For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 15, 2003
Press Briefing by Scott McClellan
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
12:38 P.M. EDT
MR. McCLELLAN: Good afternoon. The President had his usual
intelligence briefings this morning. Following that, the President was
pleased to welcome Prime Minister Spidla of the Czech Republic to the
White House this morning. The President expressed his strong
appreciation for Prime Minister Spidla's leadership and support. The
Czech Republic is a close friend and NATO ally. The two leaders
discussed a number of issues, including Iraq and trans-Atlantic
relations.
The President also met with Secretary Powell earlier this morning.
That was one of the regularly scheduled meetings he has with the
Secretary.
This afternoon, the President will meet with some bipartisan
bicameral congressional leaders to discuss the progress we are making
to pass meaningful Medicare reform and get seniors the long awaited
prescription drug coverage that they deserve. The President believes
we are on the verge of providing our nation's seniors with more choices
and better benefits so they can choose the care that best meets their
individual needs, similar to the kinds of choices and benefits the
members of Congress already enjoy.
So the President is working closely with congressional leaders as
they go into conference committee, so that they can resolve their
differences and get this done as quickly as possible and achieve an
important victory for our nation's seniors.
This afternoon, the Director of the OMB, Josh Bolten, will hold a
press briefing at 2:30 p.m. to discuss the mid-session review for the
fiscal year 2003 budget.
And with that, let's get started.
Q I'd like to ask you a question that you can draw on your vast
previous experience here, before joining the White House. You
successfully ran four political campaigns. Would you want to be
entering an election year running on a $455 billion deficit?
MR. McCLELLAN: John, I'm glad you brought that question up --
(laughter) -- because it gives us an opportunity to lay out and remind
the American people the situation that we are in. We have a deficit
that is a concern, but it is a manageable one and we are working to
address it.
The President's highest priorities will always be winning the war
on terrorism, protecting the American people, and getting our economy
growing stronger and faster. And that's where his focus is.
Now, we had a recession. We also had declining revenues because of
that. And we had a war on terrorism. That's what led to the deficit
that we are in today. And the way we get out of that deficit is to
continue to get our economy growing and create jobs, and that's why the
President has acted on a jobs and growth plan, not only this year, but
in previous years, as well.
And we also need to hold the line on spending. And that's what
we're working to do with Congress. The President's budget holds
growth in discretionary spending to below 4 percent because he
believes government spending should not grow faster than family
income.
So this is an important issue that we are working to address. And
over the next few years, what you're going to see is that we're going
to cut that deficit in half based on the projections that are being
outlined later today. But as a percent of GDP, the deficit is
currently at 4.2 percent. That's well below the 1983 peak modern day
deficit of 6 percent. It's also the same, or smaller, than deficits
following similar recessions. So these deficits right now are not hurting
or harming our economy as interest rates remain at 45-year lows.
Q So you had a $450 billion -- $455 billion deficit this year,
$475 billion next year. It seems, clearly, that's a political
liability heading into an election.
MR. McCLELLAN: And then you look at the economic forecast, as
well, that our economy is expected to be growing a lot stronger in the
coming years, beginning next year.
Q Is it not, clearly, a political liability going into an
election year?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I think the American people recognize that the
President has taken decisive steps to create an environment for job
creation and economic growth, that the President is focused on creating
jobs. We had a recession and people are looking for work. And as long
as there's one person looking for work, the President is going to
remain concerned and going to remain focused on what's most important,
which is getting our economy growing.
Now, at the same time, addressing the deficit is a priority, and
we are doing that. And we have been very clear with the American
people about why we are in the situation we are in. But, again, the
fundamentals, lower taxes, a positive outcome in Iraq, strong housing
markets, record low interest rates, renewed consumer confidence and low
inflation have put things in place for a strong recovery in job
growth.
Q Scott, on this Iraq-Niger situation, why is it that the
President made the comment yesterday that doubts were only raised about
the underlying intelligence behind that statement after the State of
the Union address, when other administration officials and other
evidence suggests that's not true?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, when it came to our attention, when it came
to the President's attention was when the IAEA came out in March with
the report showing that those documents relating to Niger were forged.
And that was only one part of the overall piece of information that was
cited.
