest thing that they will do is decide to commit our men and women to harm's way. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I think that he knew that the war was going to require sacrifices and that -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Well, of course by our soldiers. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Helen, these are all questions we have dealt with before. I've given you an answer in the President's reaction to the 4,000 and I'm going to move on.

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

MS. PERINO: No, not that I'm aware of. I think that the President has made public statements about his feelings, and we live in America, so they can do the same.

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

Q Yes. Dana, apparently the New York Fed just signed off on a deal quadrupling the offer that JPMorgan

MS. PERINO: I think that you should go back to your experts and make sure that they understand what they're talking about, because this is a deal between Bear Stearns and JPMorgan; the Fed is involved. But this is regards to the Bear Stearns price that JPMorgan is going to pay. The taxpayers aren't bearing any brunt of that price. And part of the Fed's commitment to the country, and their mission, is to make sure that the taxpayers are protected, and that is particularly true in this regard, as well.

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

Q When the President met with General Petraeus in Kuwait, the President said at the time, if you

MS. PERINO: I don't think the President laid it out that way, because the way he has conducted this situation is to listen to his commanders on the ground throughout. So if you remember, back in January of 2005, the President had said that he thought at that time, after the election in Iraq and after the constitution had passed, that at that point he thought he would be soon recommending troop withdrawals. That didn't happen, because in February of 2005 is when al Qaeda tried to wreak civil war and chaos and to stoke sectarian tensions, which they were largely successful at doing. And it was then in December of 2006 and in January of 2007 that the President went through these types of consultations and decided to send in more troops, commonly known as the surge.

Then, nine months later, after General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker had come back, he listened to his commanders on the ground and they tell him that it's okay, in their opinion, to start drawing down some. So he orders some troop withdrawals. And now we think that there's a natural time from last September to now, in April, to take another look and to make an assessment at that point. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I would say that he did not presume one way or the other. What he said he would do is listen to his commanders on the ground, and that's what he's doing now. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Well, let's let General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker come and provide their testimony. I can't say what they told the President in private today. That would be inappropriate, and the President needs to be able to get candid advice from advisors without thinking that it's going to be then negotiated here from the podium.

But regardless of what happens, we know that we've had troops coming home based on success. We have -- we're going from 20 brigades down to 15 brigades. And where we go from there is going to be something that the President will decide and make public to everybody in early April. I think until then we can't say what the President will or will not do because he takes time to deliberately listen to the experts who are on the ground.

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

Q You call it the return on success, the ability to bring troops home. On the campaign, for example

MS. PERINO: The President ultimately -- of course, the President of the United States wants all of the troops to come home, but he's going to do that when conditions are right. Right now we've had these security gains. That's plain for everyone to see. There are starting to be some more political progress with the Iraqis having passed three major laws -- and on the verge of a fourth -- and they're about to hold more elections. And so they're starting to move and cement their democracy.

What the President doesn't want to do is move too quickly in withdrawing our troops and erase all those gains, because the terrorists that we're fighting there, and the enemy still remains very lethal and determined in order to try to intimidate us into leaving too soon. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Well, that's what I think General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker -- the things that they talked to the President about today, and what they will talk to Congress about in just -- in less than two weeks, is what is that point, and when are they going to feel comfortable. And I'll let them make public when they're going to feel comfortable with that, and then the President will make his recommendation based on not only that information, but that from the Joint Chiefs, from Secretary Gates, and also from the State Department. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: It was a two-hour secure video teleconference this morning. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Possibly. I'm working on it.

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

MS. PERINO: You know, I'm -- there was a report last week that came out from the Defense Department that I would refer you to. It has lots of experts providing input and it's detailed all throughout there.

There's no doubt that Secretary -- I'm sorry, excuse me, Saddam Hussein was a state sponsor of terrorism. So let me refer you to that report; it's quite detailed.

What we know is that al Qaeda has decided to make Iraq the central front in their war on terror and we are fighting them there so that we don't have to fight them here. And one of the things that has helped us is a hugely significant event of the Sunni Arabs in Iraq deciding to turn against al Qaeda and to work with us instead to fight against them. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: In its current form, no. But let me refer you to that report, they have some very interesting information in there. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Look, I -- what we know is that we are facing brutal enemies across the world that mainly focus in this area where al Qaeda has decided to make Iraq the central front in the war on terrorism. Just look at the videotapes from last week from Osama bin Laden. They talk about these issues of the new -- his deputy's tape today, trying to stoke more violence and terrorism in the region. And this is going to be something we deal with for many years to come.

The problem of terrorism is not something that was built up since the Bush administration came into office; it was decades in the making. And it's going to take us a long time, both militarily as well as economically and politically and diplomatically, to fight.

Yes, Jim. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Dana, I've been hearing word more from senior citizens on fixed incomes who are being negatively

MS. PERINO: Sure. They talk about -- he meets with -- first of all, President Bush meets with his economic advisors quite regularly. In fact, just last night he had a conversation with Hank Paulson around 8:00 p.m. He was getting an update on the discussions between JPMorgan and Bear Stearns and the Fed. So he gets regular updates. And obviously the effect of gas prices and inflation are always on the agenda for the President when he gets those updates, at least once a week, if not more. Recently, certainly within the last several months -- I would say since July. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Obviously I'd refer you to the Treasury Department or the Fed, who can talk about those issues in detail. And a lot of those reports are public. The President is mainly concerned that people are feeling the pinch from higher gas prices and he understands that obviously health care prices weigh heavily on people's minds. And across the board the President wants to make sure that this administration is making sure we have pro-growth economic policies so that everyone is benefitting and that we don't do things that will over-correct the economy and make things worse for people.

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

Q Dana, the new report on home sales -- what does that mean for this administration? Does it mean

MS. PERINO: I think you're referring to the existing home sales report, where it beat expectations. I think people were generally expecting to see a slight decline in the number of existing home sales. It was welcome news that home sales were actually at 2.9 percent of an increase.

