For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
September 29, 2003
Press Briefing by Scott McClellan
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
12:18 P.M. EDT
MR. McCLELLAN: Good afternoon. This afternoon the President will
welcome and congratulate the 2003 Stanley Cup Champion New Jersey
Devils to the White House. Later this afternoon, the President looks
forward to meeting with congregational rabbis. This is the Jewish high
holy days, and it is a time for prayer and reflection in the Jewish
community. Today's meeting is part of the President's ongoing
commitment to reaching out to faith-based leaders who make our nation
stronger. So the President looks forward to that meeting.
And then, following that meeting, the President looks forward to
signing the Do Not Call legislation, which affirms the FTC's authority
to maintain the Do Not Call Registry. This action, combined with the
FCC's announcement earlier today that they will enforce the Do Not Call
rules, is a victory for the millions of Americans who have registered
some 50 million phone numbers on the registry. Americans have the
right to reduce the number of unwanted solicitations they receive. The
Do Not Call Registry is a valuable way for them to stop the nuisance of
annoying calls.
And with that, I will be glad to jump right into questions.
Q Scott, has anyone -- has the President tried to find out who
outed the CIA agent? And has he fired anyone in the White House yet?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, Helen, that's assuming a lot of things.
First of all, that is not the way this White House operates. The
President expects everyone in his administration to adhere to the
highest standards of conduct. No one would be authorized to do such a
thing. Secondly, there -- I've seen the anonymous media reports, and
if I could find out who "anonymous" was, it would make my life a whole
lot easier. But --
Q Does he think it didn't come from here?
MR. McCLELLAN: But we've made it very clear that anyone -- anyone
-- who has information relating to this should report that information
to the Department of Justice.
Q Does he doubt it came from the White House?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?
Q Does he doubt?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, there's been no information that has been
brought to our attention, beyond what we've seen in the media reports,
to suggest White House involvement.
Q Will the President move aggressively to see if such a
transgression has occurred in the White House? Will he ask top White
House officials to sign statements saying that they did not give the
information?
MR. McCLELLAN: Bill, if someone leaked classified information of
this nature, the appropriate agency to look into it would be the
Department of Justice. So the Department of Justice is the one that
would look in matters like this.
Q You're saying the White House won't take a proactive role?
MR. McCLELLAN: Do you have any specific information to