Telling Time Warner What It Can Go Do With Itself
Download File ->->->-> https://urlin.us/2thZOs
Shortly afterward, Pastor Brian and Wilma, a church member, come to inform April that her mother Rose died from a fatal brain aneurysm while riding on a city bus and was cremated. April is devastated by the news and seeks comfort from Randy. However, he is sleeping and shrugs her off. Later, Sandino comforts April as she tells him about her mother's death and the last time she spoke with her. Shortly afterward, Jennifer, Manny, and Byron return to April's after searching for their grandmother, and April dejectedly tells them the news.
Over time, Sandino and April become good friends. Sandino fixes a ruined bedroom in her house. This makes Manny and Byron happy, but upsets Jennifer, who feels April does not want them there. While on a date, Sandino tells April he doesn't understand why she is with Randy and asks if she loves Randy. He tells her what true love is to him. One Sunday morning, Sandino eagerly knocks on April's bedroom door to get April ready for church, but Randy threatens to kill Sandino if he continues to spend time with April.
The next night, Manny needs his insulin shot and Jennifer goes to the kitchen to get it. As she prepares the shot, Randy approaches and attempts to rape her, but Sandino fights him off. April walks in on the fight, and Randy claims Jennifer offered him sex for money. April pretends to believe him and sends Randy to take a bath. When he is in the tub, April threatens to electrocute him with a plugged-in radio. Sandino arrives and tries to stop her, but April is enraged, as she explains that she was sexually abused by her stepfather Lee, who then lied about it to her mother, thus causing April to lose her faith in the people that cared about her. Once this is revealed, it is then known why April became an alcoholic due to her stepfather lying to her mother for years over the sexual abuse and why April chose to live a life without children and resenting her stepfather for what he did to her. Afterward, she drops the radio into the water, giving Randy a severe electric shock. Randy barely jumps out just in time, and Sandino orders him to leave in three minutes.
I Can Do Bad All by Myself received generally positive reviews from critics.[7] Rotten Tomatoes gave it a 61% approval rating based on 46 reviews, with an average rating of 5.9/10. The site's consensus states: \"Though somewhat formulaic and predictable, Perry succeeds in mixing broad humor with sincere sentimentality to palatable effect.\"[5] Metacritic reported that the film has a score of 55 out of 100 based on 13 critics, indicating \"mixed or average reviews\".[7] Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of \"A\" on an A+ to F scale.[8]
This is the low threshold for exit I talk about above. Once I decide I have no interest in continuing to read a book, I stop reading it and move on to another one. I have no hard and fast rule - like I make myself read the first 100 pages no matter what - it\\u2019s a vibe thing. Once I\\u2019ve had enough, I\\u2019ve had enough. Sometimes I even quit when I\\u2019ve been mostly enjoying a book, but don\\u2019t need any more, as was the case with Charlie Kaufmann\\u2019s Antkind.
I\\u2019m certain that James Wood comes by his opinion honestly, and because he\\u2019s a book critic, he\\u2019s obligated to read books people are talking about and give his opinion, but I don\\u2019t have that kind of relationship to books. I can spend much more time focused on what I like.
I\\u2019m curious, who out there is a fellow book quitter What percentage of books do you start and not finish What\\u2019s the latest you\\u2019ve ever quit a book. (For me, it was 17 pages from the end, if you can believe that.) For you non-quitters, what is it that compels you to keep reading to the very (sometimes bitter) end
Press Briefing by Tony SnowRoom 450Eisenhower Executive Office Building Play Video Press Briefings Audio 12:51 P.M. EDTMR. SNOW: All right, good afternoon. Questions.Q Thanks. This morning when you were talking about the idea ofa debate on Iraq, you said that there's no debate right now aboutwithdrawal right now. The question isn't withdrawal right now. Thequestion is withdrawal over a period of time, by sometime next year. Socan you answer that question, whether there's a debate about thatMR. SNOW: Well, what's interesting is there seems to be a failureto recognize that the President has talked for quite a while abouttrying to have a surge so that we can bring forces home. And I want toread through a series of quotes that I think makes the case that thestory we're talking about is not, in fact, about any kind of generallynew deliberations, but the kind of things the President has been talkingabout really since the advent of Baker-Hamilton.Here we are on January 10th: \"If we increase our support at thiscrucial moment and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence,we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home.\" This is a pointthe President has made, and some of you have heard him make thesecomments in off-the-record meetings with reporters, as well.April 2007: \"Embedding the troops, training the troops,over-the-horizon presence\" -- this is when he was talking about where wewant to be -- \"in other words, if there's a problem, be in a positionwhere you can come in and help.\" The President: \"Chasing down al Qaedaand extremists, particularly those from other foreign countries, helpingthe territorial integrity of Iraq, that's something I'm for. And itwould require less troops over time to be in that position. However, Ididn't think we could get to Baker-Hamilton because of the impendingchaos inside Baghdad.\"Thus saying there's the desire to get towardBaker-Hamilton, but first you have to address conditions of violencewithin Baghdad.May of this year: \"I've talked about the idea of having adifferent force posture that would enable us to be there to help theIraqis in a variety of ways, protect the border, chase down al Qaeda,embed and train the troops, provide security, psychological security ofhelping this new government.