We welcome that news, but we can't put a lot of stock into just one report, so we don't know exactly what it means. But we welcome that part of it. And what the situation is in the housing market is that we have an over amount of -- an oversupply, so we need to bring down the number of houses that are out there, and that's what this report did -- two things: that sales were up, and that supply is starting to shrink. Those are trends that we like, and we'd like to see more of that. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Okay. And I have another question. On Iraq, talking to some soldiers on the ground there, they

MS. PERINO: All of those questions that you just brought up are good ones, and ones that General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker will have input -- have their experience to be able to provide their input to the President, and there will be lots of different discussions. But I would point out to you that just recently, within the last month, there was the big holy day in Iraq and the Iraqis handled all of the security, and there was not one incidence of violence. That was good, that was a good example -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: -- that was one huge event where they had over a million people there. So that's trending in the right direction as well.

But what's going to be critically important is to make sure that we don't move too quickly in pulling more troops out and erase those gains. We have to make sure that the Iraqis can take care of it themselves. Largely they are in many of the areas, but they've got a long way to go in others. So we've got to keep our commitment to the Iraqis, make sure that our troops are fully funded. That's one of the things that Congress is going to have to deal with when they come back from their most recent recess, is get our troops funded so that we can make sure that all the training that we're doing is solidifying and that the Iraqis can then take care of themselves. But it's going to take a while. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

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

MS. PERINO: April, look, I think that if you look at the facts for themselves and how many provinces they've been able to take over, the progress that they've been able to make, the sacrifices that the Iraqis are making, the Iraqis are serving right alongside with us, and they're -- we're helping to improve their training. By any measure, if you look at their training, as I read the reports from General Petraeus and MNFI, that they're doing much better protecting themselves and also protecting the population. So they're making progress. But I can't tell you how long it's going to take.

I do know that because of the progress that we've made so far, we're able to bring 30,000 of our troops home this year. And then will there be eventual -- eventually will there be more troop drawdowns? Yes. But I can't tell you how many, and how soon. And I need the President to have the time that he's asked for to get briefed, to digest the information, and then allow General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker to testify in front of Congress, and then he'll make a final decision and announcement. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I think I've just answered -- I think I answered that question earlier, Victoria. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

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

MS. PERINO: It's impossible for me to answer that question, Victoria. Does he know how many soldiers would pay the ultimate sacrifice in this war? No. But that was impossible to know. And he mourns every single loss, and he thinks that the right thing to do is to take the fight to this enemy. It's a brutal enemy that's determined not to just kill our soldiers, but to kill all of us. And our soldiers are there bravely fighting to make sure that we're protected. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: In terms of -- well, he said that before, Victoria. And I just told you that in -- he has publicly said in January of 2005, he thought he was soon going to be able to announce that troops would be coming home. But what we know that -- we know that al Qaeda sowed terrible violence and stoked sectarian flames. Therefore, we had to regroup and we listened to our commanders on the ground. That's what listening to your commanders on the ground is all about. You have to be -- remain flexible and you have to trust them, and you have to then make your decisions based on your best judgment, after you get briefings, which is what he's doing now. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: The President did congratulate President Ma. He was pleased that the elections were free and fair. And we do hope that this will give the Taiwanese a chance to realize the prosperity that they have been working towards. And obviously, there are many different people within the region who supported the other party. We understand that, and elections can be hard for others, but we are hopeful, and we do look forward to working with the new government. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Before his inauguration? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Let me check on that in terms of scheduling. I don't know of anything on the schedule right now. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Can I check and get back to you? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

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

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

MS. PERINO: Not commenting on the '08 election. I'm not -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Try your next question -- next and final. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Let me just say that Secretary Rice spoke to her counterpart in China and expressed the President's feelings. I would also let you know that Ambassador Jim Jeffrey, who is the President's Deputy National Security Advisor, had a meeting this weekend, over the weekend, with Ambassador Zhou, who is the Chinese Ambassador to America. He expressed our deep concerns over the widespread security crackdown in Tibet. He urged them to be more peaceful, to open a dialogue with the Dalai Lama, which is something we have stressed before. So we continue to have conversations with them. And then, of course, the President is getting an update right now from Secretary Rice -- or soon, as soon as he gets to the State Department, about the situation in Tibet. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Dana, it's very weird for a President to meet a foreign minister of a country, but today he's meeting

MS. PERINO: Yes. As I said this morning, President Bush is excited to meet with the Exterior Minister of India. There's lots of different things to talk about. We have a broad and deep relationship with India on a variety of issues, including the civil nuclear agreement that you mentioned. And I'm sure they'll talk about other things as well.

Okay, I'm going to go back here. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q On Pakistan real quick, is there any concern over instability in the country, given that the new

MS. PERINO: Well, as I said this morning, we expressed our congratulations to the new Prime Minister. We look forward to working with the new government in Pakistan. We've had good relations with them over the past. We hope that that continues. There's lots of different areas where we can cooperate -- not just counterterrorism, but across the board. So we look forward to working with the new government, and we are hopeful that the transition is very peaceful. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: It's one of those days I have nothing to start with. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: It's one of those days, I had a feeling. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I hadn't heard about that development. What I can tell you is that last night Secretary Rice spoke to the Chinese Foreign Minister to very directly reiterate our views and concerns about the situation and told the Chinese that we would urge restraint in dealing with protestors, to refrain from non-violence [sic] and then Secretary Rice informed the President this morning of that conversation. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Well, I'll let them characterize their reaction. But I can say that -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: We spoke -- well, we're going to keep a very close eye on what's happening over there. We're concerned about innocent people's safety and well-being, especially because we believe that everyone should have the right to peacefully assemble and express their views. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

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

Q Yes, quick. Dana, I remember when Dalai Lama came to the Oval Office and he met with President

MS. PERINO: Well, as I just said, the President had had Secretary Rice call the Foreign Minister in China. We believe that the Dalai Lama is a person of peace and of non-violence. And what we would urge China to do is to establish a dialogue with him so that they can resolve their dispute peacefully, rather than through violence. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Dana, can I just follow on our colleague Martha Raddatz's interview with the Vice President? Let

MS. PERINO: No, I don't think that's what he's saying, and obviously I haven't spoken to the Vice President since he's traveling today and was in Kabul visiting with President Karzai a the request of the President. But what he went on to say is that President should not make decisions based on polls. And we fully recognize that people across America are unhappy with the war; possibly they didn't agree with the decision in the first place. They might have been unhappy with the conduct of the war. They might have disagreed with the President's decision to send in more troops, which was a very unpopular decision across the board.

