In the daily Whitehouse press briefing a few hours ago, Tony Snow was getting some tough questions about the happenings in Lebabon and whether the U.S. was taken by surprise at some of the developments there:
Q If the reports are correct, and we, in fact, didn’t know about the weapons advances that Hezbollah has made, is there some frustration or embarrassment within the intelligence community at the moment?
MR. SNOW: Well, you’ve asked me one of those “ifs,” and then the answer is, I don’t know what the knowledge was about intelligence; therefore, I can’t answer it. Sorry, Victoria.
Q Well, it seems certainly according to the reports that we didn’t know that they had made significant advances.
MR. SNOW: Again, I don’t know. [Link]
So what do you do next if you are Snow? I am disappointed by ANY SM readers that don’t already know the answer:
Goyal.
Q Tony, two questions. One, last night celebrating the 10th anniversary of the Indian-American Friendship Council, Dr. Krishna Reddy he got over 120 members of Congress from both sides — senators and congressmen on Capitol Hill — and they were all supporting the U.S.-India civil nuclear agreement. And which yesterday you mentioned that G8 also — Prime Minister of India and the President had discussion on the same issue.
So now next month, there will be voting — final voting in the U.S. Congress. So where is the President now? How he is taking this approach —
MR. SNOW: The President supports the agreement. He made it clear to Prime Minister Singh. He’s made it clear to members of Congress. So far the votes have been overwhelmingly in favor in committee, and we’ll just have to see how it proceeds. I mean, that’s a no-brainer. [Link]
Was Snow subtly implying that Goyal’s question was a no-brainer? Snow soon found out that even Goyal, when backed into a corner with his pride on the line, can take a swing by asking a tough question. You won’t like him when he’s angry.
Q Second, as far as terrorism is concerned, also G8 made a statement on terrorism that we have to bring all — all kind of terrorism to justice, including organizers, supporters and sponsors and financers. And Prime Minister of India is under pressure in India from the Indians on the (inaudible) bombings, that they should cut off all the diplomatic relations in Pakistan because Prime Minister of India has called off the (inaudible) with Pakistan — he also calling on the Musharraf government to stop in sponsoring terrorism across the border, including in Bombay. So what you think President —
MR. SNOW: Far be it for me to give — you’re trying to get us in the middle of a diplomatic dispute. The President —
Q How President feel?
MR. SNOW: You’re asking how the President feels about breaking developments? I think it’s inappropriate to comment. [Link]
Big time avoidance by Snow there. The G8 statement seems to go further than the U.S.’s position in that it recognizes the Mumbai bombings as state-sponsored terrorism. Advantage Goyal.
A better idea of what the Bush administration thinks about India-Pakistan relations following the Mumbai bombings is summed up in a statement by assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher
A key Bush administration official on Monday advised India to rely on hard evidence before drawing conclusions on the Mumbai terror attacks, while obliquely criticising New Delhi for implicating Islamabad in the blasts and calling off talks.
“I know there’s a lot of speculation out there now. That happens in these cases. But I think we need to be led by the evidence before we start trying to draw conclusions and make policy pronouncements on it,”US assistant secretary of state Richard Boucher said on Monday.
“So that will be our attitude, and I think that should be the attitude of others as well,”Boucher, a mid-level functionary of the Bush administration recommended, even as the G-8 summit of leaders issued a policy statement condemning state sponsorship of terrorism specifically linked to the Mumbai blasts.
Boucher hoped that progress in India-Pakistan relations is not lost because of developments relating to the blasts, “and that they find opportunities to cooperate… against terrorist groups, to cooperate in stabilising the region…” [Link]
I personally find Boucher’s statement (this part at least) to be reasonable for now but good for Goyal for challenging the discrepancy.