Q But doubts were raised clear back to the previous --
MR. McCLELLAN: But go back to the NIE, and in the NIE it stated
that Iraq was trying to seek uranium from Africa. And I think that we
have addressed this issue. We have made it clear that that statement
should not have been in the speech, and if the CIA had said, take it
out, we would have taken it out.
But let's put this in perspective. This issue here relates to the
threat that Saddam Hussein and his regime posed to the region, to his
people and to the world. And the statement in the State of the Union
was one piece of one part of a much larger body of evidence that --
Q Right, but that's not -- the question I'm dealing with has to
do with --
MR. McCLELLAN: -- related to the regime's weapons of mass
destruction and the threat that the regime posed; not only that it had
weapons, but it has past history.
Q I'll ask a question about that in just a second. The point
is, the President said doubts were only raised after the State of the
Union address -- and that's not accurate. Why did he say that?
MR. McCLELLAN: And it was laid out previously. I think we've
addressed this. We've addressed this over the last couple of days,
about the timing of when we found out that those -- that the documents
were forged.
Q But learning about the forgeries was one piece of this. But
doubts about the intelligence were raised last year.
MR. McCLELLAN: The bottom line is that we should not have put that
line in the speech, and we've made that clear.
Q Yesterday, as a follow-up, your predecessor said it was "a
bunch of bull" to suggest that Iraq's nuclear program was central to
the case for war. Isn't that a statement that is at odds with the
President's State of the Union remarks, and, indeed, the very
congressional resolution that he fought to have passed, which was, in
essence, the imminence of Iraq's nuclear weapons program was why this
nation needed to act when it did?
MR. McCLELLAN: Wait a second. That was one part of the overall
body of evidence that I talked about. And it is nonsense to suggest
that there was any political reason behind those statements.
Iraq -- there is a lot of evidence showing that Iraq was
reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. We outlined that evidence
both going back, you know, October and previously, and even in later
months, more recent months.
But the threat was established by Iraq's use of chemical weapons,
not only that they had them, but that they had used them in the past;
by UNSCOM's final report in 1999, which documented that thousands of
chemical and biological weapons remained unaccounted for; and by Saddam
Hussein's active defiance of the international community, and continued
defiance, including the well-documented fact that Iraq never fully and
completely cooperated with UN inspectors.
Q You're not disputing the notion that central to the argument
for going to war was the threat posed by Iraq's nuclear program?
MR. McCLELLAN: That was one part of a large body of evidence about
why. You go back --
Q It was more than one part.
MR. McCLELLAN: The reconstituting of nuclear weapons? That was
one part. That was one part of the larger body of evidence. I think I
just laid out the other parts. And if you go back to the President's
own remarks, remember, we can't forget the vivid and tragic attacks of
September 11th. The horrific attacks of September 11th brought to
light in a very vivid way the threats of the 21st century. And the
Iraq threat became even more real when we started looking at it through
the lens of a post-9/11 world. But that threat goes back well before
that.
Q Scott, on the same subject. Today, the ranking Democrat on
the Senate Intelligence Committee sort of took the gloves off on this
issue. He said on the Senate floor that this statement was not a
mistake, that it was a deliberate effort to create a false impression.
What's your --
MR. McCLELLAN: I think that's just nonsense. We've addressed this
over the last few days. And it's just nonsense, and for the reasons I
just stated. Go back to the President['s remarks in October. He
talked about, and I quote, "the Iraqi regime," 11 years ago, as a
condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, "the Iraqi regime was
required to destroy weapons of mass destruction, to cease all
development of such weapons and to stop all support for terrorist
groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It
possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking
nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism and
practices terrorism against its own people."
The entire world witnessed this history of defiance, deception and
bad faith for 12 years. So we laid it out very clearly, and the case
was very solid, about the threat that was presented, particularly in
light of September 11th.
Q How close are you to a decision on the Liberian
peacekeepers? Have you heard back from the assessment teams?
MR. McCLELLAN: We continue to wait on a full assessment and a full
outline of the facts from the assessment team. The President has made
it clear that if there's a need to help, we want to help. And we want
to help by participating with ECOWAS. So we are continuing to wait on
the facts and assess the situation. And then we will have more to say
at that point.
Q Scott, on that topic, the assessment teams tell reporters in
Liberia that they have quite a comprehensive understanding of the
situation. Given that this is a precarious situation, where time is of
the essence, why is the decision taking so long on this end?