But what the President has said is that while people might not like the decisions that he makes, he has to do what he thinks is right for the country, and he cannot try to chase an opinion poll and try to make things better that way. He has to act on what he thinks is right, and that's what he's done. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q So at what point -- I mean, I guess I just -- there is the impression that the Vice President doesn

MS. PERINO: I think that is the wrong impression. I think that the Vice President and the President both, together, all of us across the administration, would like for people to support the President's decisions. We realize that that's unrealistic, especially in a time of war -- and in particular this war. And while we're not able to change public opinion, we also have to follow a principle and stand on principle. And you have to ask yourself, what kind of a person do you want in the Oval Office? And America will have this choice to make in November of 2008 -- before I get ahead of myself.

So we believe that the President stood on his principle. He hasn't chased public opinion polls. He's aware of them, but he hasn't made decisions because of them, and I think there's a distinction. Just because you don't make decisions based on opinion polls doesn't mean you don't care what people think. We are all Americans. We care deeply about what people think.

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

MS. PERINO: I didn't say that, Helen. But, Helen, this President was elected -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: You had input. The American people have input every four years, and that's the way our system is set up. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: And we listen to -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: -- different points of view. The President, in fact, had many meetings with members of Congress leading up to his decision about the surge. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I would submit to you that people across America, if asked what type of a President do you want: one that stands on principle or that one that chases polls? And I think that they would want -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Helen, the President went to war to remove Saddam Hussein. He talked all about this yesterday in his speech. I'll refer you to that.

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

Q Dana, on the Vice President's trip, after he went and talked to Iraqi leaders, there was this what

MS. PERINO: Well, I think it's because of what the Iraqis did in terms of getting together, but obviously we've been supporting them and encouraging them to try to work this out. What you're talking about is the provincial elections laws and provincial powers laws. This provincial powers is similar to the United States in terms of our relationship between the federal government and the state governments. And in Iraq they're setting this up for the first time.

And so there's a lot of issues that have to be dealt with. And in this particular bill, one of the Vice Presidents, Vice Presidents Mahdi, had a concern with one of the technical parts of the bill in terms of whether or not the central government could dismiss one of the provincial governors. So he raised a veto. In their constitution, he's allowed to do that, and to block the law from going into effect until there's further review. And upon that further review, his concerns were addressed, and now it's being moved forward so they'll have that law in place.

But the question about the elections, yes, I think they will be held. In the law it says they have to be held before October 1st. And I think what the Iraqis are going to have to do now is figure out if they should all be held on the same day, and what date that's going to be. So all those details will be worked out between the Iraqis. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Well, I think, obviously -- look, we have Ambassador Ryan Crocker there, and he's been working very closely with them. And I don't know if the Vice President was able to push it over the top, if his conversation helped or not. In fact, I'm not sure if he met with the Vice President Mahdi. But we are pleased that it came to a resolution.

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

Q Dana, back on China for a moment. I know you've said in the past that President Bush attending

MS. PERINO: One, the President -- one of the things the President has said also in regards to this is that any country who's going to be hosting the Olympics will have a bright light shined upon it. And it is a chance for that country to put its best face forward, and it's also a chance for other countries to learn more about the country.

And we are very concerned about what's happening in Tibet, and we have expressed those concerns. And that's something that President Bush and Secretary Rice can do that other citizens, concerned citizens around the world aren't able to do, just because they're not elected as a head of state. But the President, as head of state, has spoken very frankly to President Hu, and Secretary Rice has done the same with her counterparts, and we will continue to.

And then as it pertains to the Olympics, certainly the President wants to make sure that our athletes have a really good experience, and I think that most heads of state around the world believe that, too. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Follow on that? There is ample precedent for kind of a politicization of the Olympics. In 1980

MS. PERINO: Actually, I think if you look back to some of the things he's said before, that it -- on a trip like that, he would make it a priority to have a meeting and a conversation with President Hu, which is something, again, that I said that he as a head of state is able to do, that other people aren't able to do. And he's able to speak very frankly to the Chinese President or the Russian President or whoever it might be, and that the President, in a private setting, can speak very frankly with people from all around the world in terms of at the head of state level. And he may do that.

Now, if you're looking back in terms of 1980, I don't know if this President would have made that same decision, and we're not going to relitigate it, but this President certainly hopes that our athletes who are training very hard have the best possible experience at the Olympics.

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

Q Thank you, Dana. Two questions. An appeals court in California has delivered a ruling that is

MS. PERINO: Obviously we've supported home-schoolers in the past. I'm not familiar with that legal decision out of the appeals court in California, but I'm sure it will probably be appealed and then we'll see how it goes from there. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Page one of The Washington Times reported that the Department of Homeland Security spent $20 million

MS. PERINO: I haven't talked to the President about it. Let me refer you over to Department of Homeland Security and Secretary Chertoff about it. Obviously we have taken -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I don't know if I'll see him today before he leaves for Camp, but obviously this President has worked very hard on border security as well as other aspects of immigration. And so let me refer you to Department of Homeland Security for questions about that particular contract. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Yes, the President has been getting updates on the weather situation that's affecting so many different states. Yesterday morning we received a request from Missouri for a disaster declaration. We expedited the process, and we were able to release that last night at about 11:15 p.m., which then allows for federal funds to start flowing and also assets.

