For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
September 26, 2003
Press Briefing by Scott McClellan
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
12:36 P.M. EDT
MR. McCLELLAN: Good Friday afternoon. It looks like Friday here,
a few seats missing.
A couple of things I'd like readout first. The President met with
President Duarte of Paraguay earlier today. The two leaders discussed
a range of issues relating to our bilateral relationship. The
President praised President Duarte's strong leadership and his efforts
to reform the democratic and economic institutions in Paraguay. They
also discussed our close cooperation in the war on terrorism, Paraguay
is a strong ally.
Later today, the President looks forward to welcoming President
Putin to Camp David. The President believes this is an opportunity to
continue to focus on ways to broaden cooperation between the United
States and Russia, as we work in partnership to address shared
challenges. The two leaders tomorrow -- this evening and tomorrow will
discuss a range of bilateral and international issues, including Iran,
combatting terrorism, preventing the spread of weapons of mass
destruction, the greater Middle East and Iraq reconstruction.
And with that, I'll go right into questions.
Q Scott, did Ambassador Bremer talk to the President about the
resistance in Congress to the $20 billion in reconstruction in Iraq?
Some members are concerned that some of this money is -- I won't say
"frivolous," but unnecessary and that when the administration is trying
to hold down spending and basically a big deficit, that it might not be
necessary?
MR. McCLELLAN: A couple of things. The President did have a visit
with Ambassador Bremer earlier today, to talk about the progress we
were making in Iraq and our reconstruction efforts.
The wartime supplemental that you're referencing is critical to
prevailing, to the United States prevailing in the central front in the
war on terrorism, and building a better future for the Iraqi people. A
free, sovereign and democratic Iraq will help bring about peace and
stability in a very volatile region -- that is the Middle East, that
has been a breeding ground for terrorism, that has spawned terrorism.
And so what we are trying to do there, both in terms of establish
better security and move forward on reconstruction that will bring
about a better future for the Iraqi people, is critical to the overall
war on terrorism.
Q Did they talk about the mood in Congress? Did they talk
about, even that some Republicans are leery about this?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I'm not going to get into specifics, this
was in a meeting that I'm reading out today. But they did discuss the
Iraq reconstruction and the importance of this wartime supplemental.
Q Well, aside from the meeting, no one disputes the notions
that you just laid out, that it's important that Iraq be
reconstructed. But a number of Republicans are suggesting that any
money that goes for that should be in the form of loan guarantees,
rather than U.S. taxpayers paying for it. What's the White House view
on that?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we put forward a package as a supplemental.
And we believe that this is the right approach to take to help us
prevail in this front on the war on terrorism. Obviously, there is a
congressional process. So we are continuing to work closely with
Congress. But we believe the approach that we are taking is the right
approach to take.
Q Well, yes, but why? Why do you think it's the right
approach?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we've put forward both -- this entire package
should be viewed as one package for helping us in this central front.
Q What's wrong with the idea of loan guarantees?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, as I said, there is a congressional process.
We, obviously, work very closely with Congress as it moves through that
process. But we believe that the package we have put forward, the
entire package should be in the form of a supplemental that goes to
bring about civility and stability in Iraq for the reasons I've already
stated.
Q But does the administration inherently oppose the idea of
loan guarantees? Are you saying you're open to working with Congress
on that?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm saying that we recognize there is a
congressional process. As this moves through the legislative process,
we will work closely with Congress, as we have been. We've had
administration officials up on the Hill all week, talking about the
supplemental and the importance of passing this quickly. And we'll
continue to work with Congress as we do that.
Q You make it sound like you're open on this question.
MR. McCLELLAN: What I'm saying is that we're continuing to fight
for the package as we outlined it and as we presented it to Congress.
But, obviously, we recognize this is a process where we work together
on it.
Q Scott, there's a new Census Bureau report that says 1.7
million people slid into poverty last year. Is the President surprised
by these numbers?
MR. McCLELLAN: Steve, a couple things. I think, one, that the
numbers do reflect the economic slowdown that we have been through and
the unemployment situation. Unemployment is a lagging indicator. But
let me remind you that the action that we have taken to boost the
economy and to create jobs is essential to turning this around.