MR. McCLELLAN: We need to know all the facts. And I think that we
are moving quickly to assess those facts. And we'll move as quickly as
we can, but you can't make the decision until you have all the facts
before you and you know what the decision might entail.
Q What facts are you waiting for? What categories are you
still waiting for? Because the assessment teams feel like they've done
their job.
MR. McCLELLAN: They've been on the ground, and those -- that
information will be coming back to us. And once we are able to look at
that information, then we'll be able to make a decision at that point.
Q On that same subject, aren't we just a little afraid of
getting back into Africa after what happened the last time American
peacekeepers were there in Somalia? I mean, let's be straight with the
American people, the reason we're taking our good, sweet time about
this is, we're worried.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the President wants to make sure that we
understand the full facts of the situation and understand how we can
best contribute to help make sure that this cease-fire takes hold.
That's what we're focused on. And, yes, he's been very clear with the
American people about where we are and what is under consideration at
this point. And he is taking into consideration a number of issues as
we move forward.
Q Two quick questions, one on Iraq. When the President said of
Saddam Hussein, we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in and he
wouldn't let them in, why didn't he say that, when the inspectors went
into Iraq?
MR. McCLELLAN: What he was referring to was the fact that Saddam
Hussein was not complying with 1441, that he continued his past pattern
and refused to comply with Resolution 1441 of the United Nations
Security Council, which was his final opportunity to comply. And the
fact that he was trying to thwart the inspectors every step of the way,
and keep them from doing their job. So that's what he's referring to
in that statement.
Q But that isn't what he said.
Q Just quickly on a different subject, on North Korea. William
Perry told The Washington Post today that, we're losing control over
the situation with North Korea and that the country poses a danger,
there's a danger of nuclear weapons being detonated in American
cities. Somebody who obviously knows the situation quite well.
Given the new information that you have about what North Korea's
claims are, what are you going to do, in terms of changing the policy
towards North Korea?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, keep in mind that last fall, North Korea
admitted that they had a covert nuclear weapons program. So it was
through their own actions that they have been isolating themselves.
But I would remind you that this is not 1994 and that that is why
we insist on an irreversible end to North Korea's nuclear weapons
program. That is why we are addressing this in a multilateral way.
What we seek is a diplomatic solution working with our friends and
allies, working with the countries in the region. China is a country
that recognizes that a nuclearized peninsula serves no one's interest;
they don't want to see a nuclearized peninsula and they've been helpful
in this.
So we're continuing to work in a multilateral way to address this.
But what we won't do is let North Korea blackmail us. We've been very
clear on that point.
Q -- have been saying and others have been saying is that the
multilateral approach just isn't working and, while you have been
working to get other countries to pressure them, North Korea has just
been working toward the point where they're ready to make more nuclear
weapons.
MR. McCLELLAN: North Korea continues to face two clear choices:
they can continue isolating themselves by their own actions and own
words; or they can be open to ending its nuclear weapons program and
participating in multilateral talks to move forward and realize the
benefits that could be offered them in the international community.
But they must end, irreversibly, their pursuit of nuclear weapons. So
we will continue working closely with our friends and allies in the
region.
Q Can I follow-up on that? On North Korea, you said earlier
this morning that the U.S. has not been able to confirm the activities
that the North Koreans have claimed. How can the public have
confidence in the President's desire to keep nuclear weapons out of the
hands of rogue operators when we can't even figure out what is going
on, on the ground in North Korea?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, what we are currently doing is what -- and what
I said earlier -- is that we're evaluating those claims. Obviously,
I'm not in a position to get into any intelligence matters, and I won't
discuss those from this podium. But we are looking at the matter. You
know, North Korea has made a lot of claims in the past, some true, some
not true. So we want to evaluate their statements.
But the bottom line remains that reprocessing is a serious concern,
and it's something that we will work to address. We seek a diplomatic
solution. But as we move forward, we will remain in close contact with
South Korea, Japan, China and others to address this and find a
solution.
Q Two on Iraq. First of all, when you mentioned -- when the
President mentioned that the concerns about the intelligence came after
the speech, did anyone -- was the President aware that the CIA had
taken the reference to Niger out of his October speech?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I think that these issues have been
addressed. Those issues have been raised. The reference in the
October speech was specific to amount. You are correct. But it was a
different -- it was, as Ari pointed out yesterday, apples and oranges.