\" Again, lower troop levels.And finally, just the other day, on July 4th: \"We all long for theday when there are far fewer American servicemen and women in Iraq, thata time will come when Iraq has a stable, self-sustaining government thatis an ally against these extremists and killers. That time will comewhen the Iraqi people will not need the help of 159,000 American troopsin their country. Yet withdrawing our troops prematurely based onpolitics, not on the advice and recommendation of our militarycommanders, would not be in our national interest. It would hand theenemy a victory and put America's security at risk, and that's somethingwe're not going to do.Short answer: We want to get to the situation, we want to get to acondition where the Iraqis do, in fact, have the freedom of space andthe security necessary to go ahead and put together the building blocksfor a civil society. That not only includes security in the streets,but it also means other things: economic development; it means a ruleof law that could be administered fairly through the army, the militaryservices and the courts; it means having electricity and water -- all ofthose things, the building blocks of a civil society. And that's theway the President's been expressing it from the start.Q Well, clearly, that's true, and we've all heard him say thosethings. We've heard you say those things, we've heard otheradministration officials say those same things. But that isn't thequestion, because that's talking about an eventual goal, which nobody isarguing with. The question is a simple one: Is there debate now abouttime to speed up the timetable by which you bring combat troops out ofIraqMR. SNOW: There's no timetable. I think -- again, let's --Q That's not what I asked. I asked, is there a debate about howto --MR. SNOW: No, you just said -- you just asked speeding up atimetable.Q I didn't ask, is there one I said, is there a debate aboutsetting oneMR. SNOW: Oh, is there a debate about setting one No, right now,what the discussion in the White House is, let's go ahead and proceedwith what Congress, itself, decided to do just two months ago.Twomonths ago, Congress said, ok, we're going to do the way forward -- wewill adopt the way forward, having given General Petraeus an81-to-nothing vote in the United States Senate. And they said, but wewant some reporting here. We want to get a starting point glimpse ofthis on July 15th, and on the 15th of September, we want recommendationsfrom the generals about how they want to proceed after that.In other words, it's the same sort of approach the President hasalways taken, which is, let's ascertain the facts on the ground, let'ssee what the commanders think is going to be most successful andeffective.What we're going to get in the next week is a series of reports onbenchmarks, on a number of benchmarks that had been agreed by members ofCongress and also laid down by this administration about how to judgewhere things stand -- some probably satisfactory, some probablyunsatisfactory.We certainly will find out, we'll be able to read them out. Butthat gives you a glimpse of where, at the very earliest stages of notonly a surge, but an operational surge, where all the forces are in andthey're now having an opportunity to work with their Iraqi counterparts,you now have the beginning part and you'll be able to look in two monthsat how you proceeded on those benchmarks, and also whether generals aregoing to be in a position to say, we did this right, we did this wrong,this is where we need to go next.Q But various Republicans have said the President can't waituntil September, and they're saying you need to go faster. So, puttingaside the timetable, is there a debate for, right now, going on insidethe White House for a gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops, as The New YorkTimes said A gradual --MR. SNOW: No.No, there's no -- again, ultimately, the Presidentwants to withdraw troops based on the facts on the ground, not on thematter of politics. And I would refer you to the last quote I just readto you, which was from last week.Furthermore, I know -- there's a convenient shorthand, but I thinkthe position that Senator Lugar and others had was a little more subtlethan that. The one thing that they didn't want to talk about was simplywithdraw for withdrawal sake. They understand that there is realpolitical pressure here in the country, and they also understand thatthere's an importance for having demonstrated political success andeffort within Iraq.I think what we have here is, ironically, a pretty shared vision ofwhere we want to go. Jennifer's first answer -- first response to myanswer was, well, everybody agrees with that. I think there is generalagreement about the end state here. So the question is, how do you getto the point where you can achieve those goals. And I actually thinkthat if you've looked at the statements of Senator Lugar and others,you're going to find that they largely track with the quotes I just readto you from --Q You said that this morning, as well. Senator Lugar said, \"Theprospects that the current surge strategy will succeed in the wayoriginally envisioned by the President are very limited.\"MR. SNOW: By September. He also talked about having it done bySeptember. And the fact is we don't think that everything is going tobe accomplished by September, and we've never said that. What SenatorLugar, I think, also is concerned about, as you read further into whathe says, is that he does not want a situation where we withdraw hastily,we create a vacuum, and therefore we have a longer-term and much moredangerous security environment for the United States.Q He said most U.S. troops can be pulled out by the middle of2008, specifically. Do you agree with thatMR. SNOW: We'll see. I mean, I'm not a general, I'm not going totry to play one.Q He also said, \"Our course in Iraq has lost contact with ourvital national security interest.