We have also worked on a number of fronts, besides putting forward
the economic packages that we have, to create an environment for job
growth. We have also worked on a number of initiatives to build upon
the successes we have made in moving people from welfare to work. We
have worked to expand home ownership for low-income Americans so that
more Americans can realize the American Dream and participate in what
the President refers to as an ownership society. We've also pursued
historic education reforms to improve the quality of education, which I
think is key in the long-run as well. We've worked to reach out to
faith-based groups. We passed a child tax credit to increase the child
tax credit for families.
Q He's asking about jobs, jobs. Not home ownership -- jobs,
more jobs in this country.
MR. McCLELLAN: And I just addressed that. The President --
Q Are you saying there are going to be more jobs?
MR. McCLELLAN: If you look at the latest indicators on GDP, which
were revised today, you see that the economy continues to grow and it
continues to pick up, grow stronger.
Q And will there be more jobs?
MR. McCLELLAN: So the economy is moving in the right direction.
And unemployment is always a lagging indicator, particularly when you
have high productivity --
Q How far is it lagging?
MR. McCLELLAN: -- which the President has talked about. But,
remember, when you're coming out of recession, like we did, when the
President inherited it -- and he acted to make it one of the shallowest
and shortest in history -- you see unemployment as a lagging
indicator. But there are a lot of other positive signs about the way
the economy is --
Q Well, what do you think that --
MR. McCLELLAN: -- there are a lot of other positive signs about
the way the economy is moving. But the President is not satisfied as
long as people who are looking for work cannot find a job when they're
looking for it.
Q We understand that, but I want to know --
MR. McCLELLAN: And that's why there's more that we can do, and
that's why the President has continued to press for additional action
on the economic front.
Q When do you think there will be more jobs?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think economists have talked about as the
economy continues to pick up steam and grow at a faster rate, then you
will see more job creation come into the mix. But it's important to
create the conditions for job growth, and that's why the President
continues to say there's more that we need to do. We need to work to
pass a comprehensive energy plan. That's important not only to our
national security, but our economic security. We need to move forward
and make the tax cuts permanent. That provides certainty for people,
so that they can plan. And it's important that we make those tax cuts
permanent.
We need to work to --
Q It hasn't had any effect yet.
MR. McCLELLAN: Let me finish, Helen. We need to work to expand
trade and make sure that there's a level playing field for our
manufacturers, and that's what the President has been working on. We
also need to work to streamline regulations. We need to pass lawsuit
reform. There are a number of steps that we can continue to work on to
make the economy grow even faster and create a environment for job
creation.
Q Scott, to follow on that, one of the central and longest
lasting arguments for tax cuts, going back to the first big package in
2001, is that cutting taxes would create jobs. Clearly, that hasn't
happened, indeed, the economy continues to shed jobs, even as -- even
as various indicators are undeniably moving in a positive direction.
Is the President wrong to suggest that job creation would happen? And
--
MR. McCLELLAN: I think we've pointed out that there would have
been additional 1.3 or 1.4 million people would have been without a job
if we hadn't taken the action we did. The first thing you've got to do
is turn the economy around. The President acted, he led, and he acted
and we passed those tax cuts to get more money back into people's
pockets so they can spend it on a good or service. The economy is
growing. And when that -- the unemployment is a lagging indicator. As
I said, that's going to come along, and as the economy picks up even
more steam, the economists will tell you then that creates an
environment for job creation.
Q Is he concerned about --
MR. McCLELLAN: When people have more certainty, then they can
plan, they can invest and so forth.
Q A growing number of economists on Wall Street, who study this
for a living, say that it appears that we may be undergoing a
fundamental change in the American work force, and that we may have a
recovery. But because of increased productivity those jobs may be
going away and going away for good.
MR. McCLELLAN: That's something the President has talked about
often, about the high productivity rate and why we need to get -- why
we needed -- why unemployment has been lagging because of that high
productivity rate, and because of the direction our economy is going.
But that's also why he will continue to emphasize there's more that we
can do to improve our economic security. And that's why he will
continue acting on those fronts, as well.
Q Scott, back to the Iraq package, which you have said several
times now is critical to the war on terror and America's security. Is
improving the Iraqi mail system critical to the war on terror?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, let me give you a little bit of history
here. I think that if you look back at America, our Constitutional
Congress was organized in Philadelphia in 1775 to establish an
independent government. What was one of the first actions that they
worked to address? It was to deliver the mail. Because the postal
system that Congress created helped to bring the new nation together,
it helped support the growth of commerce, and it helped ensure a free
flow of ideas and information. So look back to our own history and you
can see how that's important to building the institutions necessary for
a democracy to succeed.