This has been addressed. The bigger picture goes back to the threat
that Saddam Hussein posed and why we took the action that we took.
Q You had Niger taken out in October, and you had Niger was
piece of what was talked about in January. So was the President
unaware of the fact that in October a reference to African uranium --
in this case, specifically Niger -- had been deleted?
MR. McCLELLAN: The President was focused on establishing the case
and we went back as a staff working throughout the administration of
gathering those facts that made the case. And the case is solid. We
can go back through this, but the bottom line is, we have made it very
clear this should not have been in the State of the Union. That
doesn't mean, with or without the evidence that -- or with or without
that statement that the over-arching body of evidence -- I mean, that
is still a solid case and a solid reason of why we went to war in
Iraq.
Q But was the President aware that this information had been
deleted in October?
MR. McCLELLAN: This had nothing to do with -- this did not -- this
statement, in and of itself, was not a reason we went to war.
Q Yes, I understand that. But was the President aware that
this had been deleted from the October speech, which was an early sign
that the intelligence was sketchy?
MR. McCLELLAN: This has all been addressed over the last few
days.
Q This question hasn't been addressed --
MR. McCLELLAN: I mean, I think these statements --
Q No, not this question.
MR. McCLELLAN: All these statements have continued to come up.
Q All right, secondly on Iraq, I understand that Condoleezza
Rice has taken the position that because the speech specifically said
British authorities have this information, that that made it
technically correct. But the CIA had encouraged British authorities
not to include this information in their dossier. So why was it okay
to cite a British report that the CIA had tried to change and tried to
--
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, first of all, the CIA, going back to October,
they did say, take it out. We took it out. If the CIA had said in the
State of the Union, which was a different -- let me remind you, I'll
remind you, it was a different -- it was based on some different
sourcing, and based on the national intelligence estimate, which was
coming out during the drafting of the October speech. If the CIA had
said, take it out of the State of the Union speech, it would have been
taken out, just like it was -- or just like the other statement was in
the Cincinnati speech.
Q But I guess --
MR. McCLELLAN: But -- go ahead.
Q My question is, the CIA approved the sentence as it
attributed this information to the British dossier. But the CIA had
encouraged the British to take this information out of the British
dossier because they didn't feel like the intelligence was good. So it
seems like the sentence was purposely, carefully crafted to try to
avoid the fact that the CIA really didn't have a lot of confidence in
this information.
MR. McCLELLAN: No, keep in mind, we had a national intelligence
estimate which essentially was stating the same thing, that Iraq was
seeking uranium from Africa. The British also had additional sources,
and that's why they continued to believe that that statement is true,
that showed -- the additional sources -- the reasoning why they said
that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa.
And one more final point. The British information was published in
public documents. And so it made sense to reference that. But when
you look at back on it, it wasn't -- the issue continued to be -- it
wasn't specific enough for our purposes, after learning of the forged
documents, to rise to the level of a Presidential speech.
Q Scott, just one clarification on that, and then one more
thing about North Korea. A week after the State of the Union, the
Secretary of State looked over the same body of evidence and decided
that this was not sufficient to use in his presentation to the United
Nations. That leaves the impression that the White House was not as
careful as Secretary of State Powell in looking over the information
and making a judgement about what was appropriate.
MR. McCLELLAN: This is another issue, again. I mean, this has
been addressed. The Secretary addressed this, Condi addressed this,
talked about the national intelligence estimate, talked about the one
intelligence agency that did raise some concerns about it in the
national intelligence estimate. So it wasn't surprising by the steps
that he took.
Q He was also working with Director Tenet. He sat down with
him for a period of days.
MR. McCLELLAN: But this speech was circulated to, both within the
White House and to the appropriate agencies involved in this, from
State to DOD to CIA. And it was cleared. If the CIA had said, take
it out, it would have been taken out.
Q Okay, on North Korea, what is the administration's assessment
at this point of where North Korea is in the process of producing
nuclear weapons or fissile material?
MR. McCLELLAN: Some of that is asking me to get into intelligence
matters, which I won't do. But we -- well, North Korea has made a
number of statements. And I pointed that it, going back to last fall,
they admitted that they had a covert nuclear weapons program. They
continue to make additional claims, as well. It's something that we
take very seriously, that our intelligence community monitors and makes
the evaluations on, and that we discussed with our friends and allies
and with other countries in the region.