\" Do you agree with that Does thatreally show --MR. SNOW: I think it's tied up with our vital national securityinterest. But I'm not going to -- again, I'm not going to get into afight with --Q But how can you say, as you did this morning, you're sayingagain that Republicans like Lugar are not necessarily opposing the WhiteHouse when they're saying \"our force in Iraq has lost contact with ourvital national security interest\" -- how does that agree with whatyou're sayingMR. SNOW: Well, again, what you've done is -- we went through thislast week, where you take one sentence, I'd cite another sentence -- Ididn't bring the whole speech with me this time.Q Well, he's got a speech -- it's 45 minutes. Is there a linein his speech that agrees with your policyMR. SNOW: Yes, I think there -- the whole series of lines inthere.Again, ask yourself what Dick Lugar wants to see. What he wantsto see is an effective and integrated diplomatic effort within theregion, which this administration has been trying to work through andhas been working through. What he wants is more political progress onthe ground with the Iraqis. What he wants is better training andcapability on the part of the Iraqis. He wants al Qaeda to lose. Hewants the Iraqi people to win.I think there are substantial areas ofagreement here.Q Sure, but he's saying that the course you're taking is notsucceeding in those endeavors, so --MR. SNOW: No, he's -- again, we have just started the course.Thecourse has just begun.Q He is saying time is running out.But he's not a Democrat,he's a Republican, a very senior one saying --MR. SNOW: I understand that --Q -- time is running out.MR. SNOW: I understand that, Ed.Q But is the White House in denial about that, thenMR. SNOW: No, the White House is not in denial about the fact, butI think you're in denial about the fact that in the overall contours,there's just not that much disagreement. If you want disagreement, youcompare what he's saying with what Harry Reid is saying. If you want adisagreement, you take a look at what Dick Lugar has been saying andwhat Democratic leaders have been saying, by and large.What Dick Lugar is trying to do -- and I think this is a sensiblething -- is to try to lower the temperature and find a way where you canget some bipartisan conversations, because in many cases, people havedug in their heels, saying, the President is for it, we're going to beagainst it. And he understands that if you try to look at this throughstrictly a political lens, you run a very high risk of ignoring the factthat our national security really is under assault by the forces ofterror, and it's important to succeed in Iraq because, as I pointed outthis morning, what begins in Iraq, whether it is a Democraticrenaissance or a victory in the war on terror, does not end there. Andwhat we want to make sure is that the seed that gets planted is the seedof democracy and not the one of terror and tyranny.Q I need to correct the record, Tony, because you quoted me andyou quoted me incorrectly.MR. SNOW: I'm sorry.Q You said that I said everyone agrees with what the Presidentsaid. I didn't say that.MR. SNOW: No, no, I didn't say that. You said everybody agreeswith those benchmarks.I did not have --Q I didn't even say that.MR. SNOW: You didn'tQ What I said is that everyone agrees what the President said,not that they agree with him.MR. SNOW: Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. Well, I stand corrected.Q Tony, back to the debate again within the White House, are yousaying it hasn't even accelerated Given what people like Senator Lugarare saying -- and they're saying September is too far away, you need toassess this now -- is there no debate in the White House about pullingtroops back or drawing down now, for any reason -- political, orwhateverMR. SNOW: No, the conversation is always about what do you do tosucceed in Iraq. Again, it seems -- Martha --Q I understand that. Tony, nobody is debating -- SecretaryGates is not offering suggestions, other people are not offeringsuggestions about how you draw down short of this all-out victoryMR. SNOW: Let me -- no, it's not even an all-out victory. Whatthe President said all along is, of course, we're going to draw down,but you have to draw down when it makes sense to do so. Andfurthermore, what he said is, everybody, take a look first at what'sgoing on.Here we have people trying to read into -- I mean, you sent me anemail talking about reaction to a report that hasn't even been releasedyet --Q No, I didn't. I sent you an email -- if you want to talkabout our email exchanges -- I sent you an email talking about themounting criticism on the Hill.MR. SNOW: I think you said, the mounting reaction to the report,which has not yet been released.Q No, I did not. I said that -- well, we'll go back and check--MR. SNOW: Okay. (Laughter.)Q But what I also asked about is how the White House is reactingto that --MR. SNOW: What the White House is doing is, once again, saying tomembers of Congress, two months ago you put together a piece oflegislation; you said, give us a snapshot at the beginning. We'reawaiting the snapshot.The snapshot will become available; let's seewhere we stand. Then as a practical matter, you ask yourself, how arethe efforts succeeding, or are there places where they are notsucceeding At this point, it would be irresponsible to say we're goingto leave before we know what the results are.Q Tony, you've been saying that for a long time. What we'resaying is --MR. SNOW: We're being consistent.Q -- you're being consistent, but let me go back to this -- areyou in denialI mean --MR. SNOW: No.Q -- surely, you know what's going on there, whether there's asnapshot this week or not a snapshot this week. You have a pretty goodidea what's going on --MR. SNOW: Let me just refer back to what has appeared in many ofyour networks and newspapers, which is that there seems to beindications that certain parts of the surge, in fact, are