And let me point out that this was a country that had been under 30
years of neglect. This was a country that was under a brutal regime,
that was more interested in serving itself by building palaces than it
was in serving the Iraqi people. So 30 years of neglect. And you have
to make sure that the institutions are in place to bring about a civil
and orderly society. And so that's why this is important. And what
I've just said, that because when we have a free, sovereign, and
democratic Iraq, you will have more peace and stability in a very
volatile region.
Q I don't think you're going to get too many people denying
that mail is important. What I'm asking, though, is that you have no
qualms about asking Congress for $54 million of American money to
improve the Iraqi mail system at a time when, for example, the American
mail system is losing money hand over fist.
MR. McCLELLAN: There are a number of things within the package
that you point out, the $20 billion, that is part of the overall
package, and part of the reconstruction side. Again, the wartime
supplemental is important to make sure our troops have the resources
they need to finish the job and that they have a secure environment in
which to carry out their tasks. So it's important in that respect.
It's also important in the respect of bringing about civility and
stability in Iraq, doing it in an orderly fashion. Again, this was a
people that were under the oppressive, brutal regime of Saddam Hussein
for some 30 years. They didn't invest in the infrastructure. It's
important to build the institutions necessary for that democracy to be
-- democracy and peace to be lasting. And so that's why this package
is important, in that sense.
Q Scott, on May 11, 2001, General Wesley Clark told a Lincoln
Day dinner in Little Rock, "We've got the great team in office, Powell,
Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice and our President, George W. Bush. We need them
there." But General Clark also claims that on September 11, 2001, he
got a call from, "People around the White House" asking him to link
Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 attacks. And is there any truth in this
second claim? And I have a follow up.
MR. McCLELLAN: Les, we've already addressed your second part of
that question. The first part, I'm very aware of what was previously
said, but I'm not going to get into the middle of a primary between 10
people right now.
Q The President's father appointed Elaine Donnelly of the
Center for Military Readiness to the Defense Advisory Committee on
Women in the Services. Mrs. Donnelly asks why this latest President
Bush is allowing the continuation of the Clinton elimination of the
Department of Defense risk rule, which ordered that no women should be
placed in combat support units with significant risk of capture.
And my question, considering the Iraqi Army capture of three women
in the 507th Maintenance Company, as well as a woman Marine giving
birth on a warship near Kuwait this last May, why won't the President
restore the risk rule that Clinton eliminated? I want to know about
the President, not the Department of Defense -- the President.
MR. McCLELLAN: Les, I think the President views our men and women
in the Armed Forces as doing a very outstanding job in all that they
have done. I think if you have specifics about what the Defense
Department rules are, talk to the Department. Talk to the Department.
Q I want to know, why doesn't he want the risk rule --
MR. McCLELLAN: Talk to the Department of Defense.
Q -- that his father said was good?
Q Scott, last night on "Nightline," General Zinni did an
interview with Ted Koppel, his first since he left the administration.
And he had a couple criticisms, and I'd like to just go through just a
couple quickly to see if you can react to them. One, he suggested that
the run-up to this war in Iraq was similar to what happened in Vietnam
and the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. He said that the excuse of the Gulf
of Tonkin resolution was similar to the excuse of weapons of mass
destruction in the run up to this war.
And, secondly, he talked about plans that were made under the
Clinton administration in 1999. One plan, specifically called Desert
Crossing, which was a plan for Iraq's reconstruction, General Zinni
saying that that plan would have worked better than what the Bush
administration has done in Iraq, that he shouldn't have fired the army,
among other things, the Iraqi army. And for other reasons, his plan
would have been better. Can you respond to either of those?
MR. McCLELLAN: I reject the comparison there. But we are making
some important progress in Iraq. We are achieving successes. That's
why you see the desperation of attacks being carried out by remnants of
the former regime and foreign terrorists who continue to be in that
country. That's why our military continues to be on the offensive
there.
But, remember, we went to war in Iraq, and we accomplished it with
great speed. We accomplished it by removing a regime while doing
minimal damage to the country. It's a new -- a whole new way of
fighting a war, because of the technology and the precision and the
strength of our men and women in the Armed Forces. So I just -- I
reject the comparison there.
Q Which comparison?
MR. McCLELLAN: And we will continue -- we will continue now
working on the post-war efforts at reconstruction and stability. And
we have put forward clear objectives. We have also -- Ambassador
Bremer has put forward a seven step process toward giving Iraq back to
the Iraqi people so that they can have a sovereign and prosperous
future.
