When Tony Snow has a press conference....the question always comes up for me.....do the Republicans believe in democracy or don't they?
**********************************************************
Question posed to Tony Snow in a press conference:
Q: O.K. The sense in the Senate, this non-binding resolution, perhaps, that’s going to move forward this week — can you give a White House take on what that means, if the votes are there, that –
Mr. Snow: Well, look, they’re claiming the votes are there. Again, the question you have to ask yourself is, do you understand what possible ramifications are? In an age of instant and global communication, what message does it send to the people who are fighting democracy in Iraq? And, also, what message does it send to the troops?
But, you know, the House and Senate are going to do whatever they do. What the president is determined to do is continue moving forward in a way that creates conditions for success in Iraq, which means an Iraq where the Iraqis are going to be able to keep the peace themselves, they’re going to have a functioning and effective democratic government that provides political protections for all, economic opportunities for all, and a reason for Iraqis to pull together.
David.
Q: Can I just follow on that, because in the run-up to the campaign in the fall, if you were a Democrat who supported troop withdrawal, then you were branded — from this podium and by the president — as basically supporting terrorists; that if you made that statement, then “the terrorists would win and the U.S. would lose.” That’s a direct quote from the president.
Then there’s an election where the American people, the president acknowledges, speak out against the war. Democrats get power, they’re making a move to send a political statement that says we’re opposed to this troop increase. And you’re saying now the ramifications of that are is that it sends a bad signal to the enemy and to our troops.
So what is an appropriate way to dissent?
Mr. Snow: No, I said, you just take a look at what ramifications they may have. That’s all I’m saying. I said that they have to make a calculation. I don’t — you can go back and look at the transcript, but there’s no direct — there’s –
Q: But aren’t you suggesting that there’s a negative ramification?
Mr. Snow: I’m suggesting that they need to think it through. And it is certainly appropriate for people to dissent. There’s going to be a lot of dissent, we have acknowledged that all along.
And, as a matter of fact, it’s important to debate this and also to debate the proposition if, as most Democrats who have visited the president and most we’ve heard from, want to succeed in Iraq, if you think there’s an alternative way to do it, you can really help your country by putting it forward. Because the president has invited all points of view, and we understand that in the process of winning in Iraq you have to have public support, it is helpful to have political unity and it is essential to have a full and informed public debate.
Q: Just to be clear, do you believe that a non-binding resolution that opposes a troop increase, does that provide comfort to the enemy?
Mr. Snow: I don’t know. I think — the question again is, does this send a signal that the United States is divided on the key element of success in Iraq? And I will let members of Congress express themselves, because I’m sure they’re going to say, no, we’re committed to success, and then they can elucidate on that point.
Q: Doesn’t the president acknowledge that the country is divided and –
Mr. Snow: The president of course — yes, absolutely.
Q: One final one on this. What role do 2008 politics play in the maneuverings on both sides in this debate?
Mr. Snow: You know, that’s probably better to ask people who may have aspirations for 2008. I think –
Q: You’re a seasoned –
Mr. Snow: Yes, I know, I’m a seasoned wise man. I actually think it’s a little early for 2008 to figure large in this. I think some people are sort of making statements within their caucuses.
But, for instance, when you’re talking about this debate about a resolution, I think that happens in absence of a 2008 debate. This is something that a lot of Democrats feel strongly about, including — and the people who have been in the forefront of this are not people who are running for president.
I think presidential politics obviously is going to grow larger, in terms of its influence on the debate, both with Iraq and domestic policy as we get toward the end of the year and as we really get toward the primary season. But at this point, I don’t think it’s a huge factor.
Ann.
Q: To what extent does the president stand before Congress next Tuesday, a week from tonight, and say to them, you haven’t thought this through, a resolution on Iraq would not be helpful? And what portion of the State of the Union does he have to address to Iraq?
Mr. Snow: I’ll let the president — you’ll hear the State of the Union in a week. Iraq, certainly, is going to figure into it.
But, look, we are very serious about trying to work with both houses of Congress. And so I think the message is, let’s figure out how to work together around the common goal of success. And to say, you know, we are working here not merely because, you know, Americans certainly want to succeed, but the costs of failure in Iraq are enormous, they would haunt not only this, but future generations, they would extract enormous costs, not only in terms of blood and treasure, but also our possible economic security in the future. And it is important to acknowledge and figure out how best to deal with this threat now, before it metastasizes into something far worse.
Q: Democrats have just named someone to do the response next Tuesday night whose main platform has been against the war. What portion of the address will — and where is the president in the preparation? Is he reviewing new drafts of the –
Mr. Snow: We’re in the early draft stage. I mean, there’s a whole lot of stuff still going on. But, Ann, frankly, it’s too early to give you any kind of readout. Let me be honest with you, I’m not going to give you a whole lot, in terms of percentages and all that, before the president gives his speech. It’s sort of like the way forward speech the other night. There’s a limited amount that I’m going to be able to —
Q: — hundred percent on Iraq?
Mr. Snow: So there’s a limited amount I’m going to be able to share with you, but I’ll share with you what I can. But he certainly will be talking about Iraq, but there are going to be other priorities, obviously, within the context of a State of the Union speech that he’s going to be spending time on, as well.
Asked about Mr. Snow’s comments as to whether a resolution opposing the president’s plan might send the wrong message to Iraqis and American troops, Mr. Manley called the remarks “absolutely outrageous:”
It’s disappointing to hear this kind of rhetoric coming from the White House at this point. No one in Congress — Democrat or Republican — will do anything to put our troops in jeopardy. The fact is that the president stands alone.
There are ongoing efforts to build a bipartisan Congressional consensus on the president’s policy.
thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com |