working and inimportant ways, and that there are certain things that still have notbeen accomplished. So your question is, at the very beginning you seemto have some signs that lead to encouragement -- and it's interesting,people say, well, okay, we've heard that, that's old news. It's not oldnews.A year ago Anbar had been written off, and as a matter of fact,many news organizations were running news stories saying, it has been adisaster, write it off, it's gone. Now it's precisely the oppositenarrative.What you have to have in a time of war is the honesty to assess thesituation on the ground. You have to have the flexibility and theingenuity to try to respond so that you're more effective, and thatcontinues to be the case, with General Petraeus and everybody elseinvolved.Q Tony, I'll just say that on Anbar, the President mentioned thesuccess in Anbar before the surge even started -- in his January speech,he talked about some of the successes in Anbar.MR. SNOW: I know.Q But can you please address the question of whether there ismore intense debate right now, because not only what Republican senatorsare saying, but also because the American people are saying itMR. SNOW: Are you asking -- let me put it this way. If you'retalking about more intense debate in reaction to poll numbers -- no.Q Okay, then not in reaction to poll numbers. Is there moreintense debate because it's clear September may be too far awayMR. SNOW: No, I don't think so. I think, again, Congress, itself,has laid this out. We're playing right now according to the scriptCongress laid out. And I think maybe the most sensible thing --Q Senator Lugar is saying September was too late.MR. SNOW: Well, let's see what Senator Lugar says when he's had anopportunity to look at a report that will be out within the next week.Q He's already said it, Tony.MR. SNOW: Well, he hasn't seen the report.Q Can you just -- a few back-and-forths ago you started to saysomething -- \"there is general agreement about\" -- and I don't know --MR. SNOW: Yes, okay, general agreement about where we want to be,which is, again, you want the Iraqis in the lead position, you want tomake sure you have a rule of law, you want the sectarianism down, youwant political accommodation up. I mean, all of those basic thingseverybody agrees are what you want to have. And there are a number ofefforts that are being undertaken by the American and the Iraqigovernments and coalition forces to try to achieve those aims.The surge is not merely a security operation; it's an economicoperation, it's a diplomatic operation, it is a legal operation in termsof trying to build up the kind of rule of law that's necessary to buildup confidence in the Iraqi government.And all those things are ongoingright now. And so when you get a report, it's not merely going to bemeasuring what troops are doing, but also what provisionalreconstruction teams are doing, and what civilians are doing, and whatour allies are doing, and so on.Q There are lots of reports out there, though, that right nowthe White House is engaged in a debate over what conditions, short ofvictory, must exist to begin pulling out troops.MR. SNOW: Again, that's just not an accurate report.Q Hold on, let me follow, because out of the Pentagon todaypeople -- there are commanders saying \"decisions are going to have to bemade before September, given the way Republicans are bailing.\"That's adirect quote. What's your reaction to thatMR. SNOW: Our reaction is we are continuing to be committed toletting the surge work and let people draw -- you know, you're asking meto respond to a blind political quote from a Pentagon employee.Q No, I'm asking you to respond to a growing feeling thatthere's a question, at least, being raised that I think people want avery straight answer to: Either the administration is engaged inintensifying discussions about reducing the number of troops, or it'snot.MR. SNOW: There is no intensifying discussion about reducingtroops. What there is, is a -- again, you are talking about a surgethat literally just got completed, in terms of troop complements, twoweeks ago. And so the idea --Q And all you -- asked Republicans to wait to give that achance. And there's an ever-increasing number of Republicans who aren'twaiting.MR. SNOW: I'm not sure that's an accurate rendition of whatthey're saying. Again, if you take a look at the comments, there isanxiety about the political atmosphere, which has been reflected in yourquestioning, but on the other hand, there is also a recognition thatyou've got to succeed in Iraq.And I don't think it's inconsistent --again, the President has been talking about getting to differentconfigurations, exactly what Senator Lugar said. He wants to do it asquickly as possible. That's one of the reasons why you have the surge.The surge is not an open-ended commitment that says -- it's not anoccupation, it's a surge. It's designed to create space so that we canachieve as swiftly as possible some of those basic necessities for theIraqi people to be able to step up and stand in the lead. And then atthat point, the Americans step back into less visible, more supportpositions, which was recommended by Baker-Hamilton. As a matter offact, the surge is part of Baker-Hamilton, for heaven's sake.Q Tony, the surge is for the Iraqi government to make progress,as well. How can you say --MR. SNOW: Yes, that's exactly right.Q -- I mean, that's pretty obvious in the July report, that theyhaven't.MR. SNOW: You've seen itQ No, Tony, I've seen what's happening over there, though.MR. SNOW: Look, in political --Q And if they had something to report, that would be prettystunning.MR. SNOW: I'm not sure everybody is going to get an \"A\" on thefirst report. But it is also pretty clear that it is going to beessential to have political progress in Iraq. We're certainly not goingto deny that.Q Tony, you said earlier that we don't expect -- we don't thinkeverything is going to be accomplished by September; yet you repeatedlysaid that the President wants to move