Q When you say, "I reject the comparison," just to be clear,
you're --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you were talking about Vietnam, and I just
totally reject that. This is the war on terrorism. This is the
central front now in the war on terrorism. This is the central front
now in the war on terrorism. And this is all part --
Q Well, how many -- on the war on terrorism --
MR. McCLELLAN: -- this is all part of the war on terrorism.
Q Is it not helpful for someone like General Zinni, someone of
his stature to be out there, saying these sorts of things?
MR. McCLELLAN: People have the right to express their opinions,
but I reject any comparison there.
Q Scott, if I could ask you a little bit about President
Putin's visit. Three times, by my count, the past meetings between
President Bush and President Putin, the issue of the weapon shipments
to Iran of nuclear technology have come up, starting first nearly two
years ago. In each one of these, the response has been a variant of
the same thing by the Russians: We're studying it and we'll let you
know. It does not now look as if they have changed their policy
despite new evidence, some of which you saw in the papers this morning,
that the Iranians accelerated their program.
At what point do we conclude that Russia is not actually a partner
in halting the spread of nuclear technology to Iran? And what does
this tell us about what you often celebrate as a great relationship
between the two presidents?
MR. McCLELLAN: There is a new a strategic relationship with Russia
that the two presidents have worked to develop. We are partnering in a
number of areas to address our shared challenges. I think when it
comes to Iran, the President made it very clear that that would be one
of the discussions we have with Russia during the meetings that will
take place here soon. I don't want to jump ahead of the meetings.
Obviously, that --
Q You've made that clear three times now and you're --
MR. McCLELLAN: I know. Obviously, there will be an opportunity
for the two leaders to talk to you all in the media and take questions,
and they'll have more -- then we can have more to talk about after this
meeting occurs.
But I think that you highlight a very important multilateral
success in this administration: the international community is coming
together, recognizing the seriousness of Iran's pursuit of nuclear
weapons. It's something that we have been talking about for quite a
while, and now you have the rest of the international community
recognizing it. You have the International and Atomic Energy Agency
stepping up their efforts and setting a firm deadline for Iran to
comply.
So it's an issue that is very serious. It's an issue that the
President will continue bringing up -- he brought it up with many of
the world leaders he met with. And he looks forward to visiting with
President Putin about it, as well.
Q Scott, if I could just follow David's question. I mean,
beyond the talk, is the administration prepared to offer any type of
incentives for Russia to give up this deal? I mean, whether or not
it's more information, more evidence or -- I mean, they stand to lose
$800 million with this -- economic incentives?
MR. McCLELLAN: I know we want to have the meeting here in this
room, but let's let the two leaders have the meeting, let them discuss
it and then we will have more to say about it after that.
Q Mr. Putin has also said that there are western companies that
are also involved in nuclear technology and the industry inside of
Iran. Is there a double standard here? Is the administration's
position that those companies should not be involved --
MR. McCLELLAN: The spread of weapons of mass destruction and WMD
technology and related materials is one of the most dangerous threats
we face in this 21st century. And that's why the President went to the
-- well, that's why the President put forward the proliferation
security initiative, where we're working closely with 11 nations to
interdict shipments using the existing legal authorities. That's why
he went to the United Nations and said, we need a new resolution to
address the spread of weapons of mass destruction and related materials
and technology.
And so we're calling on all nations to step up their efforts to
stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction. It's something that's
very important to the safety and security of the world in the 21st
century.
Q One more on that. There are a lot of reports recently about
how Putin has cracked down on freedoms within his own country --
freedom of the press and intimidating his opponents. Does the
President plan to raise that issue with Putin at all?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, if there's -- let's let the meeting
take place. I think they're going to discuss a range of issues. We'll
see what they discuss, and we'll have more to say about it --
Q Let me ask then --
MR. McCLELLAN: -- once the meeting has taken place. And we've
always made our views very well known.
Q But, more generally, does he feel constrained from talking
about that with Putin because we need Russia's help in the war on
terror?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, look, there are some difficult issues that the
President brings up from time to time with world leaders. And he is
certainly someone that recognizes there are times when we have some
disagreements. But he's not afraid to raise those issues.
