===========================================================================
Press Briefing by Dana Perino
===========================================================================

For Immediate Release July 3, 2008

Press Briefing by Dana Perino James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

˙ /news/releases/2008/07/20080703-8.wm.v.html ˙˙Press Briefings
˙˙Audio


12:35 P.M. EDT

MS. PERINO: Hello, everybody. Hello to my mom in the back, my mom and my
sister -- friends. (Applause.) I don't usually get that reception in here.
(Laughter.)

Q Mom gets it.

MS. PERINO: Yes, I know. (Laughter.) So I don't have anything to start with
-- just happy 4th of July eve.

Q Who in the White House was aware of the negotiations between Hunt Oil
Company and the Kurdistan government?

MS. PERINO: As far as I know, I don't know of anybody who was aware of it.
As we have said before, the State Department had said that they had been
aware of it and they had raised questions about it, and that's what they
are maintaining today.

So I don't know of anybody in the White House who was aware of it.

Q Is it unusual that somebody in the State Department wouldn't have told
someone in the White House that this was going on, since this ran contrary
to administration policy?

MS. PERINO: I'm not sure -- I think a lot of these conversations actually
happened in Iraq, and so I'm not sure how all that happened, so I'd refer
you over there.

I think one of the things that -- one of the questions has been that there
was notification by Mr. Hunt that he would be traveling overseas. I just
want to make sure something is very clear on that: It is the law and it is
routine and it is required that any member of the PFIAB* board, if they're
going to be traveling overseas, send a letter notifying that they will be
doing so. So that suggestion that that letter is suspicious is, I think,
just headed in the wrong direction.

Q And the notification went to State, not -- didn't come here, or --

MS. PERINO: It goes to the PFIAB*, but that doesn't necessarily -- I don't
know what's in the letter, but I don't think it had anything to do with
substance of the travel.

Q It just says "I'm traveling abroad."

MS. PERINO: Yes, just that you have to list where you're going.

Q And it didn't raise any flags when he said, "I'm going to Iraq"?

MS. PERINO: Not that I'm aware of. And again, it's the PFIAB*, and I don't
know who all saw it -- who all would have seen it at that time.

So I'd refer you to the State Department, because they had said that they
had had the contacts beforehand and that's what they're maintaining today.
I don't know of anybody else in the White House who would have known about
the letters.

Q Dana, can you talk -- you probably discussed in the gaggle a little bit
-- but on camera, if you could talk a little bit about when the President
was first informed that there was some intelligence that maybe would lead
to this Colombian rescue mission. How early was he looped in? How involved
was the President? Just kind of broadly speaking.

MS. PERINO: Sure. I think you just heard from the President -- I don't know
if you've seen it yet, but he was able to make a couple of comments about
the hostages being released from the FARC down in Colombia. The President
got a call yesterday from President Uribe to let the President know that
the operation had been successful. The United States had been working with
the government of Colombia for the last several years, ever since the
American hostages had been taken, in order to try to free them safely and
successfully in a way that would not cause any harm to the individuals. And
thankfully, that's what happened yesterday.

We were aware of the operation in its planning stages. We provided some
specific support, which I'm not allowed to go into the details on, but
President Bush was certainly supportive of it. But I will say that
President Uribe and his government and his military really get the credit
for successfully freeing these hostages, because they conceived of the
operation and then they carried it through -- with some support from us,
but it was largely a Colombian exercise. And the President congratulates
President Uribe and the military.

Q After the U.S. learned that this rescue mission was going to go forward,
did at any point any U.S. officials loop in Senator McCain? There seems to
be a lot of speculation about why Senator McCain happened to be in Colombia
right on the eve of this --

MS. PERINO: I don't know. I think this was long in the planning stages and
I think the Colombians were able to take action when they were ready to and
there was actionable intelligence to be able to carry out the operation.
I've heard nothing to suggest that there was any connection. I just think
it was a coincidence, but I did read somewhere that President Uribe let
Senator McCain know about the possible operation when he was down there,
but there's no connection in terms of timing.