toward the goals articulated byBaker-Hamilton of an eventual drawdown of troops. So, based on what heknows now, with the information that's been submitted to him by Petraeusand Crocker, does the President have a time frame in his mind, or doeshe simply have no idea when this elusive date of withdrawal might beginMR. SNOW: If you want to understand the way Congress put thistogether, number one is, the report we're going to get this week is asnapshot: here's where we are.Q And he --MR. SNOW: Let me complete the thought.Q -- he knows what progress has been made so far. Is heconvinced in his own mind --MR. SNOW: Let me try to answer, and then you can come back at me.The first is a snapshot at the beginning stage. Again, some of theforces in the surge have just now become operational, in the last twoweeks.It is premature to try to draw any broad-based conclusions onwhat they've done so far. However, by September, you not only will beable to put together a time line about what various folks in variousoperations within the surge have been able to achieve, you will alsohave a recommendation, again by Congress, for Ambassador Crocker and forGeneral Petraeus to be making recommendations.That's how this works.This is not some expectation that everything is fine and dandy andfinished, but instead a recommendation about what you do next.And thatis how it was set up at the beginning, and that's the way it proceeds.Q When he speaks this week on this issue, he is not going to sayanything about, I envision us pulling back at point X in the future, heis simply going to ask, as he has asked repeatedly --MR. SNOW: The PresidentQ -- for Republicans to wait until September That's hisstanceMR. SNOW: No, the President is not asking anybody to wait foranything. What the President is trying to do is to acknowledge thereality, which is to set a timetable at this juncture, without evenhaving had a full chance to evaluate what we're doing, is an exercise inpolitical rhetoric. It is not one in, in fact, responding to thestrategic realities on the ground. He's got an obligation --Q So he is not going to lay out a timetable this weekMR. SNOW: Don't expect -- you won't have to go out and buy newwatches this week or set your calendars. There will be no red squareson the calendar at the end of this week. But I'll tell you what we dohope is that the surge, in fact, will achieve its results as quickly aspossible, so we can get to a point where we draw down American forces,and we can get to a point where they recede into different kinds ofroles than they've beenfulfilling in recent months.Q What does the President say to Republicans like Senator Lugar,who say we can't waitWhat is his response to thatMR. SNOW: Again, I'm just not sure Senator Lugar is saying wecan't wait. What he's saying is, he's concerned about the politicalatmosphere in this country, and he's trying to make sure that we don'trip ourselves apart politically short of achieving the goals. If youlook at what Senator Lugar has said about the surge so far, he says it'sworking. His comments indicate that he thinks it's working.What he's a little concerned about is the political atmosphere inthis country, whether we can hold it together long enough to go aheadand give the surge an opportunity to demonstrate what the men and womenof our military, what the men and women who are contractors, men andwomen working for the State Department and other departments andagencies of the federal government, whether they're going to have anopportunity to demonstrate what their efforts have yielded in the lastcouple months.Q Tony, following on that, you said this morning that Zawahiriwants to establish Congress as a battlefield for this war. Is thereevidence that he is succeeding And when people like Lugar and Domeniciraise their questions, are they --MR. SNOW: No, I don't think so. But it's clear that it has alwaysbeen part of al Qaeda's M.O. that they want to wage a propaganda war. Idon't think anything Ayman al Zawahiri is going to do is going to bechanging Dick Lugar or any of the others. But it is still clear thatwhat they are trying to do -- the real intended target is Americanpublic opinion, to try to figure out if there are ways to weakenAmerican public opinion, to make it more difficult to wage the war.That's nothing new on their part. You go back to October 16th, Ibelieve it was, 2001, when we first started getting the tapes from binLaden.There's a constant attempt to use these vehicles as ways oftrying to wage propaganda against the United States.Q And there's evidence that it's succeeding, isn't it The pollnumbersMR. SNOW: No, I think the poll numbers indicate that war, as I'vesaid many times, is a dreadful thing; people don't want to be in it, thePresident doesn't want to be in it, but on the other hand, thealternative is far worse. If you have a hollowed-out Iraq that servesas a focal point for a new terrorist organization, you're going to seeripples of terror emanating out of Iraq that will spread past Iran, thatwill get to Pakistan, that will make their ways to Micronesia, thatcould jeopardize the oil states, could get across Northern Africa.That's the way it works. That's why you've got two alternatives: Whatare you going to plant, the seed of democracy, or the seed of terrorQ Tony, following on Ken's question, you quoted Zawahiri thismorning as saying it would be a glorious victory if --MR. SNOW: If the United --Q -- if you guys -- what, if you leave earlyMR. SNOW: Yes.Q So, when you cite it, though, in that context, it's as ifyou're giving him credibility and credence to his words.MR. SNOW: No, I think what I'm trying to say is, don't givecredence to his words; make sure he can't; make him eat his words.Q You're using it as justification as to why you should stay.Isn't there a way --MR. SNOW: No, the justification for why we should stay is it's theright thing to do.Q Well, can't the U.S. begin withdrawal, and say -- and shapepublic opinion that this is not a defeat --MR. SNOW: No, withdrawal in the