Q Scott, going back to Iraq and the financing of Iraqi
reconstruction, as you know, there's a donors conference coming up next
month. What is your current expectation about what that conference is
likely to produce in the way of new aid?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we've been visiting with countries about ways
that they can provide financial assistance or provide troop support.
Those conversations are still ongoing. I would remind you that there
are some 30 nations already participating with troops in Iraq, and we
welcome that support. I think there's some positive indications from
other countries, as well, that haven't made those announcements
publicly.
So we're continuing to have discussions on that front. We're
continuing to have discussions about ways they can support the
reconstruction efforts with financial assistance. That conference is
what, still about a month off? We look forward to going to it and
talking with nations about -- more specifically about ways that they
can contribute.
But I don't want to put any handicaps on it at this stage. Let's
let that donors conference take place. Let's let the discussions --
Q Well, what --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, there are going to be a number of discussions
continuing between now and the donors conference. Secretary Powell has
continued to have meetings with world leaders up in New York since
early -- and the President had meetings earlier this week when he was
there. So we're continuing to pursue those efforts.
But the world has a stake in what is going on in Iraq because there
are enemies of the civilized world who are trying to spread chaos and
fear. We're trying to spread hope and peace. And the international
community has a very important role to play in this.
Q At one point -- excuse me --
MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, sorry.
Q I remember at one point the administration was talking about
generating as much as $50 billion out of that conference. Is that now
seen as unrealistic and scaled back?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I'm not putting any handicaps on it one way
or the other. We welcome all the support that we receive, and we'll be
talking more specifically with countries about ways that they can
contribute.
Q Scott, in the meeting this morning, did Ambassador Bremer
shed any light on the question of why weapons of mass destruction have
not yet been found in Iraq?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, Dr. Kaye is the one who's leading that
effort. I'm not going to get into further reading out that meeting,
other than to say they talked about the progress being made in Iraq and
the reconstruction efforts. That was really the focus of that
meeting. Dr. Kaye is the one who is leading the Iraq Survey Group --
Q -- find weapons.
MR. McCLELLAN: -- to present a full picture of what we know about
Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and his weapons of mass
destruction programs. So we'll have more on that on his schedule, on
his time frame.
Q Thank you. The abortion pill, RU-486 has claimed yet another
young woman's life. When might the President direct the FDA to ban the
dangerous drug and investigate the process by which it was given
expedited approval under the Clinton administration? Further, what do
you say to the parents of Holly Patterson, whose daughter took the drug
believing it to be safe?
MR. McCLELLAN: The President has always expressed his concern that
what's most important is the safety of women, and that continues to be
a priority for him. There are certain limitations, in terms of --
well, the FDA has some independent authority and they looked at this
issue previously to this administration. But the President's concern
is certainly the safety issue.
Q The FDA banned ephedra because a popular athlete died from
taking it. Why is this any less important or less critical?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, the President has expressed his concerns
about safety.
Q In practical, real terms, is the road map for peace now
dead? And, also, this is the period of the Jewish high holy days, is
the administration more concerned about terrorism at this particular
juncture?
MR. McCLELLAN: The President remains committed to moving forward
on the road map. The road map is the way forward to the President's
vision that he outlined of two states living side-by-side in peace and
security. So we remain committed to it.
What needs to happen, though, is that there needs to be a
Palestinian Prime Minister and cabinet that is empowered to crack down
on terrorism, that has a unified security structure. We've got to end
the terrorism. And that's the first step, that's the foundation for
moving forward on the road map. So we remain committed to working with
both parties; all parties have responsibilities to carry out under the
road map. Obviously, we've hit a difficult period here with the
resignation of Prime Minister Abbas, but we will continue to be
engaged, we have continued to be engaged in this important effort.
Q What about the Jewish high holy days and terrorism?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, there's no change in the current terrorism
alert level at this point.
Q On the Do Not Call legislation, I was wondering if you could
clarify? The President's intention is to sign this on Monday, but if
the judge's ruling isn't reversed, then what happens on October 1?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think that you will hear more from the FTC
later this afternoon about some legal steps that they may be pursuing.
You pointed out there were two different court cases. The legislation
specifically was in response to the Oklahoma ruling. It was a
different ruling in the Denver courts. But, you know, the President
strongly supported the Do Not Call List and he looks forward to signing
the legislation. We will also continue to pursue all appropriate legal
steps as we move forward.
People should have the right to prevent unwanted telemarketing
calls that are intrusive and annoying and all too common. I can relate
to people that receive intrusive, annoying, all too common calls.