I know that the Corps of Engineers is helping in terms of sandbags and pumps and other things -- boats, things like that that people will need. And so Department of Homeland Security and FEMA have much more on the details. But the President has been getting updated, and he'll continue to be. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: No, I don't have it with me. That's a good question. But we'll try to get it out early tomorrow morning, if not tonight. Okay?

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

Q As far as Osama bin Laden and our national security is concerned, he has issued another tape and

MS. PERINO: I would put it this way. The intelligence community analyzed the tape. They do believe that that was his voice. So that would mean that for all things -- for all that we know, that he is still alive. And the President has a very aggressive hunt on for Osama bin Laden. And I think in the tape, what Osama bin Laden was trying to do is to suggest that he stands for all Muslims, and I think that if you look at the facts across the board, especially what's happening in Al-Anbar province and across Iraq, that Arabs are starting to turn against them, and that is of huge strategic significance in the global war on terror. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Okay, a couple of announcements. As you may have seen, there is severe weather hampering the middle part of the country -- hammering the middle part of the country, I should say. The administration continues to monitor the severe weather in Missouri, Kansas, Illinois, and Texas. And FEMA has activated regional response coordination centers and it has liaisons working with the affected states.

Administrator Paulison spoke earlier today with the Governor of Missouri, and he said that FEMA is ready and able to assist its state partners as needed and requested. And FEMA is available if you have additional questions.

Also, two personnel announcements. Today President Bush is pleased to announce that he has selected Kenneth L. Wainstein to serve as Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. We will have a statement from the President to release as soon as we finish this briefing, or while we're here. Mr. Wainstein, as you may know, oversaw the creation of the National Security Division of the Justice Department in September 2006. That creation -- the creation of that division was a key component of the recommendations from the WMD Commission.

And under Mr. Wainstein's leadership the NSD has achieved several important milestones -- I'll mention a couple of them, which is the ongoing effort to modernize FISA -- in fact, he was just here not too long ago providing a briefing -- that also included the Protect America Act passage. He has helped bring the surveillance activities conducted under the Terrorist Surveillance Program to under the authority of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, and he has worked on creating and implementing a comprehensive oversight program for FBI national security investigations.

In addition, the President is pleased to announce his intention to nominate Michael Leiter to be Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, which is in the Office of the National -- I'm sorry, Director of National Intelligence. He currently serves as Acting Director and Principal Deputy Director of the National Counterterrorism Center. Earlier in his career he served as Deputy General Counsel and Assistance Director of the President's Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction, also known as the WMD Commission. So we're pleased that both of those individuals will be joining the team. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: These are the -- this figure comes out of MNFI, the Multi-National Forces in Iraq, and it's the -- also called the Concerned Local Citizens, or CLCs, that are working with the Marines now to beat back al Qaeda. It generally came out of the Anbar province, where al Qaeda had certainly taken over in Anbar and was starting to spread into other areas until the Sunnis there and others that lived in the area decided that they were not going to take it anymore and joined with us. And that's where you got the CLCs working with Petraeus. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Those are the numbers that come out of MNFI, and I don't know exactly how they count them, but they come out of General Petraeus's operation. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: That's part of it, sure. And I think that the overall effort in Iraq -- we couldn't have done it on our own, in terms of the security gains that we've had over the past year, in terms of just the American forces. And across-the-board, the Iraqis had a surge of their own, and not only did they have the CLCs that have stepped up, but you also had many more security forces added to the Iraqi forces across-the-board, both from the national police angle and to their military.

But the psychological and ideological struggle, which is part -- something that the President has talked about from the beginning, since we were attacked by al Qaeda on 9/11, this is also something that the President talked about in the speech, that you have a vision -- two competing visions, two competing ideologies. And the ideology of freedom and democracy is winning against al Qaeda in Iraq. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: He said that there is a large-scale uprising in Iraq. I don't have the exact language here, but certainly across-the-board, we are on the offense against al Qaeda not just in Iraq, but in other places where they are popping up. And the competing visions is something that the President has said for a long time. It's not just a military fight -- and everyone else says that, people on Capitol Hill say that, that it's a political and economic fight. And it's an ideological struggle, and one that we are intent on winning. It's going to take a long, long time.

Part of it was -- the first step was to regain control of not just Anbar, but the areas where al Qaeda had infiltrated, which we have largely done in Iraq. Now they're fighting mostly up in the Mosul area. But we have to keep fighting, and part of fighting is joining with the Iraqis. And they've done a lot and they're fighting alongside with us, and they're taking a lot of casualties -- not just through their police or their military, but through the attacks on their innocent civilians. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q The President had a lot to say about the surge, but he didn't say much about the reason that the

MS. PERINO: I realize some people think that that hasn't been anything that happened, but I think if you look at the facts, Bill, I think -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: In terms of the political reconciliation that they've had? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Well, they've passed a lot more laws than this Congress has this year, and they've worked very hard. I mean, they're going from a complete dictatorship where they have no trust of one another -- they've never had democracy, and just in January, late January, they finished passing four -- three or four pieces of -- major pieces of legislation. And they're continuing to work on more.

Politics is alive and well in Iraq. And just today we hear reports that it's possible that the constitutional process that was working its way through, where Vice President Mahdi had suggested a veto against a provincial powers law that -- it looks like that will be withdrawn, which would be a good step. And then you have -- what you have is Iraq actually trying to function as a democracy.

