First Draft

Today On Holden's Obsession With [Yesterday's] Gaggle

Peance and Freeance!  Part I:

Q I guess I might ask if you'd please take it -- last night, CBS "60 Minutes" had a horrific feature on the persecution of Christians and I guess other minorities in Iraq and it appears to be getting much worse. Is there anything that our administration -- your administration can do to try to prevent this?

MS. PERINO: Well, this is something that the President has raised with Prime Minister Maliki and our Ambassador is certainly aware of it. The President also spoke about it with the Pope in both of his meetings this year. So it is something that the President gets regularly updated on. He's concerned about it and he thinks that everybody should be allowed to worship freely. And he believes that Prime Minister Maliki agrees with him in that regard -- whether you're Sunni, Shia, Christian, Jew or otherwise -- that everybody should be allowed to worship freely and be free from persecution.

Peance and Freeance!  Part II:

Q U.S. forces in Iraq reportedly killed a relative of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki during a raid last Friday on a villa belonging to the Prime Minister's sister, and the villa is in Karbala province, which is supposedly under full Iraqi control. And Iraqi officials said they were not informed about the raid in advance. Was that raid a mistake, and will you issue an apology?

MS. PERINO: I think you'll need to call MNFI. I don't have any information on that.

Les' Unrequited Love For Apartheid

Q Yes, on this. Thank you, Dana. Two questions. Does the White House believe that apartheid South Africa ever killed and tortured as many blacks as Mugabe's Zimbabwe?

MS. PERINO: It would be impossible for me to quantify. I don't know, Les.

Q Does the White House believe that in the United States there have ever been as many demonstrations against Zimbabwe and against Amin's Uganda by black organizations like the NAACP than the 5,000 who picketed the apartheid South African embassy?

MS. PERINO: Well, I think that any time anyone -- any time there is suffering or people aren't allowed to live free as everybody is guaranteed the right to under God, as the President has said, that that should be condemned. I'm not going to comment as to how many protests there are against a regime.

Q Well, do you think it was more -- don't you think it was more protests against --

MS. PERINO: I'm going to move on, Les.

Q You don't want to --

MS. PERINO: I'm going to move on. Olivier.

Q You don't want to --

MS. PERINO: I'm going to move on. Olivier.

Today On Holden's Obsession With [Yesterday's] Gaggle

Dana Sez We Can't Outlaw Torture

Q Has the President ever considered an executive order that would ban torture specifically? There's a letter out now from a bipartisan group of former Secretaries of State, including Secretary of State George Shultz, with whom the President was a couple of weeks ago, and former Defense Secretaries and military officials saying that there should be an executive order with the force of law saying that torture is unacceptable.

MS. PERINO: Well, we certainly respect the views of George Shultz. And one thing I would point to is that we have a set of laws that have been passed during this administration, and an executive order, in fact. There was the Detainee Treatment Act, there was the Military Commissions Act, and then there was the President's executive order interpreting Common Article 3.

So we feel like we have taken steps to address that issue. And I would also point out that we face a very different enemy today than America has ever faced before. We face an enemy that respects no borders, respects no uniforms, and certainly has no regard for civilians, especially innocent women and children and the elderly. So we take his position seriously, but we do think that we have the mechanisms in place to address the issue.

Sovereignty Is A Bitch

Q After the meeting with President Talabani, how close is the U.S. and Iraq to reaching an agreement on the strategic force --

MS. PERINO: Well, they continue to work on it, and I couldn't put odds on it either way. But we continue to work on it. We think that it's critically important that we have some sort of mechanism to -- legal mechanism to make sure that our forces can operate legally there. So they had a good conversation about it, and obviously the negotiators continue to work on the issue.

Q Did they get into the details of it?

MS. PERINO: No, I don't think -- no, I don't -- the negotiators are getting into the details.

Surprised?  He Approved!

Q What was the President's reaction to the Justice Department report on improper hiring?

MS. PERINO: I said today that the President appreciated the fact that Attorney General Mukasey had already implemented all the recommendations that the Inspector General had put forth, and he expects that those should be implemented fully across the board, and that no politicization in terms of hiring practices should be allowed.

Q Was he not surprised that such a process was taking place?

MS. PERINO: Was he not surprised?

Q Was he surprised that such a process was taking place?

MS. PERINO: Well, I didn't ask if he was surprised or not. But we do know that he was thankful that General Mukasey had taken this on and had implemented the recommendations of the Inspector General.

Dana Don't Know, But It's A Good Idea!

Q Has the President ever met with a group of TV military analysts assembled by the Pentagon?

MS. PERINO: I don't know. But what -- I don't know.

Q The Pentagon released emails saying that they were seeking such a meeting -- that was in March 2006.

MS. PERINO: I think it would probably have been a good idea if they had. It would have been a good meeting.

Q What would such a meeting have --

MS. PERINO: I'm not going to speculate on a meeting that I don't remember, that I don't know it happened. I just will say I don't know, but I think it would have been a good idea had there been a meeting.

Les' War On The New York Times

Q The New York Times reported this morning from San Francisco that the Presidential Memorial Commission of San Francisco is planning to ask voters to change the name of the prize-winning water treatment on the shoreline to, "The George W. Bush Sewage Plant." And my question: What is the White House reaction to this New York Times news report?

MS. PERINO: I just don't think it dignifies a response.

Q But do you think that The New York Times doesn't deserve an answer? Is that what you're saying?

MS. PERINO: I think your question doesn't deserve an answer. (Laughter.)

Q Wait a minute, what about The New York Times? I didn't bring it up. It was The New York Times, Dana, New York Times.

MS. PERINO: I don't think they were the first to report it.

Q Well, don't you have any comment on The New York Times?

MS. PERINO: No. Since she's not here to defend herself, I'll pass.

Today On Holden's Obsession With The Gaggle

Appeasement!

Q Dana, is the United States considering opening an interest section in Iran? How close are we to reaching a decision on that, and why would the U.S. do that?

MS. PERINO: Well, I think that Secretary Rice said it best yesterday when she said that there might be some ideas out -- floating out there, but there's nothing concrete at the moment. In regards to us reaching out and talking directly to the Iranians, President Bush goes out of his way every time he talks about the Iranian issue, which is often; he gets asked about it and he brings it up proactively himself.

[snip]

Q Is it consistent with the idea of isolating Iran to open a U.S. interest section there?

MS PERINO: I think that -- I don't know a lot about U.S. interest offices, but I know that there's -- as I read, there's one in Cuba. So I think that we've -- it's not unprecedented, and so I don't think it's inconsistent, no.

Chimpy Owes His Second Term To 9/11

Q And on another subject, the President supports John McCain as far as being the next President of the United States. But what does the President and this administration say about one of McCain's inner circle saying that a terrorist attack on this country would be a big advantage for McCain?

MS. PERINO: Again, I'm not -- I'm just not going to get into it and get the President involved in disputes between the campaigns.

Q This administration has been fighting vigorously against terror on the homeland. For him to say it's a big advantage, somebody that the President supports his campaign, I mean --

MS. PERINO: I also saw that the individual who said that apologized. And so I think I would point you to that apology.

"The Reporting I've Seen On The Ground - That I've Read From Reporters"

Q The new GAO report, critical of progress in Iraq -- what's the White House comment on that?

MS. PERINO: Well, I just think that you have to look at facts on the ground in terms of the reporting. I don't know -- I don't know what the parameters were for the GAO report. I think that from what I've read of it, it's inconsistent with the reporting on the ground that I've seen -- that I've read from reporters of the news media who were there. And certainly it doesn't -- it's not consistent with some of the facts that we have here. And I would point you to the rebuttals that the State Department and the Treasury Department provided to GAO, saying that they thought that their report was way off-base.

Progress in Iraq is undeniable. And I think one of the things that you can point to is not just the political and security gains, but certainly the economic gains that they've had, as well. And we should all be celebrating that and working towards it.

Les Screws The Pooch

Q Thank you, Dana. Two questions. In the President's real hope that we will have a presidential election that is fair to both sides, he was concerned by what The Washington Times reported that one of the two presidential campaigns sent a plane load of reporters back to Washington while this candidate, without telling them, slipped away to stay in Chicago, at which "several bureau chiefs and the Associated Press accused him of deliberate deception." And my question: Without mentioning which candidate did this, could you tell us if you have ever heard -- (laughter) -- could you tell us if you ever heard of President Bush so mistreating reporters during either of his two presidential campaigns?

MS. PERINO: I think that the reporters are going to have to take that up with the presidential nominee that you are referring to. But I think you have your facts wrong in terms of the legs of that trip.

Q The facts wrong? You reported -- that was The Washington Times.

MS. PERINO: Wrong flight, going the other way.

Today On Holden's Obsession With The Gaggle

Welcome Back, Ms. Peroxide

MS. PERINO: Hello, everybody. I don't have anything to start off with, so --

Q The stock market is down, the oil prices are up. I take it that this wasn't the outcome you would have wanted from the energy summit.

Q Yes, things are going to hell in a hand basket.

MS. PERINO: Will attribute that to Bill Plante. (Laughter.) Look, look back to what we said going into the conference, which is that this is going to take a long time for us to deal with. There's no magic wand, it's not going to be a problem that we solve overnight.

[snip]

Q Wouldn't more supply in the short term help more quickly than long-term planning for oil that can't be gathered for another 10 years?

MS. PERINO: I think that the important thing to do in regards to the long-term planning is to send a signal to the market so that they know that this time the government of the United States is serious.

[snip]

So there's a long-term answer and there's a -- there's not a real good short-term answer. And we've been very explicit about that from the beginning.

Q But the short-term problem is what seems to upset people as they go to fill their cars up every day.

MS. PERINO: We absolutely are sympathetic. We understand. Many of us are consumers, too.

Dana Don't Know!

Q Yes, ma'am. Dana, back on the energy issue, you said we should not expect a short-term fix. Are you saying that in the next seven months, we shouldn't see anything really new, or any major changes before this President leaves this White House?

MS. PERINO: April, that's impossible for me to say.

Other Gaglers Hate Les

Q Thank you, Dana. Two questions. The President believes that the First Amendment, freedom of speech and the press, should not be denied to radio and television by the so-called Fairness Doctrine, doesn't he?

MS. PERINO: That's correct.

Q That's correct. Republican congressman Mike Pence of Indiana has introduced the Broadcaster Freedom Act, which needs only 24 more signatures on a discharged petition to go to the House floor for a vote. And my question: Since, in the House, both of Maryland's Republicans have supported the Broadcaster Freedom Act, but all six of Maryland's Democrats have refused to do so, the President recognizes this as an indication the Democrats generally want the return of the Fairness Doctrine's on-air censorship, doesn't he?

MS. PERINO: Well, I don't know if that's necessarily the case, but it sounds like you have some lobbying work to do up on Capitol Hill, so we should dispatch you up there and see if you can get it done.

Q He's not allowed to lobby and hold a press pass at the same time, remind him. (Laughter.)

Q Thank you very much. Thank you very much, CBS. (Laughter.)

Today On Holden's Obsession With The Gaggle

Let's Drill For Oil In Tony Farto's Head

Q Durbin said on the floor the other day that there's oil leases on millions and millions of acres offshore that are just not being used and not being tapped. Why not --

MR. FRATTO: There are lots of reasons. I mean, one is that you don't just drop a drill into -- whether it's offshore or on property -- and hope that oil comes out. It takes years and years of geological study, environmental impact regulations that you have to deal with. You want to make sure there is actually oil there that you can go out and extract and bring to market.

So it's a very long process, it's a very expensive process. There are other places out there like the Outer Continental Shelf and ANWR where we know, in fact, that there are -- there is oil there that can be brought to market. But the first step in all of this is exploration. And even on those existing leases, you still need to go out and explore, and that takes lots and lots of time.

Q But it seems like those existing leases are far more down the pipe than ANWR or any other spaces that aren't even opened up. Why not follow those leads first?

MR. FRATTO: I'm sure some of them are, but it's not a question of, why not do something first; it's why don't we do everything that we can do.

Today On Holden's Obsession With The Gaggle

Shorter Tony Farto:  It's Clear!  No, It's Not Clear!  Wait, Mommie!!!!!

Q On the President's offshore oil statement today, it didn't seem like he really wanted to cooperate much with Congress. He's calling them obstructionists, and blaming them for the high price of oil. Where do you come up with the idea earlier that he wanted to work closely with Congress on this?

MR. FRATTO: No, we certainly do want to work closely with Congress. And I think the point is, the only way to get this done, to get the moratorium lifted so that we can begin drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf and on the other elements that the President talked about is through Congress. We need congressional action to get this thing done.

Congress -- the Democrats in Congress, either with a Republican majority or under Democratic control, there's no question their position on drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf or ANWR has been relatively clear, just as much as it's been clear for us that we would like to open up those areas. And that's a fact.

[snip]

Q Well, since it's clear that Congress is not going to do what the President wants, why doesn't he take the step himself and let the --

MR. FRATTO: No, I don't think it's clear.

Shorter Tony Farto:  John McCain Is Trying To Fool People

Q Tony, the Democrats have made it clear for a long time that they're absolutely opposed to this. This appears to be going nowhere. Are there any other ideas that the White House is exploring that can actually do something about the high gas prices?

MR. FRATTO: There is -- anyone who is -- anyone out there saying that something can be done overnight or in a matter of months to deal with high gasoline prices is trying to fool people. There is no tool in the toolbox out there that will lower gas prices overnight or in weeks, and probably not even in months. People -- there have been a lot of things talked about out there.

[snip]

Q But one of the people who is saying that something could be done overnight is John McCain, with the tax moratorium. You're not trying to say he's trying to --

MR. FRATTO: He has a view on the tax moratorium and that's his position, and we talked about looking for it. The President has been looking at it, but what the President has been focused on is the root of the problem, which is supply and demand.

Tony Farto, Butt Of All Jokes

Q The second is, there's apparently an EPA draft -- a draft of the EPA's coming report suggests that the agency believes that automakers could increase CAFE standards much faster than the President has called for.

MR. FRATTO: I haven't seen that. I haven't seen any EPA reports, and I'd refer you to them.

Q Because it hasn't been released yet --

MR. FRATTO: Okay. (Laughter.)

"I'm Not Here To Defend The Oil Companies"

Q Why is he pushing Congress on this, and not pushing the oil companies that have 33 million acres of leased area that they aren't developing, that's not under the --

MR. FRATTO: The first step in development in the oil business is actually exploration. They hold these leases -- I've heard people up on the Hill, "the oil companies are sitting on leases", as though the oil companies -- I'm not here to defend oil companies; I'm just telling you that they have every incentive in the world to go out there and pump more oil. I mean, Ann, if you've got --

Q -- without Congress lifting the ban?

MR. FRATTO: I'm sorry?

Q Are there not leases out there that are not -- that have already proved -- that have not been developed, that they could be doing and they're not doing?

MR. FRATTO: It's not a question of whether -- oil companies can say that on any given piece of lease that they're holding whether it's productive or not. I'm just telling you I can't imagine an oil company not wanting to produce oil today. And what we see are oil companies out there looking to try to produce and do more drilling. But it takes many, many years, and millions, if not hundreds of millions of dollars to go from a lease to actually pumping oil.

[snip]

Q Perhaps I was inelegant in how I asked the question. Are there not leases that are out there that could be developed, explored and developed right now, and which do not need to lift any kind of ban, and the companies haven't done it? Why isn't the President turning to the oil companies and telling them to explore some of the leases they currently hold?

MR. FRATTO: I think what we have heard and what the oil companies have testified to is that they are trying to develop those. You can't develop all of them at once. They make their priorities and they go to the ones that they think they can develop and bring the product to market. I think it's -- I can't think of a product out there that has seen --

Q But that's not the point, Tony. The point is --

MR. FRATTO: It is the point, though. I mean -- I'm sorry, the --

Q Are the oil companies doing everything they can to explore and drill where they already have permission, without opening up the OCS any more, or ANWR?

MR. FRATTO: I can't speak to every business decision that oil producers make, and I'm not here to defend what they can do and can't do; they can answer those questions for themselves.

Q Is the President satisfied the oil companies are doing all they can -

MR. FRATTO: Like I said, I can't imagine their incentives being better aligned than to go out and develop. And I think --

Q I'm not quarreling with you on that, I'm just saying --

MR. FRATTO: And I think they are.