(Laughter.)
Q Not from telemarketers. (Laughter.)
Q What about GOP fundraising calls, Scott? (Laughter.)
MR. McCLELLAN: You may do a follow up and then I'll come -- I'm
going to do a follow up with Paula, and then I'll come -- I didn't say
anybody specifically. I don't know what you're --
Q As far as appropriate legal steps, might that include some
form of regulation authorizing the FTC to establish the Do Not Call
List, so therefore it's --
MR. McCLELLAN: I think that may be jumping ahead of where things
are. Obviously, the legislation has passed, the President looks
forward to signing it. There are some 50 million phone numbers that
have been registered with the Do Not Call Registry. So there's -- it's
something that the President feels strongly about, that people should
have the right to do, if they don't want to receive those calls. So we
will continue pursuing all avenues on this, from the legal standpoint,
in terms of signing the legislation. I think there's a lot still being
reviewed about the court's decision in Denver, as well.
Q Scott, two questions, if I may. The first is, I believe you
said that the President did not directly ask any of the leaders that he
had bilateral meetings with in New York at the United Nations General
Assembly -- he did not ask them directly for troop commitments or
financial commitments in Iraq.
MR. McCLELLAN: I think other administration officials -- senior
administration official types will be speaking about specifics.
Q Does the President intend to raise these subjects directly
with Mr. Putin?
MR. McCLELLAN: Raise the subject of Iraq reconstruction? They will
talk about reconstruction efforts in Iraq. Again, this is another area
-- let's let the meeting take place, then we'll have more to say on it
after that meeting has taken place.
Q All right, second question, we keep talking about
reconstruction of Iraq and the subject has come up about -- and loans
and so forth. Can you just clarify, when we are going to help
reconstruct Iraq? To what level? Is it to the level prior to the
war? Is it going to be a level prior to sanctions being imposed in
1991? Or are we going to try to make up for two, three decades of
neglect?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, it's going to be -- we're going to finish the
job because it's important to see it through, transferring
responsibility to the Iraqi people. They're beginning to take --
they're taking more and more responsibility for their future now. You
have the ministers overseeing health, overseeing education, overseeing
public safety, overseeing oil. So more and more responsibility is
being transferred to the Iraqi people as they can assume that
responsibility.
Q I'm talking, for instance, about infrastructure.
MR. McCLELLAN: What we've laid out -- well, and part of that
reconstruction package -- well, that reconstruction package, that was
what Ambassador Bremer looked at and thought was the overall needs of
what we need to support reconstruction in Iraq. But we are moving as
quickly as possible in an orderly way to transfer authority to the
Iraqi people. And as soon as they are ready to take full authority
over, then we will no longer be needed there.
Q Right. But I notice we have things like -- I don't believe
they had zip codes before two or three decades ago. And, yet, we want
to establish a system where they have zip codes. We're going to build
several new communities, even right down to market places. Why should
that be up to us?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again -- well, we're working with the
Governing Council. You have a broad representative government of the
-- Governing Council of the Iraqi people. So we're working with
Governing Council. We're working with the ministers that they
appointed. Again, this was part of the seven step process that
Ambassador Bremer outlined. They named the Governing Council. They
named ministers. They established a constitutional commission to begin
the process of drafting a constitution. Then they'll draft a
constitution. That constitution can be ratified. Then they can have
free and fair elections, and then we'll be in a position where the
Iraqi people have full authority over their future. They will be in a
position where we have a free, sovereign and prosperous Iraq, which is
critical to bringing about peace and stability in the Middle East.
Q I was just wondering if you're trying to --
MR. McCLELLAN: We're moving as quickly as we can in an orderly
fashion. And that's what we're doing.
Q I just thought maybe it looked like we're trying to catch up
on reconstructing the infrastructure to a level that actually had never
existed in the first place.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, certainly, the infrastructure was in even
worse shape than anyone expected, I think. And you saw, because of 30
years of neglect under a brutal, repressive regime. But at the same
time, remember that we acted with great precision and speed to win the
war. Now we're in the period of securing the peace, a lasting peace
for the Iraqi people, and building a better future for them. So we
started off in a better position than probably many people would have
expected. But there were a lot of parts of the infrastructure that had
deteriorated because you had a regime that was spending their money on
their extravagance, spending money on their palaces, spending money on
all the torture chambers and so forth.