And I think some people who are throwing stones ought to look at the primary system in our own country, especially on the Democratic side, where you have two states where -- Florida and Michigan, where they're figuring out whether or not to seat those delegates. Politics happens. And that's what -- it happens in the United States and it's certainly happening in Iraq. It's not a bad thing that they're having debates about their constitution. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I don't really have an opinion, but I'm really interested in the story. (Laughter.) Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Well, there's a lot of things he didn't mention. There's lots of things he did mention. He can't talk about every single thing every time. As you know, the President talks to Prime Minister Maliki regularly. He talks to General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker every single week, if not more often, during the week. And he's constantly pressuring them. And we have people who are there working with them to pull this together.

And just today, look at the reports that they're moving forward, they're making progress on the provincial elections law, which they originally passed in January. Someone had -- Vice President Mahdi had a constitutional question as to whether or not this was the right thing for their country. He had issues that he wanted to be addressed, or he had concerns about a technicality. They were addressed. That's what you would expect in a civil democracy, they have those conversations.

Today what the President was focusing on was the -- revisiting the beginning of the war, talking about what's happening now and talking about the surge, and then the broader global war on terrorism. Just because the President doesn't mention something doesn't mean all of a sudden, Matt, that he's perfectly satisfied. He says repeatedly that he knows that they need to do more. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: -- what the facts are. You reported -- Reuters has reported on them, on those successes in Iraq yourselves. So I don't understand where you're coming from. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Well, we could have made it much longer, and we could have had lots of other things in there to satisfy you. But clearly, the President has been talking about this repeatedly; I talk about it repeatedly; so does General Petraeus, Ambassador Crocker, Secretary Rice, Secretary Gates. There's no shortage of administration officials who are directly talking to the Iraqis, and then talking to you all about how we feel. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Can I ask about something that was in the speech? The economy. The President talked about if we

MS. PERINO: No, and that's not precisely what he said. What he said was that what is critical is to make sure that we do not allow al Qaeda to establish a safe haven in Iraq or elsewhere because the impacts of such a safe haven could be catastrophic both in lives and on the economy. We know what the kind of impact that just the 9/11 attack had on our country, where over a million people lost their jobs, and our stock markets went into a turmoil, and we had to take significant action in order to help right our economy. So that's what he was talking about, in general, not specifically about oil. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: That's what he was meaning, yes. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q When the President was talking about, what Terry was asking earlier, on the large-scale Arab uprising

MS. PERINO: I think that there is a strategic -- there is a significance to what has happened in the turning against -- of the Sunnis in Iraq turning against al Qaeda. It's a significant moment in the global war on terror. The President is talking about it. And when we talk about the gains we've made are fragile and not irreversible, the President is talking about making sure we follow on and carry through this significant event, and work -- continue to work with the Concerned Local Citizens that Terry was talking about, and others, and help bring better lifestyles, more prosperity, schools, roads, and all the other pieces that come after you have a more secure country. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q But over the past five years, there were many instances where the President has said things like

MS. PERINO: Well, Mark, look at the rest of the speech. The President says, this is fragile, it's not irreversible, we have a lot more work to do. The President is being very honest with the American people, that we have made gains -- that's undeniable -- both on the security side and on the political side. And the Iraqis have helped us get there.

But we have a lot more to do. And that includes making sure that they follow through on the laws that they've just passed, make sure that they're implemented appropriately, make sure that we continue to support our men and women in uniform so that they have all the tools that they need for the mission that we've asked them to do, and that this is a long ideological struggle. He's called it the generational -- this is his generation's big decision on how we're going to handle a global war on terror, and do we have the stomach to continue fighting -- because, in the President's mind, we have to stay on the offense or else we'll run the risk of becoming targets again.

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

MS. PERINO: I think she's -- I think she was probably quoting what we were asked about, I think it was last week, by that report. And we have questioned that in terms of -- we don't know exactly how much it's going to cost. And they throw a lot of different pieces into that, in terms of cost of care for veterans going forward. The President says that it's absolutely worth it. The costs are higher than we originally projected; we have admitted that. And the President believes that we're going to give the troops everything that they need. At the end of the day, even though they've been hard-fought arguments, the Congress has come together on a bipartisan basis to provide those funds, because I would assume that they think it's worth it.

I'd give you one example, which is MRAP vehicles. This is new technology for vehicles that can help save the lives of our troops, or at least certainly prevent grievous injuries, and those vehicles are very expensive. The questions coming from Congress aren't, "Why are you spending the money to provide these vehicles?" The questions were, "Why can't you get more of them to these troops faster?" "Don't they deserve them?"

And so we think that, at the end of the day, we will be able to fund these troops with what they need, but we think that it was worth it. The alternatives of not funding the troops or not completing the mission, the cost of that is very real. We know the cost of not being able to thwart a terrorist attack. That cost was extreme -- it was way too high. And the President thinks that the investments we're making now will make our country safer in the long run. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I don't know if it's going to be $3 trillion. And I think that is the assumptions of how far into the future that you plan on -- it's hard to tell. We don't even know what the projections are going to be in 2011. It's hard to tell what it's going to be 50 years from now. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I think that there have been many different estimates that the President was referring to, not just that.

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

MS. PERINO: Well, in terms of no end in sight, are we going to be there for a while? Are we going to be there for several more years? Yes. And the President has been very honest about that. And I think that many people in Congress are actually -- that are serious about it understand that we need to be there for a while in order to help Iraq secure the gains that they've made, establish themselves as a fully functioning democracy, not only for the benefit of the region but for the benefit of our own national security. So we are going to be there for a while.

How long are we going to have troops there and what are the levels going to be? That's what we don't know. And we've already been able to say that after the surge we were able to bring back, because of the successes that we've had this past year, five brigades that will come back by July. And then from there we don't know what the troop levels will be. And the President said he'll be getting updates. As you know, next week he's going to be getting some briefings from both the State Department and the Department of Defense, as he did in the lead-up to the September report that Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus provided. So he's going to do similar next week, and then -- and allow them to have their testimony before he makes further decisions. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

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

MS. PERINO: But who's counting? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Does he have any plans to try to challenge the U.S. -- the American people? If he thinks we're

MS. PERINO: What you saw from the President today is making the case for why we need to be there and why it's important for national security. And, look, he understands that it's unpopular. The war has been -- the war is unpopular. War in general is unpopular. And this President could figure out a way to be popular. There's lots of different ways that you could figure out how to make -- if you wanted to chase opinion polls, that you could increase your popularity.

