Since this appears to be my Tony Snow night I thought I would hit you with this awesome piece from today’s briefing when asked another one of those silly questions:
Transcript:
Q Tony, a question, but a short prelude. Obviously, at least according to what the Israeli Ambassador to the U.N. is saying, Israel’s goals are far — more far-reaching than the U.S. goals in ending the violence. He said last night on CNN that the intent of Israel is to destroy the Hezbollah (inaudible) and its ability to wage warfare.
My question is why send Condi Rice in when, obviously, at this point, she can only be talking to one side in the conflict? Has the President considered perhaps sending Bush 41 and Clinton, who have a pretty good track record after the tsunamis?
MR. SNOW: What?
Q Well —
MR. SNOW: I mean, we’ve just said that Condi Rice is not going to go until the conditions are right. So we’ll wait until she goes, the conditions are right.
Q I said her talks now would be pretty much one-sided —
MR. SNOW: Yes —
Q Wait a minute. You said yourself, correctly, that both Bush 41 and Clinton had talks with Hafez al-Assad —
MR. SNOW: Which were blazingly pointless.
Q But it’s a —
MR. SNOW: No. No, the start is to place — no, wrong. I mean, it may sound good that you dispatch somebody who then can be dealt with in bad faith by a government that does not intend to deliver. I think whatever you may think of it, the United States’ position is clear, and you don’t dispatch delegations on missions that already are contrary to the stated position of this government. And I guarantee you President Bush 41, and I doubt President Clinton, would agree to such a thing.
See author page