Today On Holden's Obsession With The Gaggle

Jeebus, We're Stuck With Tony Farto Today And He Does Not Like Ponies

Q A new ABC News/Washington Post poll shows the President's disapproval rating has now reached 68 percent. That's the highest disapproval rating since Gallop's first in 1938. Any thoughts on that?

MR. FRATTO: No, I don't think we've commented on polls and I don't think there's a good reason to start now.

Q I mean, what would you say to Americans who --

MR. FRATTO: We don't base what we try to do here by polls. We know people have lots of different views of what's going on out in the political world and what they're hearing. But we try to focus on the policies that we're trying to accomplish for the rest of the way here and not comment on what we hear in one poll or another.

The Taliban Is Kicking Ass

Q Tony, we saw the President's meeting on Afghanistan this morning and the brief comments. Afghanistan's Ministry of Defense was saying that the number of villages northwest of Kandahar have been taken over, essentially, by the Taliban. Is there truth to that from this White House; do you believe that to be a fact? And what about that situation as it develops in southern Afghanistan?

MR. FRATTO: Well, look, I think it's -- as we have said many times, our forces in Afghanistan are facing a determined enemy. That enemy is there, it's showing itself, it shows itself in certain spectacular acts from time to time. I don't know for a fact whether Taliban troops have taken over certain villages or not, and we'll try to get that from DOD or maybe DOD can share more on that.

[snip]

Q We saw the British pledge, but are we going to have to see another surge of U.S. troops into Afghanistan soon?

MR. FRATTO: I couldn't give you anything on that. I think you'd have to check in with DOD and see what their estimates are.

Tony Farto Thinks Hope Is A Plan

Q You talk about building up Afghan troops. How confident can you be that that's going well when they weren't able to stop the Taliban from blowing a hole in the wall and letting a thousand prisoners escape?

MR. FRATTO: That's the problem that we have, whether it's in Iraq or Afghanistan or here at home, is that we need to be successful a hundred percent of the time and these troops are --

Q This is about the readiness of those troops to do anything material in defending themselves.

MR. FRATTO: Yes, and we're seeing them getting better trained, better equipped, better able to be mobile around the country and deal with the threats as they see it. That does not mean that they're going to be able to stop 100 percent of the attacks of a very determined and creative enemy.

So what we need to do is to continue to increase their level of training -- the British troops and U.S. troops and others are doing excellent work on training. We need to see more numbers. We need to see their equipment improve. And you will see, and as we have seen, their capabilities will improve also.

Q And you think you can do that without another U.S. infusion of troops into Afghanistan?

MR. FRATTO: Well, we hope so.

Tony Don't Know!

Q Tony, there's a Senate hearing today on the treating on detainees. And one of the ways the White House has defended its policy before is by saying that the International Red Cross is able to go into Guantanamo Bay and other prisons and check out what's going on.

At this hearing today, a memo surfaced -- a previously secret memo -- suggesting that when the Red Cross came into Gitmo over the past few years, prisoners who were treated harshly were being hidden from the Red Cross. Is the White House concerned at all? Would you condone such --

MR. FRATTO: I haven't seen that memo, and haven't had a chance to follow the hearing. I can tell you it's always been the policy of this government to treat these detainees humanely and in line with the laws and our legal obligations.

Q Well, along those lines, another memo came out suggesting that a senior CIA lawyer, while they were debating this in 2002, said the only sure test for torture is if a detainee dies or not, and said, "If the detainee dies, you're doing it wrong." Does that fit into the guidelines --

MR. FRATTO: I don't know who that is or who that came from. I'm telling you that abuse of detainees has never been, is not, and will never be the policy of this government. The policy of this government has been to take these detainees and to interrogate them and get the information that we can get to help protect this country, which we have been very successful at doing, and we've been very successful at getting the information that has saved lives and prevented attacks on this country and on our allies.

Q But the White House policy does not -- the bar is not --

MR. FRATTO: The White House policy --

Q -- the bar is not whether or not you die.

MR. FRATTO: No, the White House policy is what I told you, which is that we do not abuse and we treat detainees humanely and comporting with the law.

Lindsey Graham, GITMO Bait

Q To follow that up, Tony, because one thing that struck me from those hearings was something a Republican senator said, Lindsey Graham. I'll quote it at you and ask for your response, if I may -- that the analysis that the military got from the administration civilian lawyers would "go down in history as some of the most irresponsible and short-sighted legal analysis ever provided to our nation's military intelligence community." What do you say to that -- a Republican?

MR. FRATTO: We have great respect for Lindsey Graham. We're not going to review every legal opinion that has ever been proffered by this government. I'm telling you what our policy has been has been to deal with these detainees humanely, get the information from them that we can to protect this country, and as we've been working through the process with Congress and putting in place laws to deal with them in a legal way.

Q His conclusion clearly is that that's not the advice that the military was getting.

MR. FRATTO: Yes, Les.

And, Right On Cue, Les Throws A Hissy-Fit

Q Thank you, Tony. Two questions. Last week, Senator Leahy told the American Constitution Society -- and this is a quote -- "We need a President who has actually read the Constitution, understands the Constitution, and will respect the Constitution." Now, my question: Aside from this slur that the President has neither read nor understands the Constitution, how does the President imagine that this Judiciary Committee Chairman can expect any respect for what Mr. Leahy alleges is neither read by, nor understood by the President?

MR. FRATTO: Les, I'm not sure I followed the whole line of the question, but let me just say, the President has read and is sworn to defend and protect the Constitution, and he does that.

Q Senator Leahy also said the Guantanamo decision was a stinging rebuke of the Bush administration. "I'm in support of the Constitution of the USA. If we turn our backs on the Constitution where would we be?" And my question: How can this be interpreted as anything but a charge that the President has turned his back on the Constitution? And is that either accurate or fair?

MR. FRATTO: Again, I think you lost me somewhere along the long line of that question. I'll just tell you that we expressed our views on the Boumediene decision. We disagreed with it. The President said he would --

Q And you disagree very strongly with the Senator from Vermont, don't you?

MR. FRATTO: But that's usually where we are, is disagreeing with the Senator from Vermont.

Today On Holden's Obsession With The Gaggle

Shorter Dana:  No

Q Is there any approach that the administration can take to deal with Zimbabwe, what's going on in Zimbabwe, other than condemnation?

MS. PERINO: I would -- make sure that you have a chance to look at the briefing today by Ambassador James McGee, who is our Ambassador to Zimbabwe. He did an on-the-record briefing earlier today and said that they're going to look at the full suite of diplomatic tools that they have available to them. But there's no doubt that the situation in Zimbabwe is worsening, and it was already a terrible situation.

Dana Channels Holy Joe

Q Dana, the climate change bill and the action in the Senate. What do you say to those who say that by threatening to veto this cap and trade system and with a Republican filibuster, that basically, let's just kick the can down the road for another year and postpone action on this issue?

MS. PERINO: Well, I think it would be, one, important for people to look at the fact of what really happened on this bill. This was a -- they tried to have a vote on the Boxer substitute, which is Senator Boxer's bill, that had not been fully analyzed, had not been given any economic analysis, had not been given any environmental impact analysis, and the Republicans had a beef with how the Democrat Majority Leader was treating them when it came to an agreement that they felt they had on judges. So there are parliamentary maneuvers that can be taken on both sides.

[snip]

Q What about the -- the backers of the bill said that they think they really have the strength to pass it. And they're citing this letter that both Senator Obama and Senator McCain signed, saying they would have voted for it had they been there.

MS. PERINO: I don't know if that's a clever way to try to get me to talk about '08 politics, but let's just say we did not support the bill.

How About "Crapped His Pants"?  Will "Crapped His Pants" Work For You?

Q Dana, can you describe for us the President's reaction to the latest economic numbers? And does he believe that the stimulus package will be a difference-maker in terms of making this downturn short-lived?

MS. PERINO: Well, you'll hear from the President pretty soon, because at the swearing in for Steve Preston over at the Department of Housing and Urban Development I believe the President will address the housing number today.

We're obviously not happy with the unemployment number that had gone up.

Dana Don't Know!

Q We've just gotten news that the United States intends to walk away from the United Nations Human Rights Council. Are you aware of those reports? Can you confirm them?

MS. PERINO: I wasn't aware of it, but I'll refer you to the State Department for more. I think they're briefing now.

Today On Holden's Obsession With The Gaggle

Dana Peroxide Refuses To To Say Whether Or Not Chimpy Hyped The Intelligence

Q Dana, maybe -- it's been a couple of hours since the Senate report came out, so I just wanted to give you a chance on camera to talk a little bit about Senate Democrats -- I know Republicans are disagreeing on the Hill -- but Senate Democrats are alleging that it's not that intelligence was wrong, but that the administration maybe exaggerated some intelligence and maybe left out some key caveats about that intelligence in the run-up to the war. And I wonder, for your reaction, especially since Scott McClellan -- it's not just Democrats, but Scott McClellan made a similar claim in his book.

MS. PERINO: Well, one, I would say that the issue of pre-war intelligence on Iraq has been thoroughly reviewed over the years by the Congress, as well as the independent WMD Commission. The majority report today is a selective view. And as you just said, the minority, the Republicans, have their own report, and I would encourage everyone to look at that as well.

[snip]

Q Senator Rockefeller also specifically said today, he used the word "catastrophe" and said that if the administration had been more careful with the intelligence, we may have been able to avoid this catastrophe, talking about the war in Iraq. How do you react to a statement like that?

MS. PERINO: Well, again, I think that the President and administration officials and the Congress were all working from the same intelligence and acting on the same information. And when the intelligence community tells you this -- gives you information, you have an obligation to look at it.

Little Scottie McClellan:  Big Poo-Poo Head

Q Dana, following on that, in the release from the Senate Democrats, their message -- the first sentence says that this report confirms former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan's account of how the Bush administration led the nation to war through a propaganda campaign. What's your reaction to that?

MS. PERINO: Scott, by his very own admission, wasn't there at the time. He was the Deputy Press Secretary for Domestic Affairs. He has said, as I understand it, that looking back, even though he wasn't there, reading Bob Woodward's book, this is how he came to his conclusion.

So I think that the Senate Democrats and the Republicans took a lot of -- look, I don't know how well this report would stand up in terms of the processes. I know that the Republicans on Capitol Hill have a lot of beef with how it was taken -- how it was done.

And so, when it comes to Scott, I would just remind you that he was the Deputy Press Secretary for Domestic Affairs. He said that upon reflection, looking back at how the war was packaged -- and that's his words -- he disagrees with that. That's fine, that's his opinion. It doesn't change the fact that the information that the President has, the information he was given by the intelligence community -- he based that on the facts that he was given; he based his decisions based on the facts that he was given, and a political judgment. The fact that the intelligence turned out to be wrong on WMD does not mean that anyone purposefully lied. And that is the insinuation by some on Capitol Hill, and by a former colleague. And that's why we were so saddened and disappointed and hurt by his words.

[snip]

Q Can I follow on that? With all due respect, press secretaries are authorized to speak for a President. Scott spoke on the war issues, even before -- that happened before he was Press Secretary, just as you're speaking to the intelligence process and how it was reformed before you became Press Secretary. And I was unaware that Scott was limited to domestic affairs. I think those of us that covered him felt that we could go to him on all matter of --

MS. PERINO: Let me be a little bit more precise. The issue is, if I could just -- I'll delve a little bit more into the detail of it -- is that -- it's the question of -- and I served as the Deputy as well. I didn't sit in on national security meetings as the Deputy Press Secretary when I dealt with domestic affairs, and neither did Scott. That's my only point on that. In terms of looking back at issues of 2001 and 2002 and 2003, when intelligence was reviewed, those are the places where he wasn't. And he says that in his book and he's said it in interviews since.

Old News, Move On

Q But you understand the differences they're making, that they think that the claims -- understanding that the intelligence was wrong -- but that the claims went far beyond what the intelligence community was giving the White House, and that it ignored significant dissent within the intelligence community -- the White House.

MS. PERINO: That dissent, amongst experts within the intelligence community at some levels, did not reach the President.

[snip]

And I think that this is just another example of rehashing this old issue, which is fine. If people want to spend their time doing that, that's up to them. But we have changed the process, and it's much more improved. And that's good for the President -- not just this President, but any future President as well.

Exaggerated Statement About Exaggerated Intelligence

Q Okay. And on the Iraq intelligence report, you've said a couple times in the past week or so that the entire world had the same intelligence on Iraq. Given the significant dissent even inside the United States intelligence community on a lot of key issues, how can that be true?

MS. PERINO: Okay, well, maybe "entire world" was probably a little bit too strong, or too broad. But clearly, other governments that looked at the same intelligence that we had came to the same conclusions. I don't think that's in dispute.

Cheney in Charge

Q A follow-up from yesterday. Do you have anything on an agreement between Cheney and Olmert on a military aid package that includes F-35 stealth fighter jets in 2012 --

MS. PERINO: Did you say Cheney and Olmert?

Q -- and missile defense cooperation?

MS. PERINO: Did you say Cheney and Olmert? No, I don't have anything on that. No, I don't.

Q Did he meet with Cheney?

MS. PERINO: He did meeting with the Vice President. I believe they had dinner on Tuesday night. I don't know if that came up. I'd refer you to his office for more.

Your Daily Dana Don't Know

Q On the story in The Independent about the deal allegedly between the U.S. and Iraq, The Independent says that details of the deal were leaked to them. I'm sure you've seen The Independent's story --

MS. PERINO: I don't know, I haven't seen it.

Q You've not seen the story in The Independent?

MS. PERINO: I've not seen The Independent, I don't think.

Q Really?

MS. PERINO: I've read about ten other papers today, but not The Independent.

Today On Holden's Obsession With The Gaggle

Our Intelligence Agencies Don't Know Nothin'!

Q The Israeli media is reporting that Olmert is going to come with a message that he hopes the President will disavow the NIE on Iran; that essentially Israel believes it's wrong. Do you believe that to be true?

MS. PERINO: I don't know what Olmert will say. Obviously Prime Minister Olmert will have his speech tonight at AIPAC and so I'll -- you will get a chance to see that. The President has spoken to Prime Minister Olmert and many other leaders across the Middle East and throughout the world about the Iran NIE, and so I don't think there's really anything too new there for them to discuss. I think they both made their points very clear, and Israel has made it clear that they think the -- that intelligence is wrong, and that Iran is still pursuing a nuclear weapon.

[snip]

Q So as you continue to hear this concern about the NIE, what's the message from the White House to the Middle East about this document?

MS. PERINO: Well, I think that the President has been clear. And you heard him say, when he went to the Middle East back in January, he explained to everyone that our position on Iran is -- remains one in which we want to solve this diplomatically, and that we are working on an international basis with our partners, the EU plus a couple of others -- I can't remember the number of that one -- but there's multiple -- multilateral negotiations going on in order to put pressure on Iran in order to get them to fulfill their obligations, which is to halt, or suspend the enrichment of uranium, come clean on what their past program was, and allow the international community to come in and be satisfied; that if their claims are expected to be taken as truth, then we have to have some verification that they really aren't pursuing a nuclear weapon.

Obviously, what the NIE said is that they had a nuclear weapons program, it was covert, and they hid it from the world. The NIE said that it stopped in 2003, but there is no evidence -- nobody could say either way whether they restarted it. That's what the concern was.

It's All About Chimpy

Q Dana, you talk about the need to conclude this by the end of this year, on the President's schedule. But putting it on the President's schedule, doesn't that create an artificial deadline that the President usually tries to steer clear of?

MS. PERINO: I think you're mixing up a couple of different things there. But remember, if you go back to November 30th, when the President invited all the leaders here at the Annapolis Conference, one of the things that President Abbas and Prime Minister Olmert, amongst other leaders who attended, that they all said that they believe that it was the right thing to do to try to get this done before the end of the year. That was their timetable. And the President fully supports it. He wants to try to get it done, as well.

Q So are you saying that this is in no way driven by the President's term in office?

MS. PERINO: Well, of course, it -- I'm not saying that. I don't know why you would suggest that. I'm saying that they both -- both of those leaders said they want to get it done on this President's watch, and the President is going to try to help them do that. We're pretty well aware of the calendar, seven and a half months or so left, a long way to go. But they've also come a long way since November.