Q But you're not aware of anyone here at the White House or the State
Department who briefed Senator McCain?

MS. PERINO: Absolutely not, no. And President Bush yesterday -- just a
little bit more -- he was yesterday getting ready for -- to do some of the
Japanese television interviews. He was informed by the Chief of Staff and
the National Security Advisor at about 3:00 p.m. or 3:30 p.m. yesterday
afternoon that the operation had been executed and that it had been
successful. And he's very happy for all of the families today, and he's
glad that they're able to be reunited on the 4th -- right before the 4th of
July.

Q Dana, looking ahead to the G8, a couple of global warming experts who are
usually quite critical of the administration are now actually saying, wait
a minute, there's a glimmer of hope on possible emission targets; that
there's this thought that perhaps there's a exchange for the midterm, and
you'll get a deal on the sort of 2050 limits.

Can you tell me how optimistic you are about a potential deal? And these
guys were saying -- they were characterizing the G8 as a "lame duck
summit," in terms of global warming issues, and now they're actually
saying, wait a minute, there may be something here.

MS. PERINO: Well, I think -- when I read those quotes this morning, you
could have knocked me over with a feather, too, because the President gets
absolutely no credit for all that he has done here in our own country,
because we have actually been able to reduce actual emissions from our
country, even though our economy has grown over the past several years.

But to the G8, let me just take you back one step. So, in May of 2007,
President Bush announces a new way forward on climate change, because for
the past several years, ever since the Kyoto Protocol, we have been stuck
in this situation where only 30 percent of the countries that emit were
required to be a part of Kyoto.

President Bush realized that, one, it would not solve the problem that
we're trying to solve, which was to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions,
but instead it would hurt our economy while emissions continued to go up
overseas -- just unworkable, from his point of view. What he thinks is
going to work is a real push on technologies for research and development,
but also having everybody committed, especially the emerging economies such
as India and China.

So last May before the G8, the President suggested a way that we could all
work together to get the major economies of the world all at the same table
and working towards the same goal. And that has held over the past year.
The emerging economies are still at the table. We're talking now in terms
of "our" challenge and how "we" are going to solve
this. And the President
laid out a way to try to work on both midterm and then a longer-term goal.
We're optimistic that we can get there, but there's a lot of issues that
have to go -- have to be ferreted out.

And one of them -- if you just look at what happened, I think it was three
weeks ago, when Senator Boxer's bill was brought up for a debate on the
Senate floor. There was considerable debate on the Senate floor, and you
also saw a lot of people finally coming forward and saying, we've got some
real problems with how this might actually work in the practical sense.

So that's not only happening in our capital, it's happening in all the
other capitals as well. So while I say we're optimistic that we can maybe
get something, I want to make sure it's very clear that these are difficult
issues and we have made progress -- I am not saying that we're going to be
able to come out of there with a signed deal, out of the G8 -- that was
never the purpose of this point of the process anyway. We hope to get
something done by the end of this year so that the major economies could
feed into the U.N. process, which is going to take place next year.

Q But the idea of a binding, multilateral deal, treaty, is the
administration philosophically opposed to that?

MS. PERINO: Well, no, because it's what the President had -- that's what
the President proposed last May and that's what we've been working towards.
We think we've made some good progress. But the key to this -- and
actually, I think other nations agree with this now -- that we have to have
the developing nations at the table -- we're all rowing in the same
direction -- or else we're not going to solve the problem and we're going
to hurt people's economies.

You can't have research and development dollars going into helping find the
new technologies if all the economies are slumping.

Q But does it need to be one size fits all or --

MS. PERINO: Absolutely not. And that's one of the keys -- and that's one of
the reasons that this is working. When he announced it last May, one of the
things he said is each country is going to do this in a different way.
Everybody has a different fuel mix, they have different constituencies,
they have different economies that run on different types of fuels and they
produce different types of things. So each country is going to have to come
up with its own plan in order to get to both a midterm and then that
aspirational longer-term goal.

But the midterm goal is one of the most important because it gets people to
commit to actions right now, and that's what we're working towards.