But the President, this President has had many things come his way, and the thing that has grounded him are his principles. And going into this next year, the President is going to continue to stand on principle. If more people can understand the reasons that we're there, we think that that's better -- for the better, and we continue to try to make that case. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q The President warned of the danger that al Qaeda could gain access to Iraq's oil resources. But

MS. PERINO: The purpose of what the President said is that al Qaeda should not be allowed to have safe haven in Iraq and take over -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Well, if we were to leave we would certainly ensue chaos and not be able to -- if we were to leave too soon, it would certainly be chaos and it would be terrible for not only the innocent Iraqis, but the entire region and, in fact, our own national security. That's what the President -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: You're missing the point, and I think that you should go back and read -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Yes, actually, I think you are missing the point. And I call on you because I see what you write about how you come here and you really want to have questions asked. And I'm calling on you and I'm providing it to you, but I suggest that you read the President's speech and read it in context, because that's -- what you're suggesting is not what the President said.

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

MS. PERINO: I'd refer you to the State Department, who evaluates those matters. I don't know of any imminent announcements or decisions.

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

MS. PERINO: Sure, the President is hoping that they will come to an agreement before we get to the NATO summit, because he thinks that is an issue that is solvable, and something that they should get done before we head out there at the end of the month. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Well, I know the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has been talking with them, and she'll be here tomorrow to report to the President on her recent trip. So I'm sure they'll talk about not only her trip to Russia, but the upcoming NATO summit. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Thank you, Dana. Two questions. The statement that "The most segregated hour in American life

MS. PERINO: I haven't talked to the President about that speech. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Oh, all right. California's Democrat Congressman Fortney Stark, who you may remember risked his

MS. PERINO: Les, you know I'm not going to talk about '08 politics. I told you that before. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Come with a question that I can answer. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FRATTO: Good morning, everyone. As you know, we're on our way to Jacksonville, Florida. The President has a number of events. I'll just run through those real quickly. First of all, the President did have his normal briefings this morning. At 12:30 p.m., the President attends a Republican National Committee luncheon. At 2:10 p.m., the President participates in a tour of Blount Island Marine Terminal. This is the Jacksonville Port Authority.

As you know, the President, after the tour, at 2:35 p.m., will make remarks on trade policy. That's the major focus for the President right now, is expanding our trade opportunities and to look for ways to open markets for America's farmers and ranchers and businesses and service providers. I think it's lost on a lot of people, when we get into a discussion about trade, the fact that the American economy is still -- remains as the world's largest exporter of goods and services. And trade is a vibrant part of our economy. It creates jobs; it gives us the opportunity to find markets for our products that continue to be produced here in America. And so that's an important message. And it goes through ports like this.

And one of the benefits we have in America, we're a two-coast -- actually, a three-coast country, if you count the Gulf and the products that go through the Gulf. The efficient operation of our ports is essential to getting our products in and out of our markets quickly and to get them to market quickly. So this is a very appropriate place to talk about trade policy. A lot of jobs in Florida created by our trade.

After the speech, at 5:50 p.m. -- we'll fly to south Florida, and at 5:50 p.m., the President attends a Republican National Committee reception. And then we return to Washington.

A couple things I want to talk about just before we get into questions. Some of the coverage on the economy -- and I'm sure we'll talk about it in the Q&A a little bit -- but I've seen some characterizations out there that are wildly different in terms of how people perceive what the federal response is to what we're going through in the economy and the challenges that we're facing. So I just want to do a little -- some of the -- even just over the weekend and yesterday, some of the descriptions I saw were -- ranged from the federal response being unprecedented and dramatic and sweeping, and at the same time, seeing characterizations as laissez-faire, which is, frankly, a term I haven't heard in a long time, maybe since I -- I have to go back to my econ history classes in college before I heard anyone use the term, "laissez-faire." I can tell you I've never heard anyone use it in policy-making and government. So that was interesting to read yesterday from some of the critics.

Let's be very clear. The federal response in dealing with the challenges to our economy has been one that has anticipated the challenges, have been swift and decisive, and we believe they are having an impact and will continue to have an impact. And I go back to the third quarter of last year, in August of 2007; you remember at the end of that month, after we had been working on certain housing and other economic policies for some time, that was a quarter in which the U.S. economy grew at nearly 5 percent. Very, very rapid growth.

And the economic policy-makers in our government were still looking forward to what they anticipated to be a sharp downturn and slower growth. And as they anticipated that, they began to develop certain policies, and had been working on housing policies that the President announced on August 31st. They'd also been working on potential economic growth packages to bring to the Congress.

On August 31st, the President announced a number of changes and actions that we would be taking at the federal level without legislation. These included the -- what came to be known as the HOPE NOW Alliance, that Secretary Paulson and Secretary Jackson have been working on, and we believe is having an impact; changes at the Federal Housing Administration that we've been able to do administratively. And at the same time, on August 31st, the President called for Congress to pass Federal Housing Administration modernization legislation.

I'll remind you again, that was August 31st of 2007; we are now in the middle of March of 2008, nearly seven months later, in the midst of this downturn in the housing market, and we are still waiting for Congress to pass Federal Housing Administration legislation, after nearly seven months. So when we see some of the critics out there like Senator Schumer demagoguing about lack of action from the administration, I think before there are stones thrown, they look a little bit at the glass house that they're living in and see what they can be doing, what Congress needs to be doing to help Americans get through this period, because we are focused on how this is helping homeowners and we want to see that accomplished.