That Les, Always The Comedian

Q The New York Times editorial page commends Senator McCain for promising, if he is elected, to bring the hallowed British parliament's Prime Minister's question time to Congress. And my question: Would the President be willing to try this just once as a sampling before the election? (Laughter.)

MS. PERINO: As entertaining as that might be, I think we'll let -- the next President can decide if they want to do that or not.

Today On Holden's Obsession With [Yesterday's] Gaggle

Your Daily Dana Don't Know

Q The Guardian is reporting that the United States is holding terrorism suspects on U.S. ships. Is there any truth to that?

MS. PERINO: Jeremy, I saw that report and I did not hear back from DOD, so I'll have to refer you to Defense Department.

[snip]

Q The human rights organization Reprieve says there have been more than 200 new cases of renditions since 2006. Can you confirm that?

MS. PERINO: I can't, and I don't even know what Reprieve is. So I'll refer you to the CIA --

Q Could you look --

MS. PERINO: I'll refer you to the CIA.

Shitcannning Will Make You Disgruntled

Q Can I ask about Scott McClellan? Last week in your statement you used the word "disgruntled" to describe him. Why did you use that word, "disgruntled"? Is he disgruntled because he was fired? Did he, in fact, resign? Was he pushed out?

MS. PERINO: Well, I think -- I hold it up because I wondered last week if you'd ask me this question. Being disgruntled means being displeased or being discontented. And I think that by any measure, if you look at Scott in his comments over the past week that he is displeased with his time at the White House. That's why I used that phrase. And when it comes to how he left the White House, I'll let him describe it. And we all fully supported him while he was here, and even after he left he had a lot of support from people at this White House. And so I think that "disgruntled" is the right way to characterize it.

Q But just for the record, so he did resign, though, he was not fired?

MS. PERINO: Technically, he resigned, yes.

Q Technically. (Laughter.)

MS. PERINO: He resigned.

Q He was asked to resign, though, Dana?

MS. PERINO: I'm not going to comment on it. He resigned.

Unwelcomed In Crawford

Q Two quick questions. One, does the President think Scott is still his friend, or he lost one? Because Scott was really good press secretary, as you are, and he was very loyal to the President, as you are. So what do you think what President think about him now?

MS. PERINO: I think the President is just very sad about the situation and sad the way that it turned out. Obviously I think you could describe him as disappointed, but certainly doesn't harbor any ill will toward him, and is a forgiving person and is certainly not dwelling on the book.

Today On Holden's Obsession With The Gaggle

The White House Wants To Keep Little Scottie Out Of The Witness Chair

Q Congressman Wexler has called on Scott McClellan to testify before Congress, and Congressman Conyers says that he has directed his committee staff to reach out to Mr. McClellan to make arrangements for him to talk to the committee. Does the White House have any objection to this kind of conversation?

MS. PERINO: I checked on it for you. The White House Counsel's Office takes these things when we have a formal request. We don't have a formal request yet. When we get one, that's when we look at the request, weigh it fully -- as we do with all the others -- and it's just not a decision that we would make prior to getting a formal request.

Q Could the White House block him from testifying if he wanted to testify? Or how does that work?

MS. PERINO: Conceivably?

Q Yes.

MS. PERINO: Hypothetically -- which I'm not supposed to answer hypotheticals -- (laughter) -- yes, I think so. The law would allow for that, but by saying that I'm not suggesting that that's what would happen or not happen.

Three Shakespeares, No McClellans

Q Has President Bush read this -- read McClellan's book or does he have any intention to, to sort of find out what this is all about?

MS. PERINO: Well, he's been regularly briefed. I think he's read a lot of the articles about it, but I don't anticipate -- he may or may not read the book. I don't know, we haven't talked about that.

Q You haven't bought it for him?

MS. PERINO: No.

Today On Holden's Obsession With The Gaggle

Put Impeachment Back On The Table

Q Dana, I wanted to ask you, I know you don't want to go line-by-line with the whole book thing, the Scott McClellan book -- but I'm thinking you may want to address this because there's something out there. Not having the benefit of having the book in front of me, there's an allegation apparently made by Scott in the book that a reporter shouted a question to the President, on a trip that Scott had been with him on, just as they were getting on Air Force One, and it was Valerie Plame-related. Basically, it prompted Scott to ask the President directly, "Were you the one who authorized the leaking of Valerie Plame's name?" And the President apparently told Scott, "Yes, I was."

MS. PERINO: I don't know. Obviously I wasn't there and -- obviously I don't know the context. I think the -- it's hard for me to say. I don't have the book in front of me either and I don't know.

But what I do know is that what we have said before, which is defending the President's decision to go to war is something that we have done repeatedly, and the suggestion that the President had sent Joe Wilson to Africa was false. And so I don't know if that was what it was in regards to or not, so I'm -- I don't know.

Q But I mean, if that's an allegation that's out there, that the President is supposedly responsible for the leaking of Valerie Plame's name, is that something you want to --

MS. PERINO: I don't think that's what Scott says in the book and I think that everyone should go back and look at it a little bit more carefully. I don't think that's what he says.

Q Can you comment more generally about whether the President has ever authorized the leaking of classified information?

MS. PERINO: I'm not aware of that, no. And I also know that President Bush would never ask anyone to knowingly go out and lie. But do we defend the President's record vigorously? Yes, you bet we do. And I think -- parts of the book that suggest that there was propaganda or -- you know, I just don't know how substantiated that is in the book. I would ask to -- you know, where, when, how, specifically? What are you talking about, were there charts, were there et cetera that you thought were lies? And I don't think that he's saying that either. So I just question the accounts.

Dana Don't Know!

Q On the two congressional fundraisers on this trip, was it the White House's decision or the candidate's decisions for them to be closed? Do you know?

MS. PERINO: I don't know.

Dana Calls The Governor of New York An "Activist Judge"

Q Do you have anything on the Governor of New York's decision to recognize gay marriages from other states?

MS. PERINO: I saw a brief report about it. I don't know a lot about the decision. I think that I would go back to that the President believes that we should try to make this decision based on a nationwide agreement for the what the definition of a marriage should be, and that activist judges and different states trying to impose something of that importance on the rest of the nation is to be looked at skeptically.

Q Is there any particular concern, though, about the legal implications of states beginning to recognize other states' rights, in other words?

MS. PERINO: Yes, I'm sure that there is, but again I briefly saw the reports and I would refer you -- let me see if I can get something from the Justice Department -- I'm sure there's going to be a lot of people who analyze the legal ramifications of it. I think the President's point is that judges shouldn't be making these decisions; the people should be making these decisions.

Today On Holden's Obsession With [Yesterday's] Gaggle

Um, Dana, Was There A Great Deal Of Poo-Flining When You Broke The News About Little Scottie To The Chimp?

Q I know that you said you weren't going to be speaking anything more about McClellan, but could you give us a little sense of who told the President about it, when it occurred and any reaction he had?

MS. PERINO: Sure. Well, you will recall that it was last November, right before Thanksgiving when we first heard about the book, when the excerpt came out. I was with the President at the time and told him about it -- we were at Camp David, right after an interview he had just finished.

And at that time, was led to believe that the excerpt was a little bit over-written and not necessarily representative of what the book would be like.

[snip]

So the President has been aware that it was going to come out. I talked to him a little bit yesterday -- I can't exactly remember where, but on the plane here -- I guess it was on the plane; I don't remember where we were on our way to, since we had three stops yesterday. And his reaction was similar to what I said this morning, which is he is puzzled, and he doesn't recognize this as the Scott McClellan that he hired and confided in and worked with for so many years; and disappointed that if he had these concerns and these thoughts he never came to him or anyone else on the staff that we know of.

So I think it's just a sad situation.

Q So you briefed him?

MS. PERINO: Yes, but I think I may not be the only one; we've known it's been coming for a while, so I'm assuming that other members of senior staff had alerted him.

[snip]

Q I'm sorry if you said this, but was the President surprised?

MS. PERINO: I think you can fairly characterize it is as surprised, as well as he thinks it's a sad situation and was disappointed, as I said just a moment ago.

Stay The Course!

Q I'm just kind of curious, in terms of the general -- you've kind of portrayed this as a sad situation that you're -- you don't quite understand this. But do you think this is causing any scrutiny on the White House as part of its own handling of the pre-war intelligence? I mean, is it causing any --

MS. PERINO: I think that horse has been beaten enough. And --

Q So the substance of what Scott is saying is not something that is causing any rethinking on the part of the White House?

MS. PERINO: I don't see any reason for it to do so. As I said, the questions about the intelligence being wrong has been -- have been asked an answered multiple times. And I think that I have had a good experience working both for Scott, for Tony Snow, and now heading up the press office, that I have good relationships with you all in the press corps, ones that are based on honesty and integrity. And I don't think that it ever -- I think that's always been the case since I've been there. So I don't see any reason for us to have to rethink anything at this point.

Dana Peroxide Says Little Scottie Is "Rewriting History", But She Can't Bring Herself To Call Him A Liar

Q The President often talks about, you know, history being the judge. And this is somebody who had a position where they could see more than, certainly, the public does. After some years of reflection, perhaps, looking back, thinking out of the limelight in private and everything, and coming up with his first version of history, isn't it a concern that, for you, for the administration, that the conclusions he's come to are the ones of your critics, essentially, rather than the supporters of the administration?

MS. PERINO: I think this is a unique situation. I don't think that this is so much as writing history as rewriting history.

Dana Don't Know!

Q If only to change the subject. Do you have anything on the vote on the cluster munitions?

MS. PERINO: The what?

Q The vote on the cluster munitions negotiations in Brussels, I think.

MS. PERINO: Where was -- no, I'm sorry. Clearly, you can tell from my face I don't know. I haven't been informed about that.

Q Anything on --

MS. PERINO: Where was the vote?

Q What?

MS. PERINO: Where was the vote?

Q It was today, and it was in -- I want to say Brussels, maybe The Hague.

MS. PERINO: Sorry, I don't. I'll have to refer you to DOD or State at the moment.

Today On Holden's Obsession With [Yesterday's] Gaggle

Um, Dana?  How Come Nobody Wanted To Hear The Presidnet Speak?

Q Can you clarify the circumstances with the Convention Center versus a private residence? There were reports that --

MS. PERINO: I did over the weekend, though you may not have seen the comments, so I'll just repeat them here, which is that as you know, our practice has been for fundraisers that the President does, if they're at a venue like a hotel, that they are open to press. The McCain campaign has a practice that's different, and that is that all of their fundraisers, regardless of location, are closed to the press. And so to accommodate the practices, they decided to move it to a private residence today.

Q There was a specific report that ended up getting pretty widely circulated out of Arizona that said the event was moved because of lackluster sales, and also because of feared protests. Are either of those points accurate?

MS. PERINO: Not that I'm aware of. I'd refer you to the McCain campaign for those. But I would remind you that given that it's a free country, no matter where we go there's always a possibility for protests, so I don't think I'd put a lot of stock into that concern.

Whay Are Taxpayers Footing The Bill For Chimpy's GOP Fundraising Activiites?

Q Can I ask one last thing? What is the division on the cost of the trips between official business and then party business?

MS. PERINO: There's some -- there is a formula that exists. I don't have it off the top of my head, but it's followed whenever we go on trips like this.

Q Can we run that down at some point?

MS. PERINO: We'll see --

Q -- in the next couple days since -- get a sense of which part of the trips?

MS. PERINO: Maybe you should look at your reporting from last year, because -- or in 2006 cycle. We had the exact same conversations over and over again. So I'll try to get it for you right now, but --

Q That would be great.

Q -- because of fuel costs. Does it still cost $68,000 an hour to operate Air Force One?

MS. PERINO: I have no idea, Roger.

Q Could we get an update, maybe?

Q I think our question -- one question I have is the breakdown of this trip, because there's a little bit of official and there's a little -- you know, certain days are --

MS. PERINO: I don't know how specific we get in breaking that down, but I'll see what I can get you. Okay?

Q Thanks.

Today On Holden's Obsession With The Gaggle

Careful You Don't Get None Of That Bush Stank On You, Johnnie

Q I wanted to ask about McCain -- three fundraisers next week. First of all, why are they closed? And second, do you all expect that sort of pace, I mean, three in a week, that kind of thing, to continue?

MS. PERINO: I think we'll see -- I think we'll see, in terms of a pace.

[snip]

The reason that they're closed is that the McCain campaign has a practice of having their fundraisers as closed press; and these are in private residences, which is where we have had closed press fundraisers, as well.

[snip]

Q To follow up -- you're saying that the McCain campaign announced it may they be closed?

MS. PERINO: I'm saying that the locations are at private residences and that -- their practice has been closed press fundraisers for -- across the board, both at private residences and other places. As you know, our practice has been somewhat different -- when they're at a larger locations like hotels, ours have been open. But that's their practice and we'll respect it.

Q Can we actually expect to see them together at any point publicly?

MS. PERINO: Next week?

Q Well, not necessarily next week, but in the near future?

MS. PERINO: Sure --

Q I mean, initially -- (inaudible) supposed to be open, at least the first one --

Q So they will be together?

Q I mean, appearing publicly together?

MS. PERINO: They'll be together in Arizona, but then we break off and we go on to Utah and --

Q Publicly, though?

MS. PERINO: Stay tuned for the details, but I think that you'll see a -- when we arrive or when we depart, I think there will be a chance.

Chimpy's Just Too Busy

Q Just to follow up on that, the President endorsed McCain in March, and now two months, almost three months, when this actually happens, he's going to be getting out to campaign for him. Why so long?

MS. PERINO: I think you need to look back and look at the President's schedule, and also look at President John -- President McCain has a nice ring to it, but it was a little bit premature. President Bush has done several fundraisers here in town, but he's not raising money just for a McCain campaign, but for Republican candidates everywhere. President Bush is a formidable campaign fundraiser, as has been reported over the years, and I expect that he'll continue to be.

But remember, he's not on the ticket. And also, President Bush, since that time, in, it was early March -- late February/early March -- President Bush has had an international trip to NATO; he has traveled the country to host a international summit in New Orleans, where we hosted Prime Minister Harper and President Calderón; and then we just recently got back from a trip to the Middle East where the President is trying to help bring that region along to a Middle East peace conference. And we'll do what we can when we can. But the President has Commander-in-Chief responsibilities. And next week we have a chance to go out -- we'll also be doing a commencement address at the Air Force Academy, and then we head off to another international trip in early June.

So we'll do what we can when we can.

Q So it's scheduling, that's why?

MS. PERINO: I won't say. But again, President Bush isn't on the ticket. John McCain is on the ticket, and he's the one who's out there making the case for why he should be President of the United States.

Dana Throws McCain A Bone

Q You said several times that the President is not on the ticket. Are you seeking to distance the President from Senator McCain?

MS. PERINO: Victoria, I'm stating a fact.

Q Right, which we know.

MS. PERINO: Well, okay, then, no, I'm not -- I'm seeking nothing but to tell you that the President is not on the ticket, he's not running, and you can't -- you don't expect for him to be out running for President. He's done that twice and been successful.

Ken.

Q Dana, have decisions been made on whether he will do campaign trips with McCain?

MS. PERINO: I don't know if they've gotten that detailed yet, in terms of ramping up as we go over the next several months. So at this point, I couldn't tell you. And I'm not really involved in those scheduling discussions.

If It Quacks Like A Duck...

Q Is the veto override vote on the farm bill and the vote on the Iraq supplemental evidence that the President is facing now a kind of lame duck syndrome where he doesn't have the leverage with Congress that he once did?

MS. PERINO: I've been asked this question for about a year, and so I don't --

Q Well, I'm asking it now -- (inaudible) -- actual vote.

MS. PERINO: And I know you're asking it now. I think on the farm bill, though, I think that it says a lot more about Congress than it does about the President.

Q Why?

MS. PERINO: Well, I think that they've made a decision in an election year that they can throw caution to the wind and throw fiscal discipline out the window and pass a bill that will cost taxpayers an enormous sum of money. And the President had very clear principles all along the way on the farm bill, and they decided that Congress was going to overrun that. That's their right. They didn't quite do it exactly the way that they thought they would, but I'm sure that that will work itself out when they get back and they'll be able to fix the mistake.