absence of a strategic advantageon the ground is an empty gesture. If you withdraw to appease publicopinion, and the situation gets worse on the ground, what do you haveYou have worse public opinion, and you have a higher requirement eitherto get forces back into the field at a higher cost, and a higher cost topublic morale, or you walk away and you create what everybody agrees isan intolerable security situation. Baker Hamilton agreed with that.The National Intelligence Estimate said the same thing. So, no, you donot withdraw troops as a gesture. You withdraw them in response tomilitary necessity.Q Tony, Iraqi leaders -- having read today's New York Times --are saying that they do not want an early U.S. withdrawal because thatwould lead to all-out civil war. Isn't that the kind of leverage thatthe administration could use to establish not soft, undated benchmarks,but actual deadlines for actually achieving these not-yet-achievedbenchmarks, with consequencesMR. SNOW: You talk about from the Iraqis Are you talking aboutthe IraqisQ The Iraqi government. If you believe in the al Malikigovernment --MR. SNOW: It's a hard one for me to answer because really, whatForeign Minister Rubai was saying is, if you create a vacuum, you'regoing to reap the whirlwind; that's what he was saying. And I'mfamiliar with the argument. The presumption is that the Iraqis are notalso serious, themselves, about trying to get this done. I think theyare. It's highly complicated.You've got a lot of complexconsiderations. It also bears on Martha's point earlier.Americans want to see some political progress in Iraq.Theyunderstand what the pressures are. They hear about it all the time, Iguarantee you.So it's not something of which they are blithelyunfamiliar. I think they're trying hard at it and they need to keepworking the issues. But it is not obvious that simply by leaving andcreating a vacuum would create greater confidence and stepping forward.On the contrary, what it may lead to -- and this is something that manyin the region have warned about -- is people just dividing up and takingsides and creating an even more unstable area, some siding up with theSunni nations, some siding up with the Shia, some trying to cut theirown deals.It's not necessarily the case that by trying to back out \"to teacha lesson\" that you would do that. What you would do is undermine anally at precisely the point where you're starting to see some progressin going after al Qaeda, you're starting to see some progress goingafter Jaish al Mahdi, using the Iraqi people themselves, the very thingsthat we've been talking about on the security front -- and creating theimage or strengthening the perception that bin Laden has been trying gotpush around for years, that the United States is the weak horse, wecannot stand through the fight and, therefore, you cannot rely on theUnited States for security commitments. For that to take hold would bedevastating to this country in the long run.Q Isn't there a need to set deadlines with consequences thatwould focus the minds of the Iraqi governmentMR. SNOW: Again, we've been through this. We've made our positionclear.Q Can I switch to something elseMR. SNOW: Well, let's --Q Can I just ask, when you are talking about going after alQaeda, why, then, did the U.S. not go after bin Laden in 2005, when itappears you had actionable intelligence about a meeting involvingal-Zawahiri, bin Laden, other leaders, you stopped --MR. SNOW: -- the report, and you know we can't talk aboutclassified operations.Q John Conyers is writing a letter to the White House seekingWhite House testimony on the Libby pardons.MR. SNOW: Yes.Q What is the White House response to thatMR. SNOW: Well, again, what's interesting about the letter is twoadmissions within the letter itself. One is, I recognize the clemencypowers of presidential prerogative. And the second is, that he calls towaive executive privilege, seeming to imply that you've got executiveprivilege, as well.So we received the letter just a couple minutes before we came overhere. The Office of Legal Counsel has not had a full opportunity toreview it, but those two things did come jumping out. They seem toconcede what we think are the principal elements, which is that thePresident does have a clemency power and he also has executive privilegethat covers the conversations and the deliberations that go behindcommunications with the President.Q So you're not likely to provide any --MR. SNOW: Again, I won't speak on behalf of Fred or give anofficial communication.Q A follow-up question, if I could, Tony, on Fred's letter --took issue with the request that the White House provide an extensivedescription of every document covered by an assertion of executiveprivilege, calling that unreasonable. Why is thatMR. SNOW: Right. Well, among other things, if you take a look atit, simply the -- let me just go back to it -- first, aware of noauthority by which a congressional committee may direct the executive toundertake the task of creating and providing an extensive description ofevery document covered by an assertion of executive privilege.So, first you have a legal question, whether, in fact, there is anylegal writ for doing this from a congressional committee. It also says,given that the descriptions of the material in question already had beenprovided -- these people have the information necessary -- this demandis unreasonable because it represents a substantial incursion intopresidential prerogatives, and because, in view of the open-ended scopeof the committee's inquiries, it would impose a burden of verysignificant proportion.So, the reasons are listed pretty clearly in the letter.Q On the face of it, it would seem logical that the White Housedefend its assertion of executive privilege on every document for whichit claims such privilege.MR. SNOW: Well, there are some for which -- well, yes, for whichit claims a privilege, that is correct.Q So, and then --MR. SNOW: Documents for which you don't claim privilege, they haveaccess.Q It