Bret.

Q Dana, can you characterize the discussions ongoing -- at what level are
these happening -- about detainees at Gitmo, what to do with them in the
wake of the Supreme Court ruling?

MS. PERINO: Sure. There has been ongoing discussion in the administration
about dealing with detainees at Guantanamo Bay for quite some time, but
more intensively, certainly, since the Supreme Court decision.

Let me take you back. A couple of years ago the Supreme Court said that the
United States, both the executive branch and the legislative branch, needed
to work together to come up with a way to -- a law that would allow
detainees to challenge their detentions in our judicial system. The
Military Commissions Act was passed, amongst other laws. We took that
action and then just recently -- I think it was about three or four weeks
ago -- the Supreme Court decided against the Congress and the executive
branch and said, actually, no, that's not good enough. And for the first
time in American history, the Supreme Court afforded constitutional rights
to enemy combatants. And there's a lot of unanswered questions that come
from that decision.

And so after the President learned of the decision -- we were in Rome, and
he said that he disagreed with the decision, but the Supreme Court is the
law of the land and that we would work to understand the consequences, the
ramifications and implications of this law. That's what we're doing right
now. So there is a lot of smart lawyers working on this issue, and I think
that we're in unchartered territory when it comes to understanding what all
we're going to do when it comes to detainees. It should come as no surprise
to anybody that here at the White House we're coordinating amongst the
interagency to discuss all of this.

And I think that -- one of the things that I would just remind you of is
that the Department of Defense has been working for years to try to get
many of these enemy combatants repatriated, and in fact we've gotten
hundreds repatriated back to their country where they would be held
securely. But some detainees have been released, and some have returned to
the battlefield, and some have even become suicide bombers. And we have to
be really careful about what we're going to do with these detainees.

One of the possible consequences of this decision is that it is possible
that some of these detainees, after challenging their detention in court,
could be released into the United States. And then you have further
complication when it comes to our immigration laws, and how long you can
hold a detainee, which right now under our immigration laws is for six
months.

And so there's a lot of complicated issues that go into this decision, and
we are working hard, but I will tell you there's no imminent decision
that's going to be announced from the White House.

Q So you're saying if these detainees challenge inside the U.S. judicial
system, they would have to go to, let's say, the D.C. Circuit Court.

MS. PERINO: Yes, right there and then.

Q And if the judge then said there's not enough evidence, your
understanding of it is that the detainees would be released from that
courthouse.

MS. PERINO: I'm saying it is a possibility. And I think that because we are
in unchartered territory, and we have never had enemy combatants afforded
constitutional rights like all of us have, and -- so anybody who thinks
that they know exactly what's going to happen if a detainee challenges his
detention -- his or her detention -- in court, they're not being honest,
because we don't know what's going to happen.

But there is considered judgment from many federal government lawyers, all
the way up to the Attorney General of the United States, that it is a very
real possibility that a dangerous detainee could be released into the
United States as a result of this Supreme Court decision.

Q Okay, one last thing. You say a decision is not imminent, but yet when
you say that a detainee could be released inside the U.S. if this process
moves forward, one would think that this decision has to be made pretty
quickly.

MS. PERINO: Well, we have to move quickly because the Supreme Court
invalidated one of -- a law that was passed by wide bipartisan margins in
the United States Senate and the House of Representatives. So we have to
move quickly because we have to understand its consequences, its
implications and ramifications so that we can figure out where we are in
this unchartered territory.

And a judge now would be able to conceivably call into question the
considered judgment of a member of our military who picked up one of these
enemy combatants and put him into detention. Or he would be -- a judge
might say, the United States, you don't have enough evidence to hold this
person. And then what do we do, because habeas corpus literally means,
bring me the body. And then what happens? Is he allowed to leave? And if
so, is he picked up by immigration -- but even if that's the case, they're
only allowed to be held for six months. So there are some really
complicated issues surrounding this decision, and we're working very hard
to get through them, but it's going to take us a little while.

Q If I may follow up on that.

MS. PERINO: Yes.