Q How about the war supplemental?

MS. PERINO: But on the war supplemental, we have a long way to go when it comes to the war supplemental.

[snip]

Q So do you think there is a lame duck effect, or do you think that's an urban myth?

MS. PERINO: I think that it -- I don't think that it applies, and especially in these two cases. I think that any time you have a Congress that's nearing the last several months of their legislative session, they try to get more done as they get closer to these recesses, like Memorial Day recess. I am sure you'll see a lot of activity leading up to that last week of July before they go on the Fourth of July recess, but time is running out to get a lot of things done.

Today On Holden's Obsession With The Gaggle

The White House Wants To Make Sure You Know That The Press Corps Laughed At Congressional Democrats

Q Farm bill -- where are we with the farm bill?

MS. PERINO: You tell me -- or the Democrats tell me.

Q What did he veto?

MS. PERINO: He vetoed -- the President vetoed the bill that the Democrats sent us. And, look, I understand there's a technical error and we'll have to see what the Congress decides to do, but maybe it gives them one more chance to take a look and think about how much they're asking the taxpayers to spend at a time of record farm income. The Congress had an opportunity to put forward -- I'm sorry -- to implement reforms, much needed reforms, and they decided not to. And I think with this move it shows that they can even up screw up spending the taxpayers' money unwisely.

Q What was that --

MS. PERINO: Said they can -- they've proved that they can even screw up spending the taxpayers' money unwisely. (Laughter.) Laughter by reporters. (Laughter.)

Today On Holden's Obsession With The Gaggle

Meet Your Propagandist-In-Chief

Q The policy change allowing Americans to send cell phones to family members in Cuba -- are you sure that if people send these phones, that they'll work, or are you just allowing a change and hoping that they'll work?

MS. PERINO: I'll refer you to what -- earlier today in the briefing room that Dan Fisk said that we do believe that they would work. And I think what's important here is that the President is saying, all right, Raul, if you say that you're going to allow people to have cell phones, let's actually really let them have them. As Dan was saying this morning, the average income -- monthly income for a Cuban is $12, and a cell phone is about $120 plus the service plus the activation fee. So they're completely out of reach for the majority of people in Cuba.

What the President wants to do is say, let's call you out on that. If you are serious about allowing people to have a cell phone, let's make sure that they can actually have them and use them. And so that's what we're trying to do here.

Q So how will they get service if they can't afford it? I mean, does the government have to allow it?

MS. PERINO: What he said -- what Dan said this morning is that included in this change is not only do you allow for the device to be sent, but that American -- Cuban Americans who are living here in America could pay for the service, as well.

Q And you have confidence that would work?

MS. PERINO: As far as I know, from what was said this morning, yes.

Q Well, how do you know it would work on the Cuban network? Isn't this just a case of the President trying to call their bluff for the propaganda advantage? There's no --

MS. PERINO: I'm sure that this is all given consideration. And Dan Fisk this morning -- I don't have any other information except for what the expert said this morning, that he believed it would work. Certainly this is something that would have to be taken into consideration in a policy process. I'm sure it was, and I'll see if there's any more I can get for you.

B-B-But...  What About The Glorious Embargo?

Q Yes, Dana, back to Cuba. If Americans are now able to send phones to a place they couldn't send phones before, and send money for a service that they couldn't send money, how is that not a loosening of the embargo?

MS. PERINO: Well, I think, remember, that this is a changing of the existing regulations. There's -- the embargo is based on doing business because the regime makes you do business with just the regime, and the money doesn't get passed on to the people who are living in Cuba. There is already an existing regulation -- and I don't have all the details at my fingertips -- that allows for gift parcels to be sent from Cuban Americans to their families back in Cuba. What this did is allow for, if you were putting together a care package, to put a cell phone in it, as well. That has not been allowed before.

Q But it is being allowed now. So that's not a loosening?

MS. PERINO: What I just said is -- no, I think it's separate from the embargo. That's how I would describe it.

Q One other question, too, about the money. In order to get service in Cuba, presumably you have to pay the state-run Cuban phone service provider. Are Americans not going to be then subsidizing the regime by paying money to that provider?

MS. PERINO: Let me go and back and see how it will work because what -- that doesn't correspond with what Dan said this morning at the gaggle. So I'll go back and find out in terms of where they believe the service is paid for.

Today On Holden's Obsession With The Gaggle

On To Iran!

Q I want to ask you about the denial of the Jerusalem Post story --

MS. PERINO: Yes.

Q -- when you say that the White House's preference is to solve this through peaceful, diplomatic means. That still leaves the door open, though, to planning an attack. I'm not saying you are planning an attack, but by your specifically saying that your preference is to have a peaceful, diplomatic means, doesn't that leave the door open to still --

MS. PERINO: I don't see how that changes -- I don't think that what I said today in response to a Jerusalem Post article that quotes an Army Times* piece that quotes unnamed officials who were quoting unnamed officials -- seems a little bit less than ethical to run that as a big story on their website. So what I said in there was I was restating longstanding Bush administration policy, which is to work with our international allies on a multilateral way to get the Iranians through diplomatic means, bringing economic and diplomatic pressure to bear on the Iranians to get them to change their behavior so that we could sit down at the table with them. And until they halt that nuclear enrichment we're not going to sit down with them.

But what I said in terms of, as the President said before, no President should take options off the table when dealing with any situation. So -- but I don't think I said anything different from what I've said before.

Q But on the -- go ahead.

Q Dana, it doesn't -- you don't deny the premise of the Post article, the Jerusalem Post article, which was that a senior U.S. official said that the President and Vice President were of the opinion that military action is called for in Iran?

MS. PERINO: I have no knowledge of anybody saying that to anybody in Israel, no. And as I said, I will restate that the United States position is to work with our international allies to bring diplomatic pressure to bear, both economic pressure and the diplomatic pressure that comes from working with all of our allies and also the countries in the region who have grave concerns about Iran's ambitions to obtain a nuclear weapon.

"Well Knitted Up" -- Like An Old Sock

Q One quick follow on that. A broader question in the story, it also claims that there are sort of two camps in the administration: the President and the Vice President who are leaning more towards an attack, and Secretary Rice and Secretary Gates are sort of pulling them back. Is there any sort of split in the administration?

MS. PERINO: This is something that I have seen reported over the years, and I think it's just people surmising or trying to string along story lines and rumors that aren't based in fact. The President's team is well knitted up.

Yep, Chimpy And Chestpain-ey Want To Attack Iran Now

Q What about the substance of it, though? Do the President and the Vice President feel that an attack is called for -- whether someone said that in Israel, or not?

MS. PERINO: Keith, I feel that I just answered that question when I talked about what our policy is.

Q Can you answer yes or no to that?

MS. PERINO: I just told -- said what our policy is and that our preference is to solve this diplomatically. And that's what we're trying to do.

Q But that doesn't answer the question.

MS. PERINO: It does answer the question, that that is what we are working with our allies to do. But the President has said -- what I'm saying today in response to the Jerusalem Post is nothing different than from what has been said at this podium for a couple of years now.

Q But it's not quite an answer, because everyone's preference is always for peace, but someone could still think that an attack may be called for.

MS. PERINO: Look, I think that when you have a longstanding policy, such as the President has, and he's working with international allies -- we've already passed three Security Council resolutions; we're now working on an incentives package; we have multilateral agreement that Iran should not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon, or get the technology to be able to obtain a nuclear weapon, and we're all working towards that goal. But at the same time, the President has said that no President, no matter who it is, either him or anyone in the future, should take options off the table. It's not a smart way to negotiate.

Q Does the President -- do the President and the Vice President think an attack is called for on Iran? Yes or no?

MS. PERINO: I just said what the United States policy was, which is, our preference is to try to solve this diplomatically.

Q Look, skepticism seems warranted here, because in the run-up to the war in 2003, the line was officially that negotiations were still called for and that there was no decision to attack, when, in fact, subsequent reporting has shown that there probably was a decision to attack well before the attack took place. So why shouldn't we be skeptical of the claim that there's no intention to bomb Iran?

MS. PERINO: Bill, you can be as skeptical as you want to be. I stated what our policy is, and I don't have anything else that I can give you. I'm not going to be able to -- if you're going to be a skeptic, that's your right -- you're fourth estate, go for it.

Shorter Dana:  No

Q Can you honestly maintain with a straight face that in an election season like this the White House was unaware that people would take that statement the President made as an attack on Obama or other Democrats?

MS. PERINO: What I'm saying is that President Bush was there at the Knesset to give a speech on the 60th anniversary of Israel and he restated longstanding United States policy. And I don't think that he should have to change or sit back and wait out for the next six months while an election is going on.

Today On Holden's Obsession With The Gaggle

Snott Stanzel Trips On The Numbers

Q What's the latest on SPR? And you said earlier the President intended to sign off on it -- why, if that's not something he really believes in?

MR. STANZEL: We have -- I said this morning I thought that we had received the bill late last week, but actually we expect to receive it this afternoon. So there's been no action by the President yet on that.

I would note that as we have said numerous times, we don't believe that halting the fill of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve will have much of an impact on oil prices, and therefore an impact on gas prices. What you see in this chart is basically the daily fill of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is about 70,000 barrels. What you saw on the President's visit to the Middle East, there was talk of Saudi Arabia increasing their daily production by about 300,000 barrels. Both of those were noted to be somewhat small amounts that would not probably have much of an impact on world oil prices.

I think it's worth noting that if ANWR had come on line 10 years ago, or 13 years ago when it was rejected, we might be seeing a million barrels of daily production out of that here domestically. So we think that it's important for Congress to not get sidetracked with a discussion of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

[snip]

Q Your chart doesn't show the daily consumption, which is about 20 million barrels --

MR. STANZEL: Right, that's correct.

Q -- which makes all of these numbers relatively insignificant.

MR. STANZEL: Well, but 1 million out of 20 million is, what, 5 percent, Bill? Five percent difference is a difference.

Q Yes, but we can't get there anytime soon.

MR. STANZEL: No, we can't, because Congress keeps putting off the fact with -- going from band-aid to band-aid that they think will have an impact, but really won't.

Chimpy vs. Congressional Republikkkans

Q Scott, is the President disappointed that dozens of Republicans in Congress are supporting the farm bill? And what's the latest on timing in terms of presidential action on the farm bill?

MR. STANZEL: We have not yet received the farm bill. That was passed last week, obviously.

[snip]

But the President has been disappointed with what came forward -- what came through Congress. We see a bill that is bloated; that asks taxpayers, at a time of record-high farm income, to pay -- and at a time when they're paying more for groceries, to pay even more to wealthy farmers. And we don't think that's the right approach. And the President and the administration will continue to make that case. Like I said, we haven't received the bill yet. We expect that we'll receive it sometime this week, and the President will veto it.

Q Is he particularly, though, disappointed with his own party, members of his own party supporting it?

MR. STANZEL: Well, I think that there are -- certainly members respond to different interests, maybe from their districts. But in the grand scheme of things, the President wanted a bill that would reform our farm laws for the future, that would make wise use of the taxpayers' money, that wouldn't increase subsidies at a time of record-high incomes. There are some things in this bill that are just unconscionable.

[snip]

Q Scott, the President, though, reportedly told some of the legislators on the Republican side that it was all right if they -- or signaled that it was okay if they voted their districts, meaning they could support it if their districts supported it.

MR. STANZEL: That is actually a bit of a rumor that came out of the meeting that the President had with the House GOP conference. He did not absolve anybody of their votes. He did indicate that obviously different factors come into weighing on people's votes. But he did not say, go ahead and vote your district. He certainly put forward the reasons why he thought that that bill was bad for the taxpayers, and one that he would veto.

The Death Knell For John McStain

Q Well, 82 percent of Americans think the country is headed on the wrong track. The President has a pretty low approval rating right now. When he hits the road with John McCain, what's his pitch to voters? Does he think he can actually help this candidate?

MR. STANZEL: Well, I think that, first of all, it would be interesting to note the approval rating of Congress, as well, which is lower than all of those numbers that you cite. The President, when he gets out and talks on the campaign trail, regardless of what candidate he is supporting, will talk about the fact that he believes that Republicans going into this fall have the message that can be supported by voters, and that is one that keeps us strong, keeps us safe as a nation, one that uses -- makes wise use of the taxpayers' money and keeps taxes low, to make sure that the economy continues to grow.

So the President believes very strongly that if we get out and take our message to voters, that we can be successful.

Q Are we going to see a lot of them together?

MR. STANZEL: I think you'll see the President out on the campaign quite -- campaign trail quite a bit. We'll keep you posted on their events that they may have together.

You And Your Goddamned Liberal Blogs!

Q The White House has denied that it knew about the Pentagon program that used TV military analysts --

MR. STANZEL: We've been through this before. Do you have a question?

Q Yes. There's something new. Last week emails surfaced that showed that Pentagon officials, including Donald Rumsfeld, communicated with White House officials, including Karl Rove and Stephen Hadley, about the program. One email written by a Pentagon official mentioned that Rove was approached about arranging a meeting between the military analysts and the President --

MR. STANZEL: Your question is?

Q My question is, what was the nature and extent of the involvement of Karl Rove, Stephen Hadley and President Bush in the military analyst program?

MR. STANZEL: Well, the idea that people in the administration would brief people who are talking to reporters about our programs and our policies doesn't seem like to be that far-fetched of an idea to me. So in terms of the emails, I haven't been monitoring the staff emails here, so I can't tell you what their conversations were like. But it's not unusual for administration officials to brief people who are talking about our plans and our policies. Much like I'm standing here today, briefing all of you --

Q Right, and why was the program kept secret?

MR. STANZEL: -- and much like I'm standing here answering your question, and you go out on your liberal blog and talk about the way that you see things; we brief people who talk about the President's policies.

Q Why was the program kept secret?

MR. STANZEL: You can talk to the Defense Department. It was their program -- which they've discontinued.

Q Who was in charge at the White House?

Les vs. Big Oil

Q There have been -- there has been yet another almost nationally uniform raising of gasoline prices to more than $4 a gallon. And my question: Does the President believe that there is no sign whatsoever of any conspiracy in restraint of trade here, and does the White House believe that Election Day in November that the majority of voters will blame him or will they blame members of the majority party on Capitol Hill?

MR. STANZEL: I don't think the President is focused on blame, Lester. He's focused on solutions that will have a difference for the future. Certainly rising demand in oil around the world is having an impact on gasoline prices. You mentioned $4.00 -- the average price is not yet there --

Q It all goes up together. Did you notice that? All of those oil companies --

MR. STANZEL: I certainly did notice that.

Q -- go up together. What about that?

MR. STANZEL: Well, oil is sold on a world market, Lester, so that is a case in point of what we see. But the President believes that we should focus on ways that we can reduce our dependence on foreign sources of oil, that we can expand use of alternative fuels, that we can reduce our consumption through raising CAFE standards, and make sure that we take those measures that will help us in the future, like expanding exploration in ANWR, the Outer Continental Shelf, as an example.

Today On Holden's Obsession With [Yesterday's] Gaggle

Dana Says Bad Poll Numbers Are Due To War In Iraq -- And What About Those Gas Prices!

Q Yes, Dana, a new ABC News/Washington Post poll says that 82 percent of Americans believe the country is heading on the wrong track; that's up 10 points from a year ago. What do you say to those 82 percent?

MS. PERINO: Well, look, we're aware of polls. They're something that I know that news media organizations love to do, and in fact it helps -- every week you could see a new poll from multiple organizations. So I think that what we would say to that is that, one, we understand that the war in Iraq has brought down -- has brought negative feelings about where the country is headed. But also, one thing you can track over and over again through the years is high gas prices. High gas prices have a really negative effect on the psychology of the country, as well as on the economy. It's like a drag on the economy and a tax on the working people.

So best -- the most important thing we can do is make sure that, first of all, Congress doesn't do any more harm to the problem and exacerbate higher gas prices. And also, we can take some steps to try to get us out of this mess, because we have seen this over time, over the past several years; every spring these gas prices go up, and mostly because we have problems with supply and demand. There's a lot of demand, growing demand throughout the world, and a limited supply.

So we need to do a couple of things: one, drill domestically here in environmentally sensitive ways so that we can become less dependent on foreign sources of energy, and at the same time continue to push investment into these new technologies like lithium-ion batteries, which would allow all of us to have the opportunity to buy a vehicle that runs on batteries for the first 40 miles, which is pretty much the average for daily use in America.