Q Scott, for the average American will ask that question about
what a computer study, a $54-million computer study about the postal
service in Iraq, what does that have to do with security? You would
say to them --
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, well, what I would say to them is that we
have put forward a wartime supplemental to help us prevail in the
central front in the war on terrorism. I would point out that in that
package, it includes $2 billion -- a little bit more than $2 billion
for an Iraqi army, so that we can relieve our troops. It puts in $2
billion for -- more than $2 billion for a police force and border
security. It puts in nearly a billion for criminal prosecutions and
locking up killers.
And then we talked about the postal service earlier; we talked
about another area -- all this is important to building the
institutions that are necessary to bring about a civil, orderly and
functioning society. You have to have a functioning society for the
peace and democracy to be lasting. So that's what we're in the process
of.
Q The common sense question that many people ask is, what does
mail delivery have to do with security?
MR. McCLELLAN: And I just pointed out the fact that it helps bring
about a civil, orderly, functioning society. I just pointed out the
fact that it was one of the very first steps that we took here with our
own Continental Congress back in 1775. It's important to bringing a
new nation together, and supporting the growth of commerce, and
ensuring the free flow of ideas and information, just like it was for
America many years ago.
Q -- timetable that Powell talked about today, a deadline, a
sort of a soft deadline for moving forward with the constitution, has
the President talked to him about that? What's his view?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think Secretary Powell addressed some of
this earlier today, and what he was giving was a realistic estimate of
how long it might take to draft a constitution. The resolution we are
pursuing does not set a specific timetable. The resolution that we are
pursuing at the Security Council says that the timetable will be set by
the Iraqi Governing Council, working with the Coalition Provisional
Authority, for drafting a constitution, for ratifying it and for
conducting free elections. So the constitutional commission that the
Governing Council set up has been working on that. That was set up
under the Governing Council, and will be coming back with a process for
drafting that constitution.
So he was just talking about a realistic estimate. But that's not
something -- that's something for the Iraqi people to determine on
their timetable, working alongside the coalition.
Q The Governing Council said just this week in a news
conference they thought it would take seven or eight months for a
constitution. The Secretary of State, after having consulted with the
Permanent Five of the Security Council, seems to be saying, we need to
speed that up a little --
MR. McCLELLAN: That's why I said it's a realistic estimate.
Obviously, we want to, just like the Iraqi people, want to move as
quickly as possible. But you have to do it in an orderly fashion. And
we want it to be done on a timetable that they set, working with us, to
get to that.
Q Well, no, that's what I'm saying -- Secretary Powell is
setting a slightly different timetable than the Iraqi Governing Council
mentioned just this week, and seems to be working with the Permanent
Five to try to speed things up a little bit.
MR. McCLELLAN: I think you've seen different numbers, six to nine
months, and so forth. But, obviously, we're committed to doing this as
quickly as possible, but in an orderly fashion. That's just giving out
a realistic estimate of how long it might take to draft that
constitution once you begin that process.
Q Let me take one more stab at this. It looks, in the breakout
of the reconstruction funding, as though there's an awful lot of money
going to consulting studies and the like -- things which are common
enough in this country, but one might reasonably ask why that kind of
money -- and it is a large sum -- needs to be spent in the
reconstruction of Iraq?
MR. McCLELLAN: And I think that we've had administration officials
on the Hill all week talking about this, talking about this publicly,
answering questions from members of Congress about why this whole
package is important, why this whole wartime supplemental needs to be
passed.
Q But the members --
MR. McCLELLAN: This is part of -- by bringing stabilization,
bringing about stabilization, bringing about peace, bringing about a
civil society in Iraq.
Q Members don't seem to argue with that. They seem to be
upset, on both sides of the aisle, by some of the numbers specifically
in the reconstruction package.
MR. McCLELLAN: And that's why the people on the ground in Iraq
looked at this. Ambassador Bremer and his team looked at what was
needed, they looked at the overall needs. Our military leaders as
well, our commanders in the field looked at what the overall needs were
for our troops. Again, all this will help our troops make sure that
they have the resources they need and it will help make sure that there
is an environment that is secure for our troops to carry out their
tasks.
Q Scott, did the President watch the debates last night?
MR. McCLELLAN: I don't think so.
Q If we need to call you tonight, what time are you having
dinner? (Laughter.)
MR. McCLELLAN: We need this to move forward quicker than October
1. (Laughter.)
END 1:15 P.M. EDT
|