Q Is new legislation a realistic alternative?

MS. PERINO: It is a possibility, but I think we're a ways away from
deciding if that's the way to go. But because the Supreme Court invalidated
a law, then we have to take that into consideration.

Anybody else on Gitmo? Okay.

Q You say there's a chance that a detainee could be released into the U.S.,
but this -- a detainee would not necessarily have the visas to be in or the
proper paperwork. So wouldn't INS or ICE detain them --

MS. PERINO: Well, yes, but what I just told you is that -- look, first of
all, in terms of immigration, you're only allowed right now under our --
under another Supreme Court decision to hold somebody for six months. But
there is also -- there's legal immigrants. They're all over the place, and
we have to take into consideration what all of this means. And I'm sure
that none of us want Khalid Sheikh Mohammed walking around our
neighborhoods. And there might be some lawyers that you can find that would
say that's a stretch, but what I would submit to you is that they don't
know either, and that the Attorney General of the United States, who has
been intimately involved in trying these types of cases, and in fact
oversaw the first World Trade Center bombing case, he's very concerned
about the situation. And so you can bet that he is at the table as well,
trying to figure this out so we make sure that we don't endanger any
citizen of the United States.

Q Wouldn't they be deported immediately?

MS. PERINO: Not necessarily. That's not how it works. People can then
challenge in court -- people can challenge their immigration. That's why we
have whole slates of immigration courts. It's very complicated.

Q One quick follow on that. When you were answering to Bret that there's
nothing imminent -- no imminent decision to announce, is it possible,
though, that a decision by the President is imminent -- you're not going to
publicly announce it, though, because privately you're just going to want
guidance or something for the courts?

MS. PERINO: I don't mean to suggest that there's -- they're not separated,
it's not that -- we're not going to have the President make a decision and
then wait for weeks or months to announce it, necessarily. It's just --
it's really premature to be talking about this. Obviously there's somebody
out there talking about conversations that are internal and confidential
that are being held within the interagency and we are not in a position to
be able to talk about them publicly.

But I can confirm for you that we certainly are talking about them.

Q One last thing, then. If the stakes are so high, and you're saying
there's a possibility that someone like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed could be put
out on the streets of the United States, what is a reasonable timetable,
then? Is this weeks, months? I mean, you don't want that to --

MS. PERINO: Well, I think you -- the Supreme Court, again, didn't provide a
lot of answers. They just asked -- basically asked a lot of questions. And
we don't know how this whole system would work for them to be able to
exercise their now constitutional and habeas rights. It's unchartered
territory, so we don't know.

Q What's the best-case scenario, then, given that that's the circumstance?
What would the White House like to see happen?

MS. PERINO: Well, that's what we're working through right now. And we're
trying to make sure that everyone remains safe and that enemy combatants
who are a threat to innocent life are kept in detention.

Goyal.

Q Dana, two quick questions. One, as far as Afghanistan situation is
concerned, Chairman Mullen yesterday at the Pentagon briefing said that
it's very -- as far as Taliban insurgency is concerned, very complex
problem and more to be done in Afghanistan. You think this issue will be
discussed, as President said yesterday, how much it will be discussed, and
how will --

MS. PERINO: Where will it be discussed?

Q At the G8.

MS. PERINO: At the G8 -- in Afghanistan? Certainly many of the members of
the G8 are part of NATO, and NATO is heading up the operation in
Afghanistan. So I think it will probably come up, and probably in the
bilaterals as well; the President has a series of them. And we'll continue
to work with all of our partners to make sure that we can beat back the
Taliban. We have taken some serious casualties, and a higher number of
casualties than anybody would want. But we've also been going after the
Taliban, and they've suffered a lot of casualties as well.