Then the economic growth package. Again, anticipating the slowdown in the first quarter, the President's economic advisors have been working on an economic growth package that he signed only a month ago, but we were able to very swiftly move it through the Congress, with great cooperation from Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Boehner. So that was a good effort to get it done very quickly. And again, that was swift, decisive action on the part of the federal government to help the economy get through this transition period and this downturn.

And then you have the actions of the Fed, in cooperation with the Treasury Secretary and other economic policy officials, and the actions that they have taken, which, again, have, in fact, been very swift and decisive and creative in helping our financial markets deal with the stresses and strain that they're under today.

And so we support and appreciate the work that the Fed has done. That is the role of the Fed, is to take that kind of action. And they see it and understand it. We have great confidence in the Fed; we have great confidence in Chairman Bernanke. It's an independent institution, so they make the decisions as they're going to make a decision later today in the Federal Open Market Committee on how to -- on what their decision will be on the policy rate. We anticipate seeing that. But we have great confidence in the Fed and the actions they're taking.

And then one other thing I can -- I saw lots of questions on this -- and sorry if I'm going on a monologue here, but I will take questions. I know Secretary Paulson got this question a number of times this morning, and we've gotten the question in the past; there seems to be this question, what do you call this period that we're in, and why don't you just call it a recession? Take you back to 2001, okay. The group that determines whether an economic downturn is a recession or not is the National Bureau of Economic Research. In 2001, it wasn't until seven months after the beginning of the recession that they were able to determine that the U.S. economy was, in fact, in a recession.

Now, as Secretary Paulson said this morning, and you've heard us say, it's irrelevant what you call it. When you're in the middle of it, the question is, what are you doing about it? That is the most important thing, and that's what Americans are interested in, is what is the administration, what is the federal response to deal with a sharp slowdown in the economy? And that's what we've focused on.

The most important thing, and that's what Americans are interested in, is what is the administration, what is the federal response to deal with a sharp slowdown in the economy? And that's what we've focused on. We've focused on trying to put in place the policy options that we think will be effective, that will do good for the economy and not cause more damage to the economy going forward.

So there goes my monologue, and I'd be happy to take any questions you have on this or any other subject. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FRATTO: Who's not happy? Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FRATTO: Oh, no, no, this was me. That was all me, trust me. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FRATTO: He will, yes. Obviously it's a trade speech, but you should look for him to have some comments on the economy and how he sees the current state of the economy; maybe a little bit on why he is confident about the economy. I think maybe he'll have an opportunity to remind people that, while there are very real stresses and strains in our economy, and there is hardship for a lot of Americans, there are anchors of strength in our economy, and it's important to recognize them. They give a foundation for confidence, as should the federal response to dealing with the downturn. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q Tony, the President has said several times that he thinks the fundamentals of the economy are strong

MR. FRATTO: It's hard for us to know what the American public is hearing. I think they -- I would hope that they're hearing the balanced description of the economy that they have been hearing from people like Hank Paulson, Eddie Lazear, Keith Hennessey, and also from the President and other people who are speaking for the administration's views on the economy. It has been a very balanced view.

We've pointed to fundamentals that are undeniably strengths for the economy. People ask whether we're in a recession. I don't know if there's ever been a recession with the unemployment rate below 5 percent. I'm not saying that we are in one or not in one. I just don't know that -- the fact that we have low, historically low unemployment is a strength for the economy. The fact that we have -- continue to see solid productivity growth is a strength for the economy.

We've also been very clear, very transparent on the weaknesses that we see and the challenges that we're dealing with. There has been a very real and significant downturn in the housing market. We saw some more data on this today, on housing starts continue to be down -- clear evidence of that. And you see it both in the data and you see it anecdotally out in parts of the country. It's very difficult for communities to deal with and for Americans who are dealing with the threat of foreclosure. We see that and we're dealing with it.

We also talked, and have not been afraid, in fact, been very up front in talking about the drag on the economy from high energy prices. It's clearly a drag on economic growth, and we haven't been shy about talking about the fact that it's going to take a long time to change that dynamic for our economy. And we've also talked about the stresses that we're seeing in credit markets and the impact that that is having on the economy.

So it's hard for us to know exactly what the American public is hearing. As I said, we hope they're hearing a balanced message from us, because we feel it's important to be transparent with what the pros and cons are in the economy. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FRATTO: I think saying something is stalled before it's begun is -- I wouldn't say it's -- I wouldn't say it's stalled. We've had lots -- over the past year we've had extensive communication discussion with Congress and congressional leaders. Everybody understands, the President understands, this is a -- trade is a sensitive, emotional issue. It's always -- it has always been a difficult proposition to pass trade deals. I heard some people, some commentators talking about that it's more difficult today than ever to pass a trade deal. And I said, do you remember going back into the mid-'90s when the Clinton administration was trying to pass a trade deal, and it required the Vice President of the United States to go on television an debate Ross Perot in order to try to build support for trade deals.

Trade deals are never easy. They're always very difficult, always emotional issues. It's always easy to point to the costs of trade; when you see a factory close down because of increased competition, that's a very acute problem that you can see and visualize, whereas the benefits to trade are broadly spread throughout the economy, where increased economic opportunity across the breadth of the economy goes up and the availability of higher-quality, lower-cost products goes up. But those aren't the kinds of things that you easily see. But it's very easy to see a factory closing down in Ohio or Michigan. And so we understand it's an emotional issue.