Q Well, officials quite often refer to published reports, and
published reports suggest that they have moved along further than we
anticipated. Are those published reports accurate?
MR. McCLELLAN: You'd have to tell me which specific published
reports you're referring to.
Q Suggesting that they have reprocessed more plutonium than had
been originally thought and that they're moving along rather briskly
toward the production of nuclear weapons.
MR. McCLELLAN: Are you talking about their claims? Because they
have publicly -- what North Korea has done, they have publicly claimed
that they were reprocessing. But now they have told us that they have
finished reprocessing.
Q I'm talking about what they're actually doing and what our
assessment is, based on public reports.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we're continuing to evaluate all their
statements. But, again, all the countries in the region, as well as
the United States, takes this matter very seriously.
Q Would you care to clarify at this point what the President
means when he says, we will not tolerate the production of nuclear
weapons?
MR. McCLELLAN: I don't think anybody in the region wants to
tolerate nuclear weapons. Everybody in the region is for a
non-nuclearized peninsula. And that's why we're all working together
to address this. And that's why we're seeking a diplomatic solution.
This is a strategy that we have been following for quite some time
now.
Q Scott, I wanted to ask you two questions on the Middle East,
please. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon will be visiting in Washington
soon. Has there been a date set for Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, not at this point. Again, the President has
stated that he would like for him to come visit, but there's no dates
announced at this point.
Q As you take over the podium, what is your assessment of the
situation in the Middle East?
MR. McCLELLAN: In the Middle East? It's the President's
assessment. We remain pleased with some of the progress that is being
made on the road map and to move towards two states living side-by-side
in peace and security. Ambassador Wolf continues to stay on top of
this in the region and work with the parties and make sure that we're
monitoring things and that the parties are continuing to talk with one
another so that we can keep this process moving forward.
But there are difficulties that remain, and there will be
difficulties ahead. But we are pleased with some of the steps that
have been taken recently.
Q Scott, back on Liberia. Following the meeting yesterday, the
Secretary General came out and at that point and since then has laid
out a scenario which he discussed with the President. It suggests that
things are already in motion regarding a decision with Liberia.
Has the President actually already signaled that we need to get
moving in certain areas? And how soon after the assessment is the
United States prepared to move?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think the President has already indicated
that. He wants to move as quickly as possible, but we need to have the
facts and we need to know what the assessment is.
What was the first part of your question, Ken?
Q The fact that Kofi Annan suggested that things are already in
motion. In other words, he's laid out a scenario for certain steps
that need to occur and at least the beginning of that process should
have already begun, if he's giving that to us accurately. My question
is whether or not the President does, in fact, have some things already
in motion regarding Liberia?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, we need to see the full facts before he can
reach final decisions on that matter.
Q Well, the assessment team is making it very clear that they
are prepared to report back, probably within hours or within days. Can
you tell us before the President leaves for --
MR. McCLELLAN: I don't want to try to put an arbitrary time line
on this. I mean, we want to see the assessment, we want to evaluate
the facts. And then the President will make decisions about how best
to proceed, how we can help to make sure that this cease-fire takes
hold. One thing is clear, though, that Charles Taylor needs to leave,
and the President made that very clear yesterday, as well. He also
brought that up in his discussions with Secretary Annan, Secretary
General Annan.
Q Scott, you said a couple of times already today that you
expect a deficit to be cut in half over the next couple of years. Can
you tell us what his functions are going into that, specifically
related to the war and what our level of involvement is going to be?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think I will let my colleague, Josh Bolten, go
into more detail on it. But, obviously, it's based on our projections,
and the economic forecast, and the need to control spending. We
believe that we will cut the deficit in half over the next few years.
It is a priority. It's something that we're working to address.
But what's most important is to continue focusing on creating jobs
and economic growth. And that's why the action that the President has
taken recently, where money is starting to get back into people's
pockets. And small businesses will realize benefits, as well, so that
they can create more jobs. And that's why that action has been so
important, because we need to address it two ways, through economic
growth, which will increase revenues, and controlling spending.
Q Follow-up to that, follow-up on that. What is the
President's assessment of the effect on the jobs market of his tax cut
package so far? And does he think that any other proposals are needed
to create jobs?