would seem that Fielding is saying that you shouldn't haveto describe -- you shouldn't have to detail precisely why you wereclaiming executive privilege for every document of which you claimed.MR. SNOW: Well, that's correct, because among other things, theyalready have the basic information they need, and what they're trying todo there is to solicit information about the deliberations. If you'reasking, why you decided to assert privilege, what you're also asking foris the nature of the very deliberations that themselves are privileged.Q Okay. Let me ask another question, which is, why you concludethat the committee has already decided to issue subpoenas, whether ornot it gets the documentsMR. SNOW: Well, that was something that Senator Leahy had referredto. When you had it -- if you look at the third from the finalparagraph there, he is quoting from the letter from Senator Leahy,himself. \"Your letter states that your committees\" -- I'm sorry, fromSenator Leahy and Representatives Conyers -- \"will take the necessarysteps to rule on the President's privilege claims and appropriatelyenforce our subpoenas, and that the committees will enforce thesubpoenas 'whether or not they have the benefit of the information,'only one conclusion is evident: The committees have already prejudgedthe question, regardless of the production of any privilege log. Insuch circumstances, we will not be undertaking such a project, even as afurther accommodation.\"Q Congressman Conyers says it is Congress and the courts thatwill decide whether the implication of executive privilege is valid, notthe White House, unilaterally.Do you disagree with thatMR. SNOW: Well, again, I'm not going to try to -- ultimately, ifhe thinks it's going to be resolved by -- what he's trying to make is afactual determination of whether Congress, either through contempt, orcourts trying to render a verdict on it, will have the ultimate say.I'm not going to try to do anything more than -- he's given you some ofthe three options for resolving it. I would offer option four, which isaccommodation, which we have been trying to do from the very beginningin terms of making available people for extensive interviewing anddocuments -- more than 8,500 pages of documents, we've pointed out, havebeen produced -- and we have also offered for extensive interviews ofthe key players people want to hear from. So the question is, do youwant the informationQ Thank you, Tony. Two questions. USA Today headline: NewGallup data shows confidence in Congress at all-time low, juts 14percent of Americans. My question: Since 14 percent is so much lowerthan the polls reported public confidence in the President, doesn't thissuggest that the new Democratic congressional majority, after a half ayear in power, have earned this all-time low ratingMR. SNOW: Well, I won't try to read too much into polls, otherthan to note that this Congress certainly is under performed by thestandards that it set for itself upon taking office. But on the otherhand, it's just my sense that there is a political atmosphere in thistown where people are seeing if Democrats and Republicans -- you guyshave got to do better; you've got to get your work done, and that thepolitics quite often seems more personal than substantive. And I thinkthat does rub a lot of people the wrong way.Q As both The Washington Post and The Washington Times reportedthe arrest and jailing on charges of speeding 100 miles an hour, withpossession of marijuana, plus four other un-prescribed drugs as athird-time arrest -- does the White House believe that anything ScooterLibby was charged with doing was as dangerous to the public as thisMR. SNOW: I'm not going to get into that case. I know who you'retalking about.Q At the White House Conference on the Americas this morning,President Bush said that -- he called on Latin American governments tobe open and transparent. How does he square that with the White Houseletter this morning to Chairmen Leahy and Conyers Because that's notreally being open and transparent.MR. SNOW: Sure, it is. The assertion of executive privilege, whenyou're talking about open and transparent, is to make sure, forinstance, that you know how financial laws work, or how your governmentworks.There has always been in the United States a certain area ofsecrecy. By the way, it also applies to members of Congress, becausemembers of Congress are not open and transparent about the confidentialinformation or guidance that they get from their aides, or for thatmatter, quite often the confidential help, support, whatever they mayget from outside lobbying organizations that have a great deal ofinterest and business before the Congress.So the point of fact is that if you want to call that not beingopen and transparent, there does have to be, for politicians who havevery difficult jobs, the ability to get honest counsel from people whoare working for them. That's all this is about. This is not abouttrying to throw a big smoke cloud over how the government works.Q Let me come back once again to -- and you referred to itearlier -- the whole question of making people available and the groundson which you will make them available -- the example of Karl Rove andthe whole question of whether they're going to be sworn, whether thereare going to be transcripts on which we go round and round and round --that goes back to open and transparent.MR. SNOW: Well, no, because if you have somebody who is underlegal punishment for not telling the truth, they can stand beforemembers of Congress and answer any question that's posed to them, that'sa pretty good way of having transparency. What we're trying to do is tomaintain a certain level of -- well, let me just put it -- I'll leave itat that. But the fact is that the administration has made available theinformation. That's not a lack of transparency. What it is, is thelack of a show trial.Q Sorry, I didn't email you on this. There's an interestingstory in The Washington Post about tunnels in Iran near their nuclearsites.Does