Snow to MSNBC: “There’s another principle, which is Congress doesn’t have the legislative — I mean oversight authority over the White House.”

Snow to MSNBC: “First, the White House is under no compulsion to do anything. The legislative branch doesn’t have oversight.”

Snow to Fox: “Congress doesn’t have any legitimate oversight and responsibilities to the White House.”

Snow to NBC: "Congress doesn't have any legitimate oversight and responsibilities to the White House."

Snow to NBC: "First, the White House is under no compulsion to do anything. The legislative branch doesn't have oversight."

Snow to ABC: "The executive branch is under no compulsion to testify to Congress, because Congress in fact doesn't have oversight ability."

MR. SNOW: Congress…does not have constitutional oversight responsibility over the White House, which is why by our reaching out, we're doing something that we're not compelled to do by the Constitution, but we think common sense suggests that we ought to get the whole story out, which is what we're doing.

In affirming Congress' oversight powers, the Supreme Court in McGrain v. Daugherty stated that "the power of inquiry – with process to enforce it – is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function." In Watkins v. United States the Court described Congress' oversight power by stating that the "power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process. That power is broad." The Supreme Court also observed that "a legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change."

"In my view, it is not appeasement to talk to your enemies," James Baker, secretary of State for the former President Bush, said this week.

Reporter: Why are you so defensive about going the diplomatic route?

Tony Snow: We're not. As a matter of fact, we've been going the diplomatic route all along. We're not being defensive. What we're trying to do is clarify, because it's important that people understand that this administration is serious when it comes to the Iranians about a precondition for bilateral negotiations and also for diplomatic relations, which is they can't be working toward a nuclear weapon ...

Reporter: Tony, is [the president] anxious to dissuade anybody from interpreting this as some change in policy?

Snow: Yes, because I think a lot of the press accounts yesterday just got it wrong, and I think it's important to get it right.

Reporter: What is wrong with saying -- well, why are you hesitant to embrace this sort of school of thought here that the administration has heard what the Baker-Hamilton group suggested, they've heard the calls from the Hill, as Secretary Rice talked about yesterday, and you're open to engaging on all fronts in a way that is, you're embracing something that you were pushing away before? What's wrong with that?

Snow: We were so good that we pre-heard it. As a matter of fact, we pre-heard it as early as 2002 if you want to take it that route, Jim.

Reporter: I'm not sure I follow.

Snow: Well, what you're saying is -- this is not a response to the Baker-Hamilton Commission, although it does comport with one of the recommendations.

Reporter: [So why did] Secretary Rice bring that up on the Hill yesterday, then?

Snow: Because what she was doing is -- everybody uses Baker-Hamilton as a talking point. She said, here, here is something Baker-Hamilton recommended that's --

Reporter: Well what's wrong with saying, yes, we're flexible, we're going to try it on all these different fronts, as opposed to going out of your way to knock down any impression that perhaps you're flexible diplomatically?

Snow: No, we're not -- that's -- here's part of the problem we're having, is that you are applying labels that don't really seem to apply to the situation. We -- "flexible diplomatically"? I mean, what exactly do you mean, "flexible diplomatically"? ...

Reporter: One more follow on this. Could it be that you're concerned -- if you are seen as embarking on a new policy, is the concern that the old policy was wrong?

Snow: No, the concern is you guys are getting it wrong and I don't know how to get you to get it through your heads that it's not new. I mean, it's not new. What's going on here is something that has a long-seated precedence. There are multilateral forums where, if the Iranians are there, we're not going to walk out. The Iraqis -- we have always said if they invite us to this regional forum, we will be there. They invited us; we're going to be there ...

Reporter: You're not saying we didn't put a stamp of approval on this with the Iraqis --

Snow: Of course, we did. We're very happy that this is going on.

Reporter: We pushed it, didn't we?

Snow: We have encouraged it.

Joseph A. Christoff, the GAO official who produced the document said "I have all [the Pentagon's] data" for those months, he told me. But the military stamped it classified, he said. And despite making weeks of phone calls, he can't convince anyone there to declassify the numbers.

"They give conflicting reasons. For some reason, they haven't gotten through their bureaucracy."

Q: I have two questions. Since the President knows how many Iraqis were killed in the two months period, how many were killed in the four years of war?

MR. SNOW: Two things; I know you asked the question in the gaggle. What you had was the President had a briefing on how many people were killed in combat activities. The Iraqi government, itself, compiles its own statistics on those who have died in the violence. I am sure that there is a briefing paper that has that exact number on it, or at least their best guesses on it.

Maybe the one important number is the nearly 27 million Iraqis no longer have to live under the terror and despotism of Saddam Hussein. They have an elected government, which many of them risked their lives to vote for. It's a unity government. And one of the chief aims, as we've just pointed out, is to get rid of the violence that is claiming lives unnecessarily and to allow that democracy to move forward peacefully.

Q: That isn't an answer.

MR. SNOW: Yes, it is.

Q: Why? Why can't you count the number who were killed in four years?

MR. SNOW: Well, apparently it's a difficult task, and I would refer you to the government of Iraq.

“It’s an unfortunate development, I think, from the standpoint of the Democratic Party, to see a man like Lieberman pushed aside because of his willingness to support an aggressive posture in terms of our national security strategy.’’

“Terrorists are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task. And when we see the Democratic Party reject one of its own, a man they selected to be their vice presidential nominee just a few short years ago, it would seem to say a lot about the state the party is in today.”

The White House spokesman, Tony Snow, made the rounds on the Sunday morning political programs, saying that President Bush had every intention of sticking with the course he had set in Iraq, even as opinion polls suggested that most Americans were increasingly uneasy about the war.

"The president understands people's impatience — not impatience but how a war can wear on a nation," Mr. Snow said on the CNN program "Late Edition." "He understands that. If somebody had taken a poll in the Battle of the Bulge, I dare say people would have said, 'Wow, my goodness, what are we doing here?' But you cannot conduct a war based on polls."

Mr. Murtha, in an appearance on the NBC News program "Meet the Press," was responding to a speech Mr. Rove delivered in New Hampshire last week attacking Democrats for what he called "that party's old pattern of cutting and running."

When Mr. Murtha was asked on Sunday for his reaction to Mr. Rove's remarks, he said: "He's making a political speech. He's sitting in his air-conditioned office on his big, fat backside saying, 'Stay the course.' That's not a plan."