MR. McCLELLAN: At this point, no, we're not announcing anything
new or preparing to announce anything new in the near future.
Remember, this economic growth and jobs plan was just recently passed,
and the effects of it are just beginning to be realized now with the
change in withholding tables, with the child credit checks that will be
going out very soon and people will be receiving. So I think you'll
start seeing the impact of that.
And remember that the first, back in 2001, we were in a recession.
And it was one of the shallowest and shortest in history, and the
reason was partly because of the action we took to cut taxes and get
more money back into people's pockets. And that helped make it one of
the shortest and shallowest.
Q In February, you actually projected a lower deficit than you
are now. What confidence do you have that these numbers are going to
be accurate, that we're not going to even get into more of a deficit?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, I don't want to get too far ahead of
our briefer here, that you're going to have in a short amount of time
here, and he's going to go into a lot more detail about some of the
reasoning behind those projections. And bottom line is it remains a
concern, but it's a very manageable one because of the steps that we
are taking and because of the economic forecast and what we're doing
with Congress to hold the line on spending. And it's a reminder to
Congress, as well, of the need to hold the line on spending.
Q I just have my own quick question, but first I want to
clarify what you said to Dana. Basically, are you -- on the
inspections in Iraq, are you clarifying that, or saying that, or
conceding that he mis-spoke?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, what I was saying was that he was referring to
the fact that he was trying to keep the inspectors from doing their
job. Saddam Hussein was not complying with Resolution 1441. He would
not let them do their job. So that's not --
Q -- possible, but people mis-speak all the time. It's
possible that he did mis-speak.
MR. McCLELLAN: It's what I've said. I've addressed this two or
three times now.
Q On the deficit, the President often meets with foreign
leaders and reporters often have questions for him and they go either
the top of the bottom of the meeting. Is the reason they're not doing
it today, is it
safe to assume that you don't want the President talking about the
deficit today?
MR. McCLELLAN: Are you talking about the Medicare meeting?
Q No, why he didn't take questions with the Czech Prime
Minister.
MR. McCLELLAN: It was still photographers. There are different
ways we do all these. This was scheduled previously. I don't connect
the two at all, and I don't think you should, either. If you want to,
that's fine, but I wouldn't do that.
Q First of all, again, congratulations for the first briefing
as press secretary.
MR. McCLELLAN: Thank you. I'm still here.
Q Going back to Iraq. Yesterday, when Kofi Annan, Secretary
General of the United Nations, met with the President here in the Oval
Office, I'm sure that they must have discussed Iraq and peacekeeping
forces there. Now India has decided that India will not send any
peacekeeping forces to Iraq at this time. If President is in touch
with the Indian authorities or anybody else?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry, what was the question?
Q If the President is in touch with Indian Prime Minister or
anybody there, why India has decided not to --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we have been in touch with India. We've been
in touch with a number of countries. Obviously, each country has to
come to its own decision and make the decisions based on its own
domestic considerations. I would remind you that there are already 19
countries committed to be part of the stabilization force in Iraq. We
continue to talk with many others about participation, as well. It
remains our hope, over time, that India will be able to join this
effort, too.
Sara.
Q Thank you.
Q Do you know --
MR. McCLELLAN: Sara.
Q Do you know --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, Sara.
Q Do you know --
MR. McCLELLAN: Is your name Sara? (Laughter.)
Q Thank you, and welcome. My question is on North Korea. You
have answered most of my question, but will the President consider
bilateral talks with North Korea?
MR. McCLELLAN: We are pursuing this in a multilateral way; we've
made that very clear, that we seek a diplomatic solution. We're
willing to talk, but not until North Korea makes clear that they're
ending their nuclear weapons program in an irreversible way, as well.
So there's a lot, and I think I addressed some of this earlier, but
we are pursuing a multilateral approach and that's the approach we will
continue to pursue.
Q On the budget, you said that the deficit is really no harm to
the economy, and then you later say that addressing it is a definite
priority. If it's not doing any harm, why does the administration feel
it needs to be addressed?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, right now -- and the reasons I cite that is
because interest rates are at 45-year lows. And I also point out the
fundamentals are in place for a recovery and job growth. It's
something that you have to continue to monitor over time. But right
now it is not.