So there's a variety of things that we can do. But in regards to the poll numbers, I'll just refer you to your own experts.

Change In Position?  What, And Abandon Missionary?

Q Dana, what about the calls from members of Congress to stop putting oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, including a letter recently from several Republican senators to do that? Any change of position from the White House?

MS. PERINO: Sure. Look -- change of position? I should have let you ask your question first before I say, sure. No, our position hasn't changed, in that this is -- the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is in place for specific national security reasons, in case there are supply disruptions. We tap into it every once in a while when we have a major supply disruption, like we did, I think, right after Katrina.

But the President has -- believes that we need an even larger Strategic Petroleum Reserve in order to protect ourselves against oil shocks, such as, like I mentioned, instability that might happen in a country around the world.

Drilling Down

Q What specific steps -- when you say the President says we should be doing more domestically, what specifically should we be doing?

MS. PERINO: Jim, you must have been gone for the past three weeks. We talk about it every day.

Q Well, I'll tell you what. He talks about drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf, but as Representative Peterson, Republican from Pennsylvania, pointed out last Friday, you have a dual policy. In the President's own budget, he prohibited the Department of Interior from spending any money on pre-leasing or leasing on the Outer Continental Shelf. So the President's budget precludes any drilling or exploration of the Outer Continental Shelf, and yet he says we should be drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf.

MS. PERINO: Let me go back and look at that, because I think there's different reasons for that.

[snip]

Q As you know, one of the biggest reserves of oil and gas is right off the coast of Florida. Florida has been (inaudible) drilling all over the Outer Continental Shelf on the East. The President made a deal with his brother not to drill in Florida. Is the President now reconsidering --

MS. PERINO: I think that you -- it's a lot more complicated than that, Jim, and I think you have to go back and look at the miles that they talk about, in terms of how far out the drilling would be. But again, I would point you to a state like Virginia, which, on a bipartisan basis, their state decided that they wanted to do this, and they were precluded from doing so. I think that --

Q Florida is a gold mine, and we haven't actually --

MS. PERINO: Look, you can -- the same could be said about ANWR. I mean, there's a lot of different places that we could find sources of energy here in the United States.

Q The President didn't make a deal with the Governor of Alaska. He made a deal with his brother.

MS. PERINO: But Jim, we're not talking about -- there's -- as I just said, there's lots of different places. And I would point you back to there's a hundred-mile limit, or something like that -- this is going back several years ago, so it's slightly more complicated than how you're just trying to paint it here.

Today On Holden's Obsession With The Gaggle

Ah, Yes, The Chopping Of The Cedar

Q Is he going to be doing his normal activities down at the ranch this weekend, since there's this big affair -- like, is he going to go -- probably do the exercise and the chopping of the cedar and all that stuff, or is that pretty much on hold this weekend?

MR. JOHNDROE: No, I think this weekend he'll receive his normal intelligence briefings. I expect he'll work on the ranch, try and get a bike ride in. He does have a lot of other obligations this weekend, but I think he'll try and wedge those into the schedule.

Today On Holden's Obsession With The Gaggle

Dana Peroxide Is Back, So Helen Tries Again

Q Yesterday, according to The New York Times, we dropped a bomb on a home in Sadr City and burned alive a pregnant woman and her children. How long is the siege of Sadr -- how long are we going to keep bombing Iraqis?

MS. PERINO: Well, I'm not aware of that particular report. I have not -- I've not seen it.

Q Well, it was pretty buried in the story.

MS. PERINO: Okay. Well, the operation against the militias in Sadr City will continue until they root them out. And that is expressly in order to protect people like you just mentioned.

Q Root who out, Iraqis, in their own country?

MS. PERINO: It is Prime Minister Maliki's government which is going after the militia, which is appropriate.

Q Why are we bombing these people?

MS. PERINO: Any time anyone that is an innocent civilian is hurt in a conflict, we obviously regret it, and we go out of our way to make sure it doesn't happen.

Press Secretary Pickles

Q Dana, speaking of Mrs. Bush, what was the motivation behind having the First Lady speak out yesterday on Myanmar, instead of the President? Whose idea was it? And was there any concern at all that one part of that dual message, the criticism of the military junta, could be hindering the other part, which was the offer of U.S. aid?

MS. PERINO: No. Mrs. Bush -- it is no surprise that Mrs. Bush feels very strongly about Burma, and she and the President have been working as partners on this issue for a long period of time. And we were very happy to have her here in the briefing room, and I think it sent a really good message, especially to the people of Burma -- if they got a chance to hear her, hopefully, through some of the radio programs that they would be able to hear -- that the United States cares; that we want them to live in freedom and democracy and justice -- have justice for their citizens. And we'd be happy to have her in the briefing room any time she would like to come.

Q So, in other words, because she has spoken out in the past, you felt it was appropriate for her to carry that message on yesterday?

MS. PERINO: I cannot see any reason why it would be inappropriate for the First Lady of the United States to grace the press briefing room with her presence.

Q But, again, any concern that by -- because she did criticize the junta -- that that would in any way deter them from accepting U.S. aid?

MS. PERINO: Our position about the way that they have governed has been very clear. That was not the first time that Mrs. Bush or anyone in the federal government has expressed that concern.

Cheney In Charge

Q How is the administration going to respond to this House push for a subpoena of the Vice President's Chief of Staff?

MS. PERINO: Well, I understand that David Addington issued a letter last week in which he said he would be responding to the committee, and I know that he will do so. And I'm going to refer you to the office of the Vice President --

Q So is he going to testify?

MS. PERINO: I'd refer you to him for more. They -- the office of the Vice President's Press Secretary can handle that.

Q Don't hold your breath.

Q They don't tell you what they're doing?

MS. PERINO: Look, the subpoena was just served. He said he would respond appropriately, and I'm sure he will.

They Don't Care

Q The head of the National Institutes of Mental Health says that it's possible that the number of suicides among veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan may turn out to be greater than the number who actually die in combat. And at least two senators say that the VA has withheld the actual number of suicides and attempted suicides, and have called for the resignation of the VA's Director of Mental Health. What's your reaction?

MS. PERINO: Well, I'm aware of the hearing today where the Department of Veterans Affairs Secretary Peake was answering questions about this very thing today. And I'm sure that you are covering that, as well. President Bush is very concerned about the mental health of our veterans and has made sure that we are doing everything we can to make sure that American veterans are getting the care that they need.

[snip]

Q Well, has the White House or the Pentagon been aware of the possibility that the VA has been withholding the statistics on the number of suicides and attempted suicides?

MS. PERINO: We're aware of the accusations and I do believe Secretary Peake answered those today.

Q Well, what is the answer?

MS. PERINO: I would refer you to -- nobody was covering it, so I wasn't able to see it directly.

Q Well, I mean, what is the response from here? I mean, what are you going to direct people to do about it?

MS. PERINO: Well, the President has full confidence in Secretary Peake and believes that he is handling it appropriately.

Q What about the head of the mental health services at the VA?

MS. PERINO: Well, again, he works for Secretary Peake and I'll refer you to them.

Son Of They Don't Care

Q What's the White House position going to be on the Democrats' idea of including unemployment benefit extensions in the supplemental?

MS. PERINO: Well, remember that right now -- in fact, just last week, we had mixed reports on the economy, and one of them was the unemployment rate remains relatively low by historic standards, at 5.0 percent, recognizing that some people are on unemployment for longer than they would like. And we're aware of that.

[snip]

Q The Democrats are talking about it in the House, including it in the supplemental, the Iraq supplemental.

MS. PERINO: We feel strongly that the Iraq war supplemental should remain for national security needs. We understand that there could be debates on other issues, such as unemployment benefits and food stamps, other issues that are important to a lot of people. But those issues can be taken up separate from our national security needs in the Iraq war supplemental.

Today On Holden's Obsession With The Gaggle

Snott Stanzel Says It's not Chimpy's Fault...

Q Oil is hitting $120 a barrel today -- a new record. Any response on that? And any further steps that the administration can take?

MR. STANZEL: Well, I think it's another example that it's important for the United States to become less dependent on foreign sources of energy. I understand some strife in Nigeria may be playing an impact on that. We have here in this nation resources that we are not utilizing. ANWR is an example, an issue that's been debated over the past couple of decades -- has been repeatedly blocked from exploration.

[snip]

Q The President will be in Saudi Arabia next week. Will he be, again, urging King Abdallah to increase output there and to get OPEC to do the same?

MR. STANZEL: I think whenever the President has discussions with leaders in the region he talks about the impact that high oil prices do have on our economy and the impact that that then has on the world economy. So I think you can expect the President to make those concerns very clear.

Q But none of this offers any short-term relief, obviously. The solutions you're talking about are years down the road, literally.

MR. STANZEL: Right, and many years ago we could have had a more forward-leaning energy policy, and that's what we're talking about. If we don't want to go from short-term band-aid to short-term band-aid to short-term crisis to short-term crisis again and again and again, leaders in Congress should start to look forward and think about our long-term energy strategy. And it's our contention that that hasn't been the case in the last 20 years.

[snip]

Q That may all be true, but voters are going to be asking, what have you done for me, when they go to the polls.

MR. STANZEL: And voters should understand that the President would like us to do a number of different things, whereas leaders in Congress have continually rejected the idea of expanding exploration, whether it's ANWR or the Outer Continental Shelf; they continually stood in the way of those things, which makes us more dependent on foreign sources of energy.

Q So it wasn't his fault?

MR. STANZEL: Well, it's a problem that's gone back many years.

But The People Want Action, Not Politics

Q Thank you. Scott, many Americans are saying that there's a lot of talk right now about short-term/long-term fixes, but they need something immediately, right now. We're facing $120 a barrel for oil now. A lot of people are concerned that -- what's not being looked at by the President. He's saying he'll look at every option -- it's price gouging. You've got Exxon, you've got Chevron making billions upon billions of dollars in profit when the American public is having problems going to the pump with the gas prices. Why not deal with that issue of price gouging?

MR. STANZEL: Well, there's a structure in place to have those issues examined and that is something that we always have in place. And so if you're talking about taxing energy-producing companies, the windfall profits tax is something that's being considered on Capitol Hill. That, as Dana mentioned last week, was an abject failure when it was tried during the Carter administration. At a time when you have high prices, it makes absolutely zero sense to tax the people producing that energy.

[snip]

Q But is there something -- I mean, I hear what you're saying, but from what I'm getting -- I just, in front of the White House, just talk to average, everyday people. One person told me this is obscene and obsessive. People are hurting when they go to the pump. They don't want to hear partisan politics. They want to hear someone unifying, cutting the red tape and getting to the heart of the matter. Can this administration do something about the fact that --

MR. STANZEL: The President said the other day that there's no magic wand. If he could -- if there was a magic wand, he would wave it and these prices would drop. But that's not the case. We are dealing with a situation where we've had for many years an energy policy that hasn't served the long-term needs of this country. So that's the situation we find ourselves in.

Today On Holden's Obsession With The Gaggle

Lurita Sleeps With The Fishes

Q Dana, why was Lurita Doan forced to resign now? She's been a presence around here for a long time. Why was she fired now?

MS. PERINO: Well, I'm not going to comment on a -- on the resignation. I will confirm, obviously, that she has resigned from GSA. While serving as the administrator she worked very hard to respond effectively during the times of emergency. She also worked to make sure that all of the numerous buildings in the federal government are as energy efficient as possible. And the President is grateful for her service and wishes her the best.

Q Okay. She says she was forced out. Is that true?

MS. PERINO: I'm not going to comment.

[snip]

Q Okay, one more Lurita Doan. Did the President want her to stay? Would he have supported --

MS. PERINO: I'm not going to comment. She tendered her resignation and it was accepted.

Bravo, Helen

Q Me? How does the President intend to commemorate "Mission Accomplished" after five years of death and destruction?

MS. PERINO: What you're referring to is the banner that ran -- that was aboard the ship five years ago. President Bush --

Q I'm talking about the anniversary tomorrow.

MS. PERINO: Yes, I get -- no, I understand. That's the anniversary of when that banner flew on that ship. President Bush is well aware that the banner should have been much more specific and said "mission accomplished for these sailors who are on this ship on their mission." And we have certainly paid a price for not being more specific on that banner. And I recognize that the media is going to play this up again tomorrow, as they do every single year.

[snip]

Q Is every Iraqi a terrorist?

MS. PERINO: -- and the Iranian-backed militias --

Q We're fighting the Iraqis, we're bombing their homes. What do you mean?

MS. PERINO: Helen, we are going after terrorists and al Qaeda and Iranian-backed Shia militia who are killing not only innocent Iraqis but our soldiers as well, and we're doing so in --

Q We're bombing homes with children --

MS. PERINO: -- we are working very closely with the government of Iraq in order to take back these provinces. And I would point you to Basra and the battle on Basra, in which the initial reports was that it was an unmitigated failure. And actually if you look at it now, we were -- the Iraqis, working with us, with our support, were able to take back that port and that town. And I think what that shows is that Prime Minister Maliki, once he decided to take on these criminal elements, brought together his government, and now they're backing him and they're working together, and now they want to start taking on other militias, such as in Sadr City.

But remember, Helen, when we are going after these terrorists and the ones who hide amongst innocent civilians --

Q We're going after Iraqis who are fighting for their own country.

MS. PERINO: But they hide amongst innocent civilians, and that is where you get problems that we obviously regret and go out of our way to avoid.

Oh, But Dana -- It Is Against The Law

Q [O]ver the last six years the Pentagon conducted a secret operation designed to sell the war in Iraq and the war on terror to the American people. It recruited more than 75 ex-military officers, many with financial ties to the defense industry, provided them with talking points and an extraordinary degree of access not available to ordinary members of the press, including meetings with the Secretary of Defense, and it got them higher supposedly independent military analysts by every U.S. television network. One of its participants described it --

MS. PERINO: Do you have a question?

Q One of its participants described the program as "psyops on steroids" and others said that if they --

MS. PERINO: Is this your opinion?

Q I'm describing the program.

MS. PERINO: What's your question?

Q Others said that if they departed from the Pentagon's talking points, their access was cut off. And my question is, did the White House know about and approve of this operation?

MS. PERINO: Look, I didn't know -- look, I think that you guys should take a step back and look at this -- look, DOD has made a decision, they've decided to stop this program. But I would say that one of the things that we try to do in the administration is get information out to a variety of people so that everybody else can call them and ask their opinion about something.

And I don't think that that should be against the law.

Today On Holden's Obsession With The Gaggle

No More Hugs For McCain?

Q Two quick issues. Senate John McCain was touring a Lower Ninth Ward in New Orleans today. He said, "Never again will a disaster be handled in this terrible and disgraceful way." He was asked specifically to talk about President Bush and how he failed in his Katrina conduct, and he said, "I think everybody knows how it was a failure." There were unqualified people in charge. There was a total misreading of the dimensions of the disaster. There was a failure of communications on the part of the way -- the common spectrum to used by many first responders. He said, "It's been well chronicled. I don't think anybody in America, hardly, is unaware of the many failings that took place." What your reaction to that?

MS. PERINO: Well, I didn't see the comments, but from what I know, having been here during the time, President Bush absolutely took responsibility for any failing on the part of the federal government. But at the same time there were problems at the federal, state and -- I'm sorry, at the state and local levels, as well, which they have admitted to.

The Albanians Stole Chimpy's Watch, The Mexicans Stole Chimpy's Blackberry

Q One quick one to finish up. Is there any update on the stolen Blackberries in New Orleans? What is the story with this?

MS. PERINO: There was an incident in New Orleans at the leaders' summit in -- where an individual from the Mexican delegation, or a staff member was involved in these Blackberries -- the disappearance of a couple of Blackberries. I don't know how many it was. The matter is under investigation by law enforcement officials and they haven't decided yet what exactly happened, but they're working on it.

Q Was there sensitive material on the Blackberries?

MS. PERINO: I don't know. I'm going to let the investigation take place before I comment on it.

Q Whose were they?

Q Yes, whose Blackberries? Were they White House staff Blackberries?

DANA*: I don't -- I'm not --

Q U.S.?

DANA: U.S., yes.

Q White House officials?