Q And according to The Washington Post op-ed by Secretary General -- U.N.
Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, he said that global action is needed, as far
as combating terrorism, food and oil prices, and also poverty. So he said
-- he's calling now also on G8. So what do you think G8 is going to do? It
has been now eight years as far as G8 is concerned. Every year is this
issue --

MS. PERINO: Well, I think -- look, the G8 is a good forum for a lot of
different reasons. It brings together a multilateral, diplomatic way for
people to share ideas and to actually take some action. One of the things
President Bush said yesterday is that over the past eight -- this will be
his eighth G8, and we have asked a lot of our partners in order to help us
in combating HIV/AIDS or malaria, now neglected tropical diseases and
health workers, amongst other things, in terms of energy, like the clean
energy technology fund and this new major economies meeting process that's
been taking place over the past year.

So it's a good forum to be able to discuss a lot of things, but the
President also will talk about trade, fighting terrorism, making sure that
we are helping each other in those areas, but at the same time thinking
about the core mission of the G8, which is to try to help other nations
rise -- lift themselves up out of poverty.

Go ahead, Olivier.

Q Dana, the French President is linking his attendance at the Olympic
Games, the Opening Ceremonies, to the outcome of talks between China and
representatives of the Dalai Lama. What do you think of that position, and
are you prepared now to say --

MS. PERINO: I'm sorry, who said that?

Q The French -- Sarkozy has linked those. Can you say whether the -- now
whether the decision has been made and whether the President will attend
the Opening Ceremonies -- what that decision is?

MS. PERINO: I'm not able to announce his schedule yet. He certainly is
going to be going to China and I would certainly think that the Opening
Ceremonies will be a part of that trip. But we also are pleased that the
Dalai Lama and the Chinese are finally in discussions, and that's one of
the things the President had called on. And he -- every time he talks to
President Hu he talks to him about the importance of having a good
relationship there with a peaceful man, the Dalai Lama. But also for all of
China, that it's good to open up and to have better relations and to
improve human rights there and make sure that people can live lives of
freedom.

Q Just to make sure I heard you correctly, you said that the Olympic -- the
Opening Ceremonies will be part of that trip?

MS. PERINO: I said it's a distinct possibility. I don't remember the last
word I -- actual words I said, but I would -- I think I said I would expect
that the Opening Ceremonies could be a part of the schedule, but I can't
announce his schedule yet.

Q Could be.

MS. PERINO: Could be.

Q You said the Opening Ceremonies "will" --

Q Yes, you said the Opening Ceremonies will be a part of that trip.

MS. PERINO: I think I said -- I said "expect" they will be.

MS. PERINO: The transcript. (Laughter.)

Q Can we clarify? Will they --

Q Mom? (Laughter.)

MS. PERINO: Thank you. Mom, help me. (Laughter.)

Look, I am not able to announce the President's schedule. But he is going
to the Olympics and I expect that the Opening Ceremonies could be a part of
that trip.

Q Okay, well, I hope we caught you in time, because a lot of people back
there are ready to type it up.

So just to be clear, you're not connecting the two, right? The outcome of
the talks between China and the Dalai Lama's representatives --

MS. PERINO: No.

Q -- you're not connecting them, they're not conditional.

MS. PERINO: No, I'm not. And that's what the President has said before,
which is he believes he's going to China to support first and foremost our
athletes; he sees this as a sporting competition. But at the same time,
just as he will this week when he sees President Hu, he will talk to him
about these important issues of human rights and especially religious
freedom.

Okay. Lambros.

Q According to extensive reports (inaudible) of Turkey's (inaudible), in
full cooperation with some Turkish judges, are trying to overthrow the
popular Turkish government of Recep -- Minister -- Prime Minister Recep
Erdogan via military coup d'etat. I wonder if President Bush is concerned
about democracy in Turkey, a U.S. ally and a NATO member.

MS. PERINO: Are you talking about Turkey?

Q Yes.

MS. PERINO: Well, I think you've heard the President say he's a strong
supporter of Turkey. He supported them for EU ascension, but he wants to
make sure that democracy is firm in that country.

Q One more question. Any communication between President Bush and Prime
Minister Recep Erdogan or the Turkish President Abdullah Gul on this
crucial issue?

MS. PERINO: I think you actually might speak faster than I do, which is --
(laughter.)

Q Any communication, because a very crucial issue.