Q Okay. But it could turn into a problem in the future, or
near future?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, if Congress goes and starts spending a lot
more than they should be, not holding the line on spending, sure, that
could become a problem. But that's why we're working to address it and
that's why we're addressing it in those two ways -- getting the economy
growing, holding the line on spending.
Q One more thing, if I may. You had a laundry list, basically,
about what has contributed to the deficit, and you didn't include the
tax cuts in there. Was that an oversight?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, no. Again, there's going to be a full briefing
on there. But, clearly, it was, you know, the slower economic recovery
and weak stock market that caused revenues to decline, which explains
the biggest change that you'll see in our budget position -- followed
by cost of war and the economic growth plan.
But, I point out, if there had been no tax cuts in 2001, 2002,
2003, the budget would still be in triple deficits today.
Q Would it be as bad?
MR. McCLELLAN: I promised Connie. She was looking at me. She's
been patient. You can be patient, as well. I'm not going anywhere.
Q Thank you, Scott, for going by topics rather than seats,
rows, too. That is very helpful. On North Korea, one other, you're
not saying what will happen. Secretary Perry, in his interview, said
that the countries might drift into war. What will happen if North
Korea does not reverse its nuclear program?
MR. McCLELLAN: That's getting into a speculative question at this
point. What we have made very clear is that they must end their
pursuit of nuclear weapons. They must end their nuclear weapons
program and do so irreversibly and irrevocably. And we have to work
this in a multilateral way. This is a situation that we are pursuing
in a diplomatic way.
Obviously, you never take any options off the table, but we seek a
diplomatic solution. We continue to talk with our friends and allies.
We continue to talk with the countries in the region of how best to
proceed and how to remind North Korea that all they are doing is
further isolating themselves with the actions they are taking and with
the statements that they are making; and that there is an opportunity
for North Korea, if they'll end their nuclear weapons program, to have
talks with the international community, have multilateral talks and
start to realize some of the help that can come if they want to become
a participating member of that international community.
Q Still on Iraq. In terms of the broad coalition that the
President spoke of before the war -- that was very strong support in
the United States, so far seems that there is no broad coalition of
support in what's going on in Iraq. And my question to you is, is the
President worried that he's losing credibility around the world,
because this kind of uranium from Africa and do you --
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry, the -- oh, okay, go ahead.
Q And do you think that which countries in the same coalition
that support President Bush before the war is going to be ready to help
in the situation in Iraq right now?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry, the last part?
Q Which countries in that same coalition that supported
President Bush before the war are ready to help?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I mentioned that there are some 19 countries
that are already participating and helping. I think you can talk to
the coalition provisional authority about some of those more specifics
and some of the ones that we're talking to, as well.
The first part of your question -- let me be very clear. We've
addressed this in a very straightforward manner. The reference you
made, we've said that that statement should not have been put in the
speech. And I think the American people accept that fact. The reason
why is because they realize -- the President was very clear in
outlining the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and the risk that he
posed.
And when you look at that threat through post-September 11 lens, it
becomes even more real. And the reason we acted was for a number of
factors. There was a lot of evidence there, unaccounted stockpiles of
chemical and biological weapons, a long history of defiance, deception
and trying to deceive. His support for terrorists.
Q The world is still waiting for the evidence to be presented
about the link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. And so far there
is no biological weapon, no chemical weapons and no links between
terrorism and Saddam Hussein. So when the world is going to see the
evidence?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I disagree. There is some evidence that has
already come forward and we're continuing to, with the help of David
Kaye and the Iraq survey group, pursue this issue and learn more about
his weapons of mass destruction program. But there are already two
mobile biological weapons labs, I remind you, that have been
discovered. There was a nuclear scientist who had buried materials and
documents that could be used to begin a program.
So the evidence -- there is already evidence coming forward, and we
continue to pursue the rest of it, and we're confident that we will
find the full extent of his weapons of mass destruction program and his
weapons of mass destruction.
Q Scott, you opened this a second ago, let me just pursue it.
You said that, a minute ago, that even without the tax cut, it will
still be a triple digit deficit. What does your little research note
say that deficit would be without the tax cut?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, there's going to be a full book, or
full report presented to you, as well.
Q Do you have the numbers?
MR. McCLELLAN: But I might let -- I'm going to let the OMB
Director spell out the specific numbers more thoroughly. That's what
the briefing was set up for, for today.
Q Do you have a calculation of what the deficit would be, minus
the tax cut?