the administration have any confirmation on this and do youhave --MR. SNOW: No, don't have anything to say about it.Q Tony, two questions. One, as far as terrorism is concerned,there have been, last week and this week, a number of spiritual leadersfrom India speaking in Washington, including Sri Sri Ravi Shankar andSant Rajinder Singh and also hugging Amma. What they're saying, really,all one message, all of them, that the problem as far as terrorism isconcerned is education, that we have to educate better in the UnitedStates or the world government must educate those people in countrieswhere the terrorism comes from. What I'm asking you is that we arespending millions of dollars, or hundreds of million dollars oneducation in a number of countries. Is this workingMR. SNOW: Look, I think there are many different -- terrorism issomething that springs from any number of sources. The most frighteningone is just blind hatred. Whether that is something that is a residueof education or lack of education, I'm not smart enough to lay out foryou.The point is that we ought to be doing everything we can to createconditions of freedom that will deny people the despair that is quiteoften the most useful emotion in recruiting people to lives of terror.And the other thing we need to do is to educate the public about what'sgoing on and how we can play a role in fighting it, and also producingthe conditions of freedom globally that are going to offer some hope topeople.Q And second --Q Can I follow on the Iranian storyMR. SNOW: No, because I don't have anything to tell you about theIranian --Q Can you look into it, please It's very, very important.MR. SNOW: I know it is. But it's also asking me to get into intelmatters.Q I have two quick ones for you. One is, did you get a chanceto look a bit more into the Turkish-Iraqi tensions and whether you cantalk about the possibility of a Turkish incursion in --MR. SNOW: I'm not going to speculate about that.Q Is there any U.S. outreach to try to calm things down thereMR. SNOW: At this point, again, we've made our point clear, whichis that we certainly share concerns about PKK terrorism, but also webelieve in the territorial integrity of Iraq.Q And in terms of the various benchmarks and schedules, thissurge began with a plan to turn over security to the Iraqis by November.Are we still on track to do thatMR. SNOW: You mean on all the provinces We'll have to take alook at what they have. I don't think we're probably going to getthere, but I'm not sure. I haven't seen the report. Again, November is-- if you're going to look for a November guess, I'd probably wait forthe September report, rather than the July.Q Tony, I know you talked about -- this morning about thepossibility of a speech on Iraq. You told us one was not happening.MR. SNOW: Yes, I wouldn't expect a speech on Iraq this week.Q Because Senator Warner, who just met with General Lute andHadley, seemed to indicate that one was in the works.MR. SNOW: Well, the President is going to be speaking out aboutit, but it doesn't mean it's necessarily going to be in a speech.Q Will he speak about it in the press room on WednesdayMR. SNOW: You know what That's for us to know and you to findout.Q But we'll be here. (Laughter.)Q Will it be a new strategy, or anything like thatMR. SNOW: No, no, no.Don't expect us to lift a veil and have awhole different strategy. We're not going to have a strategy jumpingout of the cake.Q So what would Senator Warner and General Lute be talking aboutin terms of -- the President talks about the war all the time.Whatwould be new this weekMR. SNOW: I'm not sure that -- number one, you're getting backinto internal deliberations. And, number two, the fact is we haveconversations all the time with interested members of Congress aboutthis stuff.Q Tony, if Senator Warner is suggesting, other Republicans keeptheir powder dry until the President addresses the nation, that would --MR. SNOW: If you want to get Senator Warner's take on it, you needto ask Senator Warner.I am certainly not going to speak on his behalf.Q No, that is his take. He's saying we should wait until thePresident addresses the nation. Is the President planning on any kindof addressMR. SNOW: Again, are you talking about an address this week No.Q Next week (Laughter.)MR. SNOW: We're not planning a address at this juncture, but I'mnot going to rule one out, for heaven's sake. I mean, the fact is, thePresident talks about it all the time.He gave an address on it on July4th. So we constantly talk about this.Q A formal address to the nationMR. SNOW: No, no, no.Again, I'm just not having -- you'rejumping me with a piece -- I saw Senator Warner when he was in thebuilding earlier; I have had no opportunity to speak with him about it.So you're catching me a little bit short with something abut which Idon't know any details and, frankly, don't know fully what his thinkingis.Q Tony, when he speaks -- and you said he would speak -- wouldthat be in response to the report Is it something about the reportMR. SNOW: We'll let you know.Q Thank you.END 1:29 P.M. EDT Printer-Friendly Version Email this page to a friend AfghanistanAfricaBudget ManagementDefenseEconomyEducationEnergyEnvironmentGlobal DiplomacyHealth CareHomeland SecurityImmigration International TradeIraq Judicial Nominations Middle EastNational SecurityVeteransmore issues NewsCurrent NewsPress BriefingsProclamationsExecutive OrdersRadioSetting the Record Straightmore news June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 News by Date February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 October 2002 September 2002 August 2002 July 2002 June 2002 May 2002 April 2002 March 2002 February 2002 January 2002 December 2001 November 2001 October 2001 September 2001 August 2001 July 2001 June 2001 May 2001 April 2001 March 2001 February 2001 January 2001AppointmentsNominationsFederal Facts Federal StatisticsWest Wing History 153554b96e
https://www.sellcgs.com/forum/business-forum/royal-alchemist-crack-patch-2021-download