The President is very, very concerned that if we as a nation turn away from our traditional openness to trade and investment -- investment coming into the country is actually another pillar of strength, as the amount of foreign investment coming into the United States helps create jobs here, and opening up markets to the rest of the world helps create jobs here. We have to remember that we are only 5 percent of the world's population. That means 95 percent of our potential customers exist outside of our borders. And we have showed time and time again that when we open up borders, our exporters and our American companies and farmers and ranchers are able to compete and sell their products. And so we want to continue to push for that. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FRATTO: And on Colombia specifically, we think it's critically important -- we think that we will be able to find accommodation with congressional leaders to get it done, and we think it's important enough to do that. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FRATTO: They only think I'm going to say about that is we certainly want to have conversations with congressional leaders and Speaker Pelosi on trade adjustment assistance. We support trade adjustment assistance. We think it's important. We think it's important that it works, and that it's well funded, and that it does the job that it's intended to do, which is to help those affected by trade to be able to find other employment if they are adversely affected by trade. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FRATTO: I'm not going to get into the -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MR. FRATTO: Yes, I understand, and I'm not going to get into the negotiations on the order. I just want to say that we absolutely want to have conversations and do this in a cooperative way with Speaker Pelosi and with House leaders, both on the Colombia free trade agreement and on trade adjustment assistance. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I don't have anything to start with, so I can go straight to questions. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q For people who are losing their homes, or losing their jobs, and then they see the government helping

MS. PERINO: Well, the way I would answer that question is in two parts. One, this isn't about bailing anyone out. These actions are intended, as I said earlier today, to minimize financial market disruptions. And investors in Bear Stearns are taking large and significant losses in this transaction. And that's not what happens in a bail-out. They bought into a company, they took a financial risk -- and it had paid off quite well for them a while ago, but today they're looking at a stock that's only worth $2. And the Fed, what they did last night, is try to provide liquidity to the markets so it would stabilize, and we could have orderliness in the system.

But I would also say that a major market disruption would have very damaging consequences and be very painful for everybody, from the small business owner to the homeowner, for everybody all the way up and down the economic food chain. And the goal here is to prevent a major disruption in financial markets. And the Fed is taking decisive action when necessary, and that is what they saw last night.

In addition to that, homeowners and small business owners and everyone across America needs to know that we've acted on multiple fronts, starting back in August -- that was when the President recognized that we might be heading into some headwinds in the economy, with several different aspects of it. And if you look back consistently over those past several months, he has said that we needed to take some action. And over time, we proposed legislation, dealing with the housing market. We also worked with the private sector to help homeowners, through HOPE NOW, and then Project Lifeline. We supported legislation that would not penalize people for writing down mortgage debt when they did a refinancing. And that finally became law.

We haven't had Congress act on one of the most important things they could do, which is Federal Housing Administration -- changes in reforms that we've asked for. It's been about seven months since the President first announced that, and Congress is now and again on a two-week recess, and nothing is going to happen.

But at the same time, back in January, the President said, when we worked on the stimulus package, that the reason that we're doing that is because we could see in the future there could be a potential downturn in the economy. And so if things were to get worse, we would have a stimulus package in effect. We called that, remember, an insurance policy, a booster shot, that we said would take effect and have impact later in the summer. And the President and Congress were right to work together on that bipartisan package, because those tax rebates will be going out to people all across the country, including the homeowners that you talk about. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q But, Dana, how does this square with sort of traditional conservative economic principles of limited

MS. PERINO: Well, I would point out again that, remember, investors -- Bear Stearns basically went from a company that was doing quite well to failure, and at $2 a share, I should think that those investors are seeing -- feeling today the consequences of that risk in a marketplace. But I would remind you that what's right for the markets and stability for the financial system had to be taken into consideration. And that's what the Fed decided to do, is to act quickly, to act decisively, to make sure that we could provide what's needed right now, which is stability and liquidity and orderliness.

And the Treasury Department is able to answer lots more of detailed questions, and the Fed certainly on historical questions in this matter. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

Q But people who are facing, say, foreclosure, the individuals, the little guys who are facing a

MS. PERINO: They're going to get that boost of liquidity in the form of a stimulus package and a tax rebate that's coming to them the second week of May. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: The other way to help work on the housing issues is to take advantage of some of the programs that we have in place, to talk with HOPE NOW or Project Lifeline, for those who are in more serious dire straits, and also to work -- for us to continue from the administration to call on Congress to finally take action on Federal Housing Administration reforms, which we think are necessary to help homeowners across-the-board.

But I would remind you, and remind consumers all across America, that the decisive action taken by the Fed yesterday was precisely to prevent long-term economic harm to everybody in the United States, including, as you said, the little guy. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: Well, the details of the action taken last night by the Fed, I would have to refer you to the Fed, because the deal and the transaction are quite complicated. But the Fed will be focused on making sure that the federal taxpayer is protected. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I think we were kept informed, but -- Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: I don't know, I'd have to refer you to the Fed when you ask if the Fed would know. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: The President gets regularly updated, and in fact, in just an hour or two he'll be meeting with the Working Group on Financial Markets, his Working Group on Financial Markets.

But let me point out one thing also, Ann, which is that the Fed did not just take the action last night in terms of helping to structure this deal, but it also took two other steps -- which I'll let them explain in terms of the discount window. But those options that are now available to investment bankers were not available to Bear Stearns. And the whole purpose of taking that action is so that there would be options and availability for companies to right themselves if they're feeling like they're sliding.

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

MS. PERINO: As we said, Elaine -- I don't know what kind of a question that is. Obviously, we're in a state where we have a weakened economy. And the President is extremely concerned. The Fed has taken action, decisive action, and they stand ready to do more if they need to. And we're going to continue to work with Congress, as we -- and we worked with them quite closely to get the stimulus package done. That will -- those checks will start coming to people's mailboxes the second week of May. And then they'll hopefully have the impact that the outside forecasters and the administration continue to see, which is that in the late summer we'll get a little bit of a boost out of that and it will help pull the economy out of a downturn.

But, obviously, the long-term fundamentals of the economy, as the President said this morning, remain strong. And that will be reflected over time. Read more Comment (0), Email this.

MS. PERINO: But that's exactly what you would expect from the President's senior leadership. And one of the most important things a President can do is to make sure that you have the right type of leadership in those positions at the right time. And I would say certainly that Secretary Paulson and Fed Chairman Bernanke fit that bill. Read more Comment (0), Email this.