MR. McCLELLAN: Some of the numbers, as you know, have already been
kind of circulating out, so I wanted to -- I just wanted to put this in
context and -- I wanted to put this in context for you a little bit
because there are some numbers circulating out there, and make sure you
understand that point. I think that the OMB Director will go into more
detail so you can better understand.
Q Is one of those numbers what the deficit would be without the
tax cut?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?
Q Is one of those numbers where the deficit would be without
the tax cut?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think he'll go into those numbers. Yes, so I do
expect him to.
Q Scott, Scott, Scott, please.
MR. McCLELLAN: Is this on the deficit?
Q No, but has there been a change --
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm coming.
Q -- It's been four times here.
MR. McCLELLAN: I know, but let's stay on this one subject. I'm
coming to you, Les, I promise.
Q On the deficit, the other side of the coin is the state
deficit, and as you know, state budgets are reeling with lack of
funding. Is the administration at all concerned that the budget
shortfall on the state side is going to adversely affect the U.S.
economy, as well as cut possibly in half the stimulative effect of the
federal tax cuts and make it difficult, if not virtually impossible, to
carry out federal mandates in terms of leave no child behind, Medicaid
assistance, and cutting back on Medicaid recipients?
MR. McCLELLAN: What's going to help states is getting our economy
growing stronger, getting our economy growing faster. That's going to
create more revenues. That's going to help states and get more people
back to work, as well.
Q But as you know, one of the fundamentals you mentioned was a
strong housing market. And the flip side of that is it means higher
property taxes. Many people on the state level, the local level, are
complaining that, yes, they might be receiving a less of a tax burden
on the federal side, but it's being practically wiped out on the state
and local side.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, states have to make decisions just like we do
at the federal level, as well. But what's going to help states is
getting this economy growing, getting more revenues coming in.
Q I'm at long last able to welcome you. Scott, the NAACP
President, Kweisi Mfume -- I have a two-part -- has bitterly denounced
Senator Lieberman and Congressman Kucinich and Gephardt for their
refusal to attend the NAACP convention in Miami Beach, where Julian
Bond last year compared American conservatives to the Taliban, and this
year, said, "Republicans appeal to the dark underside of American
culture."
And my question, since the President also refused to attend this
annual convention, he doesn't believe these three members of Congress
deserve to be so pilloried, does he, Scott?
MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know I agree with some of your
characterization within there. And, frankly, I didn't hear the
specific comments that were made about these individuals.
Q Page one of the Washington Times. Page one. You have no
comment?
MR. McCLELLAN: I saw the reports. But what's your question?
Q Well, the President doesn't believe these Congressmen should
be pilloried like that, does he? He's not going.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the President focuses on what brings us
together. He's an inclusive leader. And he's going to keep focusing
on what can bring us together, not things that might divide us or
separate us. And he's going to continue reaching out to people from
all walks of life.
Q On July the 4th, Chairman Elijah Cummings of the
Congressional Black Caucus, in a tape-recorded interview, said he hoped
the President would speak out on both historical slavery, as well as
black slavery today in Sudan, which he said is atrocious.
But in the President's speech on Goree Island, he said not one word
about today's black slaves. But, instead, said, Christian men and
women wind to the clearest command of their faith, added hypocrisy to
injustice, which indicts a number of Texans. How does the President
believe it is not hypocritical to denounce historic slavery while
ignoring thousands of black slaves in the neighboring country of
Mauritania?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think the President's Goree Island remarks were
very clear, and he spoke very clearly, and he --
Q No mention of slavery today.
MR. McCLELLAN: And his visit to Africa was a very successful
visit. It's a great continent of possibilities, like he talked about.
Q No mention of slavery today, as Elijah Cummings asked.
MR. McCLELLAN: Let's go back here.
Q On Liberia, Charles Taylor yesterday said on Fox News that
his leaving would require a major nation rebuilding effort, maybe 10
years, 5,000 U.S. troops. Is there any White House reaction on that?
MR. McCLELLAN: We've made clear that Charles Taylor needs to
leave. We've made that very clear. I want to wait until we have an
opportunity to evaluate all the facts and have an assessment, and then
we will be able to say more at that point when decisions are made, and
explain why those decisions were reached.
Q Thank you.
MR. McCLELLAN: Thank you.
END 1:23 P.M. EDT
|