MS. PERINO: Between the President and who?

Q President Bush and the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan or the
Turkish President Abdullah Gul on this crucial issue, the coup d'etat in
Turkey?

MS. PERINO: No, recently I don't think there's been anything. But I'll
refer you to the State Department who might know more.

April.

Q Dana, back on the issue of Zimbabwe, the opposition leader is not happy
with the AU. What is this White House saying about the fact that he wants
the opposition leadership to have a major part in the new government,
versus what the AU wants? And are you also concerned that he should be the
new President, versus Mugabe?

MS. PERINO: I think he has -- well, we have said that. We thought that the
March 29th election should have stood, and we believe that because Mr.
Tsvangirai won 48 percent of the vote to Mugabe's 43, that that was a clear
indication. However, under their constitution, if you don't have a clear
majority, then you have to go to a runoff. As we saw last week, President
Mugabe made sure that it was a sham election, and Mr. Tsvangirai decided
not to even participate, mostly because he was concerned about the safety
of his supporters.

So Jendayi Frazer from the State Department, she is there in the region.
She might be back now, but she has been very actively involved. And I'm not
sure if we -- what our position is at the moment on a power-sharing
arrangement. We do think that Mr. Tsvangirai won that election, and so we
do not believe that Mr. Mugabe is the legitimate leader of Zimbabwe right
now.

Q And the last few months that you have, what are you going to do to work
towards the fact to make him President versus Mugabe?

MS. PERINO: Well, I think that we've got some work to do. I think that
first and foremost, you look at the U.N. Security Council who spoke with
one voice; that was good. There were several African leaders who did speak
out at the AU meeting, but obviously not to the satisfaction of all of us,
and certainly not to Mr. Tsvangirai's. So we have work to do, but the main
source of instability in sub-Saharan Africa is in Zimbabwe, and so the
African leaders have an interest in making sure that they continue to press
the situation, especially when it comes to the human condition, of people
starving, young children orphaned, people afraid for their lives and living
in absolute fear. And it's just terribly sad how President Mugabe has
completely devastated his country.

John. Yes, John, go ahead.

Q Okay, thank you.

MS. PERINO: You're such a gentleman.

Q Thank you, Dana. Earlier this year -- going back to the rescue of Senator
Ingrid Betancourt and the Americans -- when Reyes, the number two man in
the FARC, was killed, people recovered his personal laptop computer and
found that the whole talk about President Chavez trying to secure release
of the hostages was an act; that he was just trying simply to get
recognition to help FARC and then bring his allies along. Has the
administration commented on this? And since the rescue last night, has any
further information come in, particularly about President Chavez and his
relationship to FARC -- and Iran?

MS. PERINO: Okay. I don't believe -- I don't know if anyone in the
administration has talked about it, so I -- I haven't seen everything that
might have come out of the Defense Department or the State Department. What
I can tell you is that the whole world now saw who is responsible for
releasing the hostages, and that was President Uribe, who deserves all of
the credit. We certainly supported the operation and provided some specific
support.

I don't know, in terms of the intelligence threads that came out of that
laptop, if it helped lead to this rescue. I'll leave it for the Colombians
to make that determination and whether or not there is anything else, but I
think that when it comes to the President of Colombia, he has proven
himself to be a strong leader, one who is committed to making sure that the
security of his country is improved. He is one of America's strongest
allies in South America and in this hemisphere, and I think we should all
look to him for inspiration for how one of these countries can be run,
because he's really turned it around down there.

And it's one of the things that Congress is going to have to contemplate
when they get back next week, is whether or not continuing to hold up the
Colombia free trade agreement is actually, one, merited; and two, in our
best interest. And I think the answer will be no. And I hope that by the
end of this month that the Speaker of the House will change her position
and allow for a vote on the Colombia free trade agreement.

Q So it sounds like you support him changing the constitution to run for a
third term. (Laughter.)

MS. PERINO: No, I'm not here campaigning for anybody.

Q Thank you.

END 1:01 P.M. EDT

*PIAB

===========================================================================
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/07/20080703-8.html