DANA: I don't know if they were -- I'm not quite sure whose they were, so I don't want to say that, but they were certainly U.S. delegation.

*Note the offical White House transcript identifies the Press Secretary to the President by her first name.

Today On Holden's Obsession With The Gaggle

Helen Has The Floor

MS. PERINO: Helen.

Q The President has said publicly several times, in two consecutive news conferences a few months ago, and you have said over and over again, we do not torture. Now he has admitted that he did sign off on torture, he did know about it. So how do you reconcile this credibility gap?

MS. PERINO: Helen, you're taking liberties with the what the President said. The United States has not, is not torturing any detainees in the global war on terror. And General Hayden, amongst others, have spoken on Capitol Hill fully in this regard, and it is -- I'll leave it where it is. The President is accurate in saying what he said.

Q That's not my question. My question is, why did he state publicly, we do not torture --

MS. PERINO: Because we do not.

Q -- when he really did know that we do?

MS. PERINO: No, that's what I mean, Helen. We've talked about the legal authorities --

Q Are you saying that we did not?

MS. PERINO: I am saying we did not, yes.

Q How can you when you have photographs and everything else? I mean, how can you say that when he admits that he knew about it?

MS. PERINO: Helen, I think that you're -- again, I think you're conflating some issues and you're misconstruing what the President said.

Q I'm asking for the credibility of this country, not just this administration.

MS. PERINO: And what I'm telling you is we have -- torture has not occurred. And you can go back through all the public record. Just make sure -- I would just respectfully ask you not to misconstrue what the President said.

Q You're denying, in this room, that we torture and we have tortured?

MS. PERINO: Yes, I am denying that.

Elaine, did you have one?

Today On Holden's Obsession With The Gaggle

Poor Benighted Dana...

Q Israel, and Hamas's reported willingness to engage in a peace deal. Do you have any reaction on that?

MS. PERINO: Well, I think that -- you're referring to what President Carter said about what he was told? I think that what you have to do is look at -- it's possible that that was whispered in his ear in a private meeting. We did not support the private meeting, a meeting with a terrorist organization.

...Proven Wrong Again

DAMASCUS (Reuters) - Islamist Hamas group Hamas said on Monday it would accept the establishment of a Palestinian state on land occupied by Israel in the 1967 Middle East war, but it was not prepared to recognize the Jewish state.

Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal, in an apparent softening of the group's position, was confirming an account of his remarks given by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter after two meetings in Damascus over the weekend.

"We accept a state on the June 4 line with Jerusalem as capital, real sovereignty and full right of return for refugees but without recognizing Israel," Meshaal told reporters, referring to the borders as they stood before the 1967 war.

Today On Holden's Obsession With The Gaggle

Chimpy Is No Fan Of The First Amendment

Q Thanks. Can you just offer a little insight as to why the President would sort of part with his own tradition of not going out to Andrews to greet leaders, and do so for a religious leader, but not having done it for political leaders?

MS. PERINO: Well, obviously, as I said, it's an historic and important visit.

[snip]

Q How does the White House balance the different elements for an arrival ceremony? Is it a secular head of state arrival? Is it, in part, religious overtones, with the singing of "The Lord's Prayer"?

MS. PERINO: Well, this is a little bit different, in that the head of state is also the head of the Catholic Church that is visiting the White House. And so I think we've struck the right balance, and that it's perfectly appropriate for the White House to welcome the Pope and have one of the songs performed tomorrow by Kathleen Battle -- who we are very happy to have at the White House -- she'll be singing "The Lord's Prayer." And many people across America and across the world say that prayer in order to provide themselves comfort and confidence in getting their day started. And so we think it's perfectly appropriate.

Q Can I just follow?

MS. PERINO: No, I think I'll go over here to Mark.

Pope Ratzo Is No Fan Of Chimpy's Vanity War

Q  Last year in his Easter message, the Pope said, "Nothing positive comes from Iraq." How does the President speak to the Holy Father about that subject?

MS. PERINO: Well, they have a relationship that is based on trust and they are able to have frank conversations. I will say that while Iraq has come up in the past when the President has talked to the Pope, as I understand it, they're not prolonged conversations about it. Obviously there was a difference of opinion back in 2003 and beyond, in subsequent years. But now I think that there is an understanding that with the strategy that's working in Iraq right now, the most important thing we can do is help to solidify the situation, root it into freedom and democracy so that people of religious minorities -- I'm sorry, people of a religious faith who are minorities in their countries can practice freely and be free from persecution. And that is something that they share. I expect them to touch on that a little bit.

Q On the war, do you expect him to say, we just politely disagree, let's move on?

MS. PERINO: I don't expect any public conversation about it. But they will have a one-on-one meeting in the Oval Office and it's possible that it could come up; I won't rule it out. But I don't think it will be -- I don't think it will dominate the conversation in any way.

[snip]

Q Dana, back to Iraq. I was struck by what you said, that the most important thing we can do now is to sort of -- is to basically finish and to bring about peace. And I wonder, does the -- will the President try to make that case to the Pope? In other words, even though he may have disagreed with the decision to invade Iraq, will he now try to find common ground in this way to say, look, the best thing we can do there now is --

MS. PERINO: Sheryl, I really don't think that the President is planning to spend a lot of time talking about the issues of Iraq with the Pope.

Today On Holden's Obsession With The Gaggle

Silly Gagglers, Chimpy Never Takes Responsibility For Anything

Q Just one more on the issue you brought up initially, on worldwide food shortages. Does the President feel any responsibility himself for that, because he's been such a hard backer of ethanol? I know he's talked about different sources of ethanol, but he's also really backed corn-based ethanol, and that's blamed by a lot of people for driving up prices and costs.

MS. PERINO: I think there's a lot of different issues that go in -- there are a lot of factors that go into higher food prices or food shortages in countries that need help in order to feed their populations.

Former Senator Dog-Humper Never Heard Of John F. Kennedy?

Q  It's been suggested that the President, who has met so often with Catholic leaders and reached out so aggressively to Catholic groups, and whose social views very closely reflect Catholic Orthodoxy, is actually America's first Catholic President. What do you think of that? (Laughter.)

MS. PERINO: He's also been called America's -- or, the first Jewish President, is what the Israelis call him, too.

[snip]

Q It was actually Rick Santorum, I think, who gets credit for that. But has the President heard that suggestion before?

MS. PERINO: Yes.

Today On Holden's Obsession With The Gaggle

Dana Peroxide Does Not Know That Republikkkan Senators Questioned Patreus' "Success"

Q Dana, picking back up on the speech again tomorrow, will the President be addressing sort of the bigger-picture questions that were talked a little bit about in the hearings yesterday? Senator Warner raised a question: Are we safer? Is America safer because of this? And Senator Hagel raised some questions about where is the diplomatic surge. Will the President address the nation and those kinds of questions tomorrow?

MS. PERINO: Sure, those are issues, when the President talks about Iraq, that he addresses every time he has a chance to talk about it.

[snip]

Q But those two Republican Senators really seem to be at a loss for understanding progress in Iraq.

MS. PERINO: With all the testimony -- I didn't see the questioning in between those two Senators, but I do think that Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus have done a very good job of providing their very candid and frank assessment about the progress that has been made because of the surge, and the challenges that lie ahead.

Dana Peroxide Is Helenized -- Again

Q You said earlier today that it was not possible for the President to pull out of Iraq before he leaves office. And it was so easy for him to go in five years ago; why can't he pull out now?

MS. PERINO: I don't think any of that was easy -- not the decision and not -- and certainly none of the logistics, and especially everything that weighs heavy on him and obviously the families of the loved ones -- their loved ones who have died in this fight. But what I was saying, Helen, is that it is, one, the President thinks that it's way premature to pull out troops now. One, it's dangerous for our own national security, but also for the innocent Iraqis who are there --

Q Why is it dangerous for our national security? Are the Iraqis a threat to us?

MS. PERINO: Helen, in case you missed it, Osama bin Laden has said that he would like to establish al Qaeda's roots in the Arab world.

[snip]

Q I understand you do not intend to submit the agreement to Congress -- the agreement with the Iraqis.

MS. PERINO: We have said that we will continue to work with Congress, brief them on it fully -- that's what Ambassador Crocker said he would do. It's not --

Q But not to let --

MS. PERINO: -- an executive agreement like this isn't something that is subject to a yes or no vote by the United States Senate. Other countries, under their constitutions, may have that type of rule, but we don't. But that doesn't mean we're not going to work very closely with Congress.

Q -- to make an end run around the authorization --

MS. PERINO: No it's not, Helen.

Q -- that expired, didn't it?

MS. PERINO: No it's not, Helen. No.

Q Well, why can't you submit it to Congress?

MS. PERINO: I just explained why.

Go ahead.

Today On Holden's Obsession With The Gaggle

Dana Peroxide Claims Chimpy Will Consult With Congress Before Entering Into A Status Of Forces Agreement With Iraq

Q Dana, there have been a number of questions about the status of forces agreement. And I know you talked about it before, but can you say, if the Iraqi government is going to bring this agreement to the Iraqi parliament, why the administration wouldn't want to bring and consent with our Congress about this agreement, with a legal framework of setting up the way forward in Iraq?

MS. PERINO: As Ambassador Crocker just said, that the -- there are briefings already set up for our members of Congress to hear specifically about the strategic forces agreement. Negotiations are currently underway with the Iraqis. This is to establish a basic framework so that our coalition forces can continue to operate there with a legal framework after the U.N. mandate expires in December.

We're going to continue to work with Congress. We've said that -- we've been very clear as to what this agreement is and what it is not. And so they're going to continue to have that. What we have said is that if it reaches the level where it would need Senate ratification as a treaty, then that is the path we would go down. We don't anticipate that right now.

Q So the Democrats, who are very concerned about this, you believe are mistaken?

MS. PERINO: I do believe they are mistaken, and I think that many of them are playing politics with this issue. And it's at the expense of our forces. I would assume that they would like our forces to have a legal framework to work under, since all of them have conceded that there are going to be -- our troops are going to be in Iraq after this President leaves office. So that is what our aim is.

Dana To Dead American Soldiers:  Suck It

Q What effect will the deaths of 11 Americans in Iraq just since this past Sunday have on the immediate future of the U.S. strategy, the President's thinking about --

MS. PERINO: I don't know if it would have a change in terms of the overall strategy.

Today On Holden's Obsession With The Gaggle

Tony Farto Is Throwing Out The Rose-Colored Glasses

Q Also, how does this latest violence in Iraq and the latest uncertainty about what's going on color the Petraeus-Crocker testimony this time around? It obviously has changed the equation. I mean, weeks ago it looked like the surge was -- you know, had this pretty rosy cast, and now with all this renewed violence, I think it has changed the dynamics. So how has this changed the equation?

MR. FRATTO: Well, I think we've thrown out all of the rose-colored glasses in how we look at Iraq, and try to look at it through clear lenses as to what is actually going on in the country. And what is happening there, I think what we are all seeing is that the Iraqi political leadership is trying to take hold of the security for their country. They took a very bold, aggressive action in Basra. It wasn't a overall success, but it -- but we learned a lot about what the capabilities of the Iraqi army are, and we learned a lot -- and maybe this is even the most important thing -- of what the capabilities and intentions of the Iraqi leadership are to go after criminal elements and illegal militias in their country, and to evenly enforce the rule of law across the country.

Ah, The Two Most Beautiful Words In The English Language:  "Yes, Helen"

MR. FRATTO: Yes, Helen.

Q You acted like the President wouldn't know what Petraeus and Crocker are going to testify. Do you mean he's going to be surprised tomorrow --

MR. FRATTO: No, I hope I didn't leave --

Q -- when they say the surge is working and all?

MR. FRATTO: No, I hope I didn't leave that impression.

[snip]

Q But he's the President, isn't he calling the policy? I mean, we don't have President Petraeus, do we? We have President --

MR. FRATTO: No, we don't. We have commander Petraeus, who is running the operations on the ground in Iraq and he's closest to the military operations. He knows the capabilities of his forces, the coalition forces, and what the Iraqi security forces can do, and has a good sense of what's needed to complete his mission. And it's a mission that he designed. So we want to look forward to his testimony and hear how he thinks it's going and what the requirements are to complete that mission for the remainder of the year.

Q What is the mission?

MR. FRATTO: Well, it's pretty clear, says to bring -- is to bring --

Q Are you asking -- to continue the occupation of Iraq?

MR. FRATTO: -- security in Iraq, sufficient security, so that the political leadership can continue to make gains.

[snip]

Now, we know that it's a -- the reduction of violence is fragile and it's reversible, but we like the trend and we like what the Iraqi political leadership has shown about their ability to take action.

Q And paying off 90,000 Iraqis not to fight?

MR. FRATTO: Kathleen.

Today On Holden's Obsession With The Gaggle

Gordon JohnD'Oh Does Not Give Or Receive Pause

Q Does it give you any pause that in two days they haven't been able to establish control -- the government, that is -- in the second largest city in Iraq?

MR. JOHNDROE: You know, Iraq faces a lot of challenges. So I would say that 48 hours is hardly a lengthy amount of time to regain control in a city that has been dealing with these criminal gangs and special militias for some time.

Stuck On Empty

Q Gordon, you mentioned political progress in Iraq. What's the status of the law to distribute oil wealth? Where does that stand?

MR. JOHNDROE: You know, I believe the council of representatives has just reconvened this week, after a short recess. I think that is an issue that they are still working on.

He's The Undecider

Q The President has had three days of briefings now on the way forward in Iraq. I take it he's not going to signal any conclusion or outcome from those briefings in the speech today.

MR. JOHNDROE: I think the President will say in his speech today that he will talk about his decisions after General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker testify in Congress.

Q So it's going to be that week after we get back from Europe?

MR. JOHNDROE: Right.

Today On Holden's Obsession With The Gaggle

Dana Peroxide Calls On China To Refrain From Non-Violence

Q China sent more troops into Tibet to crack down on the demonstrators. The United States have any reaction to that?

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.

President FreedomAgenda Supports Dictators

Q Dana, back on China for a moment. I know you've said in the past that President Bush attending the Olympics, that he's really doing so just as a sports fan and not to make any kind of political statement. But can you really separate the two? Can you really sort of divorce the two? He is obviously the leader of the United States. And for him to be attending, many people say it's impossible not to be there as a political statement.

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.

[snip]

Q Follow on that? There is ample precedent for kind of a politicization of the Olympics. In 1980 the U.S. boycotted altogether because the host country, Russia, had invaded Afghanistan. Does the President think -- intend to go to Beijing and have absolutely no political voice at all while he's in China?

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.

Big Time's "So"

Q Dana, can I just follow on our colleague Martha Raddatz's interview with the Vice President? Let's set aside the meaning of the word "so" for a second, and get to something the Vice President then said about fluctuations in the public opinion polls: "You can't be blown off course by fluctuations in public opinion polls." That would suggest that at any point in recent memory that the American public has been behind the war. It's not that there's been fluctuations in polls; it's been different degrees of opposition to the war. So is the Vice President saying it really doesn't matter what the American public thinks about the war?

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.

[snip]

Q So at what point -- I mean, I guess I just -- there is the impression that the Vice President doesn't care about what the American people think in policy like that. Is that a wrong impression? And does the President share that impression?

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.

Dana Left An Opening For Helen

Q The American people are being asked to die and pay for this, and you're saying they have no say in this war?

MS. PERINO: I didn't say that, Helen. But, Helen, this President was elected --

Q Well, what it amounts to is you saying we have no input at all.

MS. PERINO: You had input. The American people have input every four years, and that's the way our system is set up.

Q Every four years.

MS. PERINO: And we listen to --

Q It sounds familiar.

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.

Q Supposed to be a government for the people, of the people, by the people?

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 --

Q What's the principle of going to war against the people who did nothing to us?

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.

Where's Osama?

Q As far as Osama bin Laden and our national security is concerned, he has issued another tape and warning Europe and it may affect the United States. And also, yesterday Senator Obama called on the President to bring Osama bin Laden, who is in Pakistan. Does he think he's still alive, Osama bin Laden?

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.

Today On Holden's Obsession With [Yesterday's] Gaggle

Dang, Dana Peroxide Got The Crap Beat Out Of Her Over Chimpy's Speech Yesterday

Let's Begin With Bill Plant

Q The President had a lot to say about the surge, but he didn't say much about the reason that the surge was put into effect, which was to create some breathing room for political reconciliation, which really hasn't happened. He didn't mention that at all.

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 --

Q Well, why didn't he mention it?

MS. PERINO: In terms of the political reconciliation that they've had?

Q Yes. What is there to brag about?

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.

He Didn't Discuss His NCAA Brackets, For Instance

Q If I can follow on the previous question, in the past the President has, in his speeches, put pressure on Maliki's government and the Iraqi parliament to do more on national reconciliation. Now, does this mean the President is satisfied with what they've done up to date?

Q He didn't mention it.

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.

[snip]

Q But this was laid out as one of the cornerstone reasons for having the surge in the first place. Now, all he -- he did mention today bottom-up reconciliation --

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.

Q I'm just wondering why the President doesn't have anything to say about it. I'd think in a major speech --

MS. PERINO: Well, we could have made it much longer, and we could have had lots of other things in there to satisfy you.

Today On Holden's Obsession With The Gaggle

Tony Farto Says:  Beleive Us, Not Your Lying Eyes!

Q Tony, the President has said several times that he thinks the fundamentals of the economy are strong, as are -- as have some of the other economic leaders. Are you concerned at all, is the White House concerned that that message is simply not resonating with the American public?

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.

Today On Holden's Obsession With The Gaggle

Millions For Big Banks, Diddley For Everyone Else

Q For people who are losing their homes, or losing their jobs, and then they see the government helping engineer this $30 billion line of credit for Bear Stearns, and help for other financial investment firms on Wall Street, how do you reconcile the two?

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.

[snip]

Q But, Dana, how does this square with sort of traditional conservative economic principles of limited government involvement in terms of, sort of, maybe culling the herd a little bit, letting the firms that are going to fail, fail, and thus more can sort of live on the back end?

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.

[snip]

Q But people who are facing, say, foreclosure, the individuals, the little guys who are facing a foreclosure are looking at the big guys getting government, if not brokered, certainly they're overseeing deals that are engineered to sort of keep the big picture financial community afloat, and they're saying, well, where's my boost of liquidity?

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.

Q But that's not going to save their houses.

Dana Don't Know!

Q Is there no American taxpayer money involved in this intervention?

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.

Yep

Q To follow on that, the Fed did not consult the White House; is that correct?

MS. PERINO: I think we were kept informed, but --

Dana REALLY Don't Know!

Q Dana, is the U.S. economy in a crisis?

MS. PERINO: As we said, Elaine -- I don't know what kind of a question that is.

Really...  Dana Don't Know!

Q The President, in his radio address Saturday, said that the housing crisis was the root of a lot of the troubles. Mr. Frank and Mr. Dodd have the legislation on the Hill that will call for a write-down on some of the principal, and then have FHA come in and guarantee the rest of those mortgages. The market is looking for a floor. Wouldn't that kind of legislation give the market a floor?

MS. PERINO: I'm not that detailed into it, Roger, that I could provide that. But I'll refer you to Treasury.

Q The administration opposes that legislation; is that correct?

MS. PERINO: I think we've said that we would not support -- I can't remember exactly what that legislation says, so let me go back and either get back to you or refer you to somebody who can.

Good Thing The Bush Assminstration Acted Quickly

Q Does the White House believe that the administration was quick enough, going back over the last few months, several months, to recognize the role that securitization played in this economic crisis?

MS. PERINO: Yes, I think so.

Today On Holden's Obsession With The Gaggle

Tony Farto Says You Should Stop Labelling The Economy

Q So with the latest bad numbers on consumer spending and labor markets -- the news seems to be getting worse by the day -- how is the President going to allay Americans' concerns that the economy is either heading for a recession, or in a recession?

MR. FRATTO: Look, you can try to put labels on what the economy is. I mean, it's very low-growth and it's much lower, or slower, than we would certainly like to see. What we're focused on is the policies that will return us to higher growth.

[snip]

Q Well, isn't it an especially bad sign that the consumer, who has been carrying the economy for a long time now, really stopped spending in a dramatic way last month?

MR. FRATTO: Well, I mean, it's not a positive sign. We would like to see the economy continue to support -- the consumer continue to support this economy. We think as long as wages continue to grow and there isn't a sharp drop-off in jobs -- we still have more Americans working than ever before, so we have a lot of Americans working. We still have a relatively low unemployment rate. And so they should still be there to support the economy. But we want to see consumers have the strength to be able to continue to support growth and the economy.

All Out Of Ideas

Q Tony, in tomorrow's speech will the President be offering anything new, or let us know if he's thinking about other things that can be done? Or is there anything that can be done?

MR. FRATTO: We're always looking at new ideas and things that can be done --

Q I've heard that before -- will we be hearing anything new tomorrow?

MR. FRATTO: No, you shouldn't look for new major announcements tomorrow.

[snip]

Q Is it a matter of tomorrow's theme being "hold on to your hats until we can get into the third quarter, when Lazear says things will be getting better"?

MR. FRATTO: I wouldn't put it quite that way. I think we said --

Q How would you put it?

MR. FRATTO: I think -- Americans should know and Americans should have confidence that this economy will return to stronger growth.

Go Shopping!

Q Tony, could I follow up on something you said at the gaggle this morning about -- in your response to the retail sales numbers? You said, we want consumers to spend. How can they --

MR. FRATTO: We call them consumers.

Q How can they, and why can't -- why should they, when they're spending so much on gas and food prices, how can they buy other retail items?

MR. FRATTO: No, you're right, there's no question. As I said earlier, higher energy prices take -- are a drain on the disposable income of families. That's why we want to see -- we want to return to growth, and importantly, wage growth, so that people can afford more of whatever they want. Obviously, there are certain things that they need to spend on, and energy for a lot of families is a growing cost. But, yes, there's no question it's a drain on their finances, and we're concerned about that and we want to -- but we need to look at it as the needs of the overall economy.

Q How big of a warning signal is this to you, this retail report today? I know you don't want to go down the recession road, but there are a lot of analysts out there saying today that this is further warning that the economy has headed in that direction.

MR. FRATTO: Well, there are -- we have seen lots of data points in recent months that point to a very slow economy in this quarter. There's absolutely no question about that. We've been very clear about that. That's one of them; the jobs report is one of them.

Your Daily Les

Q Thank you, Tony. Two questions. Would it be accurate to say that our President realizes the great importance of any leader of a free country in setting a national example in supporting morality?

MR. FRATTO: I think the President pretty clearly supports morality.

Q Good. (Laughter.) What does -- I'm delighted. What does the President believe to be the effect on our nation's young people of one of our nation's top national leaders refusing even to comment on her state's married governor's repeated use of prostitutes, in apparent violation of the Mann Act?

MR. FRATTO: I think what the President said is it's a sad day, and I think I'll just leave it at that.

Today On Holden's Obsession With The Gaggle

I Take That As A "Yes"

Q Were there differences between Admiral Fallon and this administration about how to handle, for example, Iran, troop levels in Iraq? Were there differences inside?

MS. PERINO: Well, as Secretary Gates said, when it comes to Iran he does not believe that there was a difference, but there had built up over a period of time a perception that there was a difference. And when it comes to foreign policy it's critical that an administration speak with one voice. And if there's a perception that they are not speaking with one voice, then that becomes a problem. And that's what Secretary Gates and Admiral Fallon both said yesterday.

No Dissenting Views!

MS. PERINO: I would also point out that some have suggested that President Bush does not want to have dissenting views given to him -- and that is absolutely nonsense, because President Bush has always fostered an environment of robust and healthy debate. He's had many people provide independent thoughts that may have dissented from his own views, and that policy has always worked out in the process, and then we speak with one voice when we go out, whether it be on domestic policy or foreign policy. I would also point out that some have suggested that President Bush does not want to have dissenting views given to him -- and that is absolutely nonsense, because President Bush has always fostered an environment of robust and healthy debate. He's had many people provide independent thoughts that may have dissented from his own views, and that policy has always worked out in the process, and then we speak with one voice when we go out, whether it be on domestic policy or foreign policy. 

[snip]

But I would say that one of the things that I know to be true is that Admiral Fallon would join the President on secure video teleconferences every week, both the ones -- he has two a week, one on Iraq and one on Afghanistan, and then in recent months we've had several on Pakistan. And Admiral Fallon would join those as well. And the President goes around the room -- or around the television screens -- and asks everyone to provide their candid and honest advice. And Admiral Fallon was a part of that.

Q And he could -- he provided a dissenting voice during those teleconferences?

MS. PERINO: Oh, I don't know. I would say he was allowed to express whatever he wanted to. I can't, obviously, speak to those private conversations.

Dana Don't Know!

Q Just one more thing. He said in the Esquire article that he had been in hot water with the White House before. Is that true?

MS. PERINO: I do not know where that came from.

Q So you don't know whether he was or not, or --

MS. PERINO: I would say I don't know whether he was or not, and I never heard that he was.

Dana Hates CREW

Q Okay. And on another subject, White House email, the liberal group, CREW, today is calling on the FBI to investigate missing White House emails. I wonder if you can react to that, but also more broadly talk about where the White House is? You've spoken before about trying to recover lost emails, make sure you have them -- where is the White House in that process?

MS. PERINO: Well, Mrs. Payton actually spoke to this on Capitol Hill last week, I think, when she testified. I haven't heard about CREW asking for the FBI to investigate. They try to squeeze out a press release a week on this, so I'll take a look at it. Scott Stanzel, in my office, is following up for us.

Today On Holden's Obsession With The Gaggle

Yo, Dana -- What's With All The "Terra Terra Terra"?

Q Dana, I have questions on two topics. Today's speech -- what's the strategic value in discussing the tactics of the enemy? What's to be gained by that, and why now?

MS. PERINO: I think it's important that everyone recognize who we are dealing with.

[snip]

Q Well, just to quickly follow up on that, it's five years, almost, into the war. Is there a sense from the White House that the American people has kind of lost track of this? People don't know who the enemy is by this point?

MS. PERINO: No, no, I don't think is the case, but I think that it is incumbent upon the Commander-in-Chief, when we are fighting a war, to keep the American people apprised of the situation, especially when we have tens of thousands of our men and women in uniform who are fighting for us, to remind the American people why we are there, and give them a progress report and status report as to where we stand and whether or not we need to change gears in order to further build on security gains, such as in Iraq -- or continue to work with our NATO partners in Afghanistan to make sure that we can beat back the Taliban as a alliance.

Today On Holden's Obsession With The Gaggle

Dana, Just How Incompetent Is Condi?

Q Dana, the Secretary of State was just in the Middle East, she's just back -- I mean, was there something -- what was there that she didn't accomplish that the President thinks the Vice President -- and is this any way, would you say, a comment on the state of the peace process? Is this a rescue mission?

MS. PERINO: Kathleen, I think that that is really -- I think it's a little bit outrageous to suggest that.

Poland Needs Missiles To Protect Our Missiles That Are Not Aimed At The Russians From The Russians?  Nice Foreign Policy There, Chimpy

Q Dana, what does it say that the missiles we want to put in Poland that are not a threat to Russia, we are willing to provide Poland missiles to protect from Russian missiles? In other words, if we're going to provide patriots to keep -- to prevent a Russian attack on the missile interceptors we want to put in Poland, we are now providing a threat to Russian missiles, yes?

MS. PERINO: I don't know of anyone -- except maybe some in the media -- no one is suggesting targeting Russia in this regard. We do not want to deny any ally the ability to defend themselves, and some allies ask us for help in making sure that their defenses are above board, that they are modern. And in this regard, in this particular case, Poland has said that they don't think their air defenses are good enough.

[snip]

Q But we are willing to provide Poland with the means to protect those interceptors from an attack from Russia.

MS. PERINO: Who is suggesting that Russia is going to attack anybody? Certainly no one from here is.

Q We would not be thinking about putting Patriots in Poland were it not for Russia's threat to re-target missiles on Poland if we put the interceptors in Poland.

MS. PERINO: I really don't know where you're getting that, Wendell. It's not at all in any of the discussions that we've been involved in.

Q That was certainly a part of the security guarantee.

MS. PERINO: No, it's not. I just sat in on the meeting.

Q It is not? We are not going to provide Patriots to Poland to protect the interceptors?

MS. PERINO: I just told Ben Feller that I don't know exactly what the package will look like at the end of the day. Secretary Rice has said that she'll work with Secretary Gates, and it could take several months to do the analysis and decide what we think we can do to help them modernize their air defenses.

Q Let me try one more time --

MS. PERINO: But no one is suggesting that we should defend -- that Poland needs to defend themselves against Russia.

Q Is that not precisely what the Polish Prime Minister said he needed protection for, those interceptors -- because Russia had threatened to re-target Poland if we put them there? That is not -- that was not the conversation today?

MS. PERINO: In that regard -- when they talk about missile defense, it's not about Russia. And when he talks about air defenses, it's that their systems, they feel, are not modern, and that they want to modernize it. But no one was talking about Russia attacking Poland. If that is a concern of the Polish government, I'll refer you to them and they can talk about that.

$4,600 Per Second

Q What are the administration's latest cost estimates on the war? Are you familiar with the Stiglitz article that came out over the weekend -- the Nobel Prize-winning economist, former Clinton advisor, Joseph Stiglitz -- $12 billion a month he's now estimating.

MS. PERINO: I'm not going to dispute his estimates. I don't know exactly where he gets all of it.

[snip]

Q So what's your estimate of the monthly cost of the war?

MS. PERINO: I don't have it. We'll have to -- you know, OMB could give it to you, but obviously it's very expensive.

News Flash!  Dana Peroxide:  Not An Economist

Q Dana, back on what Peter was talking about. How has inflation since 2003 impacted the cost of the war?

MS. PERINO: I'm sure it's had an impact, but, April, I'm not an economist, and we'll either try to get you an answer or refer you to OMB.

And Now, Your Daily Les

Q Governor Rick Perry of Texas has just written a new book entitled, "On My Honor: Why the American Values of the Boy Scouts Are Worth Fighting For." And my question: Does the former governor of Texas who is now President agree or disagree with this title?

MS. PERINO: I don't know if he's even aware of the book. And Governor Perry was around last week and talked to him. I'm going to move on.

Q Wait a minute --

MS. PERINO: No, Les --

Q -- you don't want to leave the impression --

MS. PERINO: Les, stop.

Q --that the President opposes both his fellow Texas governor and the Boy Scouts of America, do you?

MS. PERINO: Of course he doesn't.

Today On Holden's Obsession With The Gaggle

Dana Peroxide Says, Suck It, Homeowners

Q Could I ask you about the housing market? Home foreclosures soared to an all-time high in the final quarter of last year, and separately the Federal Reserve said Americans' percentage of equity in their homes has fallen below 50 percent for the first time since 1945. What's the White House reaction to this continuing bad news, and do you see it getting worse or getting better?

MS. PERINO: Well, we're right in the middle of it right now, and so we're taking action to see how we can help homeowners who are in this situation.

[snip]

We do not believe that the American taxpayer should be bailing out lenders or borrowers, but what we do believe is that we can help try to bring them together so that they can work on renegotiating these loans where possible, so that people can stay in their communities and in their homes, and that we can mitigate against people, one, losing their shelter, but also really harming neighborhoods, which depend on homeowners for a lot of the services.

[snip]

Q In addition to those numbers, the delinquency rate for mortgages is also at an all-time high. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve says that more can and should be done. So is there something more that the government can do to alleviate this problem?

MS. PERINO: Well, we are constantly looking at ways that we can help.

[snip]

Q What about people who are already in trouble? Is there more that the government could do?

MS. PERINO: That's one of the things that just, I think it was last week or 10 days ago, that Secretary Paulson announced through this private sector initiative, Project Lifeline.

[snip]

Q Presumably, the Chairman of the Fed understood that when he said that there was -- more can and should be done.

MS. PERINO: Well, and I don't have anything to announce for you today as to what those things might be, but I will tell you that we continue to look at it and try to figure out the best ways that we can help America as a whole -- not just lenders, and not just borrowers, but everybody, since we have a shared interest in making sure we can mitigate against this problem.

The Coninuing Helenization Of Dana Peroxide

Q Does the President realize he's going to further tarnish our image for humanity if he vetoes a ban on torture?

MS. PERINO: That's not what he's suggesting, Helen. You're talking about the Senate -- the intelligence authorization bill?

Q Isn't he supposed to veto the ban this week, or so?

MS. PERINO: Helen -- well, he is going to veto a bill, but it's not the bill in which you describe. The bill that he is going to veto is the intelligence authorization bill. We've had a statement of administration position that has been out for a long time. There are many different reasons he's going to veto it. One of the main ones is that it would apply the Army Field Manual, which is very good guidance for young soldiers who are out on the field who might capture somebody out on the battlefield, but it is not something that should apply to a terrorist interrogation program that is run by the CIA.

Q Why? It's torture, isn't it?

MS. PERINO: It isn't -- no, we are not torturing, and that is not what the bill says.

Q Well, it would ban --

MS. PERINO: Torture is already illegal.

Q -- he is vetoing a ban on torture, isn't he?

MS. PERINO: Torture is already illegal in this country, and the President has already signed a bill reiterating that fact. The simple point of this bill is that the Army Field Manual -- the President does not believe, nor does the intelligence community -- I'd point you to General Hayden and others who say that it should not --

Q The military certainly believes in it.

MS. PERINO: It is appropriate for the military to have the Army Field Manual as its guidelines. But we do not believe that it should apply to the Central Intelligence Agency.

Q Why? Are they human beings? Are we humane people?

MS. PERINO: We are humane people. We have a terrorist interrogation program that helps make sure that we keep this country safe. We do not torture. But what I will tell you is that you will hear more about this this weekend. The President's radio address will be on this issue.

I'm going to go to David, I'll come back.

Dana's Slide Problems

Q Dana, what are the prospects for the Protect America Act, from the White House point of view?

MS. PERINO: Well, what's interesting is I actually have a slide, I can actually bring up now that you've asked. It was almost 21 days ago -- (laughter.)

Q First day back. (Laughter.)

MS. PERINO: We've been waiting to use this for a couple of days. (Laughter.) If you remember, it was about four weeks ago, everyone in this briefing room was asking why President Bush wouldn't accept a three-week extension, and everyone thought it would be very reasonable to just give them 21 more days to work. Well, we're nearing -- I think we're at 20 days today, and they're not even near --

Q I think that statement was the House Majority Leader, by the way.

MS. PERINO: He is. It is a bad slide.

Q That says Senate.

MS. PERINO: I know, and it's the House. That's why it's bad.

Your Daily Les

Q There has been extensive media coverage of Senator Obama's statement in Nelsonville, Ohio, on Sunday: "I don't think same-sex unions should be called marriage, but I think it is a legal right that they should have. If people find that controversial, then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans." And my question: Has the President, as an active Christian, been able to find where in the Sermon on the Mount there is any justification for same-sex unions? And does he consider --

MS. PERINO: Lester, stop --

Q -- anything in the Epistles to the Romans to be obscure?

MS. PERINO: I am not going to comment on '08 politics. I welcome your questions in the briefing room, but I'm not going to comment on '08 politics, and I'm not going to comment on that.

Q But --

MS. PERINO: Go ahead, David.

Today On Holden's Obsession With The Gaggle

Hatch Act Violation

Q Dana, can you discuss the parameters for separating political events from White House business? I mean, is it appropriate for politicking to be going on from the White House podium, from the White House Rose Garden?

MS. PERINO: Well, as I reminded you, that the President is the head of the Republican Party, and the President was pleased today to invite Senator John McCain to his home, and invited him in through the front door. And they're having lunch now, and then they'll meet in the Rose Garden. And I can tell you that, in checking with the Counsel's Office, all of these events and activities were thoroughly evaluated and approved.

[snip]

Q Does the Hatch Act mean he can't campaign from the White House?

MS. PERINO: Sorry?

Q Does the Hatch Act mean that he cannot campaign from this pedestal?

MS. PERINO: No, this event -- the event today was thoroughly evaluated by the Counsel's Office and approved.

Dana Has Trouble Naming Any Bush Assministration Achievements

Q Last week, both candidates, Senator Obama and Clinton, both were talking about the President's seven-year record in the White House, and they were criticizing some of it. Can you just give a little detail that -- what the President has achieved in the seven years? And also, what he could not do, he wanted to do?

MS. PERINO: Well, Goyal, I could be here all day, if we're going to list all that, but I'll spare people and say that obviously the President has kept this country safe. He's had good economic policies. We had 52 consecutive months of job growth. We are in a current slowdown and the President is taking action to mitigate against that. And there are significant achievements across the board, both domestic and foreign policy oriented.

OPEC Says Chimpy Is Mismanging The Economy

Q OPEC today declined to raise oil production. The oil ministers said a couple of things. One, they said the U.S. economy is being mismanaged and that is part of the problem. And two, they said the rising price of oil is due less to a shortage and more to the declining value of the dollar. I would like you to address both of those things if you could.

MS. PERINO: Well, as the President said yesterday, he would have liked OPEC to have made a different decision.

[snip]

And as to the economy being -- their suggestion that our economy is being mismanaged: The United States economy is fundamentally sound with good structure. We are in a little bit of a slowdown right now. We have taken measures to mitigate against that, and we believe that we will see us pull out of this before the end of the year.

Q And their assertion that the falling value of the dollar is more responsible for the rise of oil prices?

MS. PERINO: I have seen that assertion, but as you know I don't talk about the dollar from here.

Today On Holden's Obsession With The Gaggle

A Flat-Out Denial From Dana Peroxide.

Q -- in Vanity Fair, in an article that claims Hamas takeover of Gaza was the result of U.S. efforts to get Fatah to defeat Hamas. Is there any truth to that? Was there U.S. aid, either in weapons or money, to Fatah?

MS. PERINO: Secretary of State's spokesperson, Sean McCormack, was today in -- traveling in the region, in Ramallah, and told reporters that there is no accuracy to that story.

Q None?

MS. PERINO: No.

Q None at all?

MS. PERINO: That's what he said.

Q Is there?

MS. PERINO: Not that I'm aware of, no. The first I heard of the story was when it showed up this morning. I don't even know if we were contacted. Sean says that he's checked and it is not true.

Moving Quickly = Completely Stalled

Q The President says he's still confident that a peace agreement can be reached in the Middle East in the next 10 months. We're at a point where you have the two sides not even talking to each other. Isn't it at least a setback -- I mean, is the administration confident that this current pause in the negotiations is going to end soon?

MS. PERINO: What the President said is that oftentimes in these negotiations you have two steps forward and one step back. I would point you to things that are moving very quickly in the region.

[snip]

Q Well, how can you say that things are moving quickly? What evidence is there that they're moving at all?

MS. PERINO: I said that things -- what I meant by "moving quickly" is that there is events on the ground and people making comments yesterday regarding dialogue that are different from today's. So that's what I meant in terms of "quickly."

The "Democracy Movement" - Not Applicable To Palestinians

Q You have Prime Minister -- or the President say that he's willing to resume talks, but there's someone else in the equation who probably isn't willing to resume talks. That would be the other representative of the Palestinians.

MS. PERINO: There is no other representative of the Palestinians. There is --

Q People who hold the other part of the territory.

MS. PERINO: Well, I'll remind you that Hamas overthrew the legitimate government in Gaza, complete with throwing innocent Palestinians who were in the hospital from their hospital beds to their deaths from second and third story windows.

[snip]

Q But I'll remind you that the leadership in Gaza was democratically elected. But that's beside the point. What you say about Gaza is obviously the case. But how can peace talks go forward when there is a portion of the polity that doesn't have any interest in moving them forward?

MS. PERINO: Our point is that our negotiations are not with a terrorist organization. Israel's negotiations and our discussions with the Palestinians are with the legitimate President of all the Palestinians, and that is President Abbas.

And Now, Your Daily Les

Q Thank you, Dana. On another question -- two questions. President Klaus of the Czech Republic, and John Stossel, the co-anchor of ABC's 20-20, are among 98 speakers at the International Conference on Climate Change, Global Warming: Truth or Swindle, which is now going on in New York City. And my question: Does the President welcome or deplore this gathering of so many scientists who have signed a petition that global warming probably is natural and not a crisis?

MS. PERINO: I don't think the President has an opinion on the meeting. I haven't talked to him about it. And if people want to gather and express their views, they're obviously very welcome to do so, and New York is as good a place as any.

Q You are saying that he doesn't disagree with these people who are questioning --

MS. PERINO: The President's position on climate change is well-known. He's long said that human beings are contributing in some ways to climate change. And that's why we're taking steps to deal with it, and in fact, tomorrow will make a -- have remarks at the International Renewable Energy Conference, when he talks about that very issue.

Today On Holden's Obsession With The Gaggle

According to Gordon Johnd'Oh Israel Is Incapable Of Using Disporportionate Force

Q Does the President -- in infer from your comments that the President does not feel that Israel has used disproportionate force, as the Secretary General of the U.N. has said?

MR. JOHNDROE: Look, we obviously don't want any innocent civilians to lose their life, but I think that started with these rockets that have been fired from Gaza into Israel, recently killing and injuring Israeli citizens in some of their bigger cities. So they've had these -- a barrage of rockets fired out of Hamas for some time now, and now Hamas escalated it, firing larger rockets longer-range and killing people. And so that's got to stop.

Q So the answer is, no?

MR. JOHNDROE: The answer is as stated.

So Much For Chimpy's "Legacy Year"

Q Do you guys think there's any possible way to have a peace negotiation, a peace accord if there is a divided Palestinian group?

MR. JOHNDROE: As the President has said, it's a two-state solution, not a three-state solution. But I think I'm going to wait for Secretary Rice to get there and have her discussions before I say anything more.

Q Is there any chance of having any kind of Middle East accord by the end of the year like he wants?

MR. JOHNDROE: We're going to keep on -- we're going to keep after it.

Q Are you optimistic about that?

Q The President hasn't given up on this yet?

MR. JOHNDROE: No, absolutely not. We're going to keep on pursuing it. It is in the best interest of the Palestinian people, it's in the best interest of the Israeli people, it's in the best interest of the people in the region and the whole wide world, so we've got to keep after it.

No, Gordon, The Civilians We Killed

Q What about the air strike and reports that civilians were killed, in this pinpoint strike?

MR. JOHNDROE: I would say that it's unfortunate whenever civilians lose their life. We do not want to see that, either Israeli or Palestinian --

Q -- about Somalia.

MR. JOHNDROE: Somalia, okay. Somalia, look -- the United States is going to go after al Qaeda and al Qaeda-affiliated operatives wherever we find them. They are plotting and planning all over the world to destabilize the world, to inflict terror, and where we find them, we are going to go after them.

Q Who was the target?

MR. JOHNDROE: I'm going to refer you to the Pentagon for any specifics, but the action was to go after al Qaeda and al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists.

Q -- get anybody?

MR. JOHNDROE: I'll refer you to the Pentagon for any additional details.

FreedomIs On The March!

Q Gordon, does the President feel that the elections yesterday in Russia were fair and free?

MR. JOHNDROE: Dimitri Medvedev is now the President-elect of Russia, will soon be the President of Russia. The President looks forward to working with him. It's in our mutual interests that the United States and Russia continue cooperation in a number of areas, including counter-proliferation, counter-terrorism, fighting transnational crime. So I expect that in the coming days the President and Mr. Medvedev will have a chance to talk.

Q Right, but the President has been very eloquent in the past about the need to hold free and fair elections all around the world. That's not quite the question I asked. What does he think about how the elections went in Russia?

MR. JOHNDROE: I think the United States position in the lead-up to the elections was clear. But now I'll refer you to election observers who have made some comments about the election. They're also continuing to take a look at it. So we'll wait to see what these observers have to say.

Today On Holden's Obsession With The Gaggle

Dana Don't Know!

Q The U.S. military conducted 19 focus groups throughout Iraq last November, and its report on those focus groups stated that Iraqis from every ethnic and sectarian group are united in the belief that the U.S. invasion is the root cause of the sectarian violence in Iraq, and that the departure of the U.S. military is the key to national reconciliation. And I wondered, has the President seen the military's report on those focus groups?

MS. PERINO: I don't know if he has. I haven't either, and I'd refer you to DOD because I don't know the accuracy of that.

Shafted By His Hand-Holding Saudi Pals

Q Finally, just one more on this, Dana. When the President was in the Middle East, he asked the Saudis to consider doing something about supplies. Has there ever been any response to that, any --

MS. PERINO: In terms of from OPEC?

Q Yes.

MS. PERINO: Well, I don't know about any of the private conversations that have gone on back and forth, but obviously, given the situation that we have today, and that the reason increase in gasoline prices is being directly linked to a supply issue in regards to crude oil, we remain concerned.

[snip]

Q But OPEC didn't help us. OPEC declined after the President's discussion with the Saudis -- OPEC declined to raise production.

MS. PERINO: Obviously this is -- this was their decision. And the President is not going to be able to just go over there and open up the spigot. We have to work with our partners.

[snip]

Q So why aren't they helping us?

MS. PERINO: Kevin.

Your Daily Les

Q Thank you. When asked last night about the endorsement of him by Louis Farrakhan, Senator Obama replied that Farrakhan's anti-Semitism is, "reprehensible," and that he had not sought Farrakhan's endorsement. And my question: This statement by Senator Obama deserves White House approval, doesn't it?

MS. PERINO: I'm not going to comment in any way on the '08 election.

Q You're going to avoid this? Won't you commend him? Don't you think he should be commended?

MS. PERINO: If you want to ask two questions, you should make sure they're two that I can answer.

Today On Holden's Obsession With The Gaggle

Shorter Dana Peroxide:  I'm Not A Statistician

Q We're coming on to the fifth anniversary of our invasion of Iraq, and two years ago the President summed up the number of Iraqis possibly dead as a result of that to 30,000. Do you have any new estimate now for summing up of this war?

MS. PERINO: I don't with me, Helen, no.

[snip]

Q A British research organization said about a million Iraqis have died as a result.

MS. PERINO: I don't know if that's accurate.

Today On Holden's Obsession With The Gaggle

Dana Peroxide Is Back, Just In Time For Another Helenization

Q Is the President's position that he would veto it without retroactive immunity?

MS. PERINO: That has been his position for a long time, and the reason is because you can't have -- without the cooperation of the companies, we won't have a program

[snip]

Q Who gave them the right to break the law?

MS. PERINO: Nobody broke the law, Helen. That might be your opinion, but nobody broke the law.

Q When these companies -- when no warrant is given, and they didn't break the law?

MS. PERINO: Helen, you're entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to your own set of facts.

Q Oh, come on, let's --

MS. PERINO: And the facts are that companies were asked to help, and they were helped --

Q Why can't they get --

MS. PERINO: -- and they allowed -- they helped with a legal program that has helped save lives.

Q Who told them they could break the law?

MS. PERINO: That is just -- that's not true, Helen.

Today On Holden's Obsession With The Gaggle

Oh, Lord.  Snott Stanzel Blames The Trial Lawyers

Q Okay, and one quick follow up on that. As I understand it, the sticking point is really about retroactive immunity for the telecoms, not prospective immunity. So help me understand the administration's argument that without this retroactive immunity, the telecoms would be reluctant in the future to cooperate with a surveillance request. If prospective immunity is already assured, I don't understand how retroactive immunity has any effect.

MR. STANZEL: Well, retroactive immunity is something that the DNI has spoken regularly about. He spoke last weekend about it on one of the Sunday programs. And it's important that we provide that retroactive immunity for companies that were alleged to have helped after the 9/11 attacks.

What we have is a situation now where the Protect America Act was let to expire, calls into question prospective retroactive -- or prospective immunity. And the more uncertainty there are on these issues, the less willing these companies are going to be, presumably, to put their shareholders at risk of these multi-billion dollar lawsuits.

Q But let's assume it was passed with prospective immunity -- which is had, you know, six months ago -- but retroactive immunity wasn't there. Wouldn't that solve the concerns?

MR. STANZEL: We have always been supportive of providing retroactive immunity to the companies that felt a patriotic duty to help their country in the aftermath of the most significant terrorist attack in the history of this nation. We think that's important.

The opposing arguments for that I assume are because they want trial lawyers to be able to sue those companies. We don't think that's right. We think that we should provide that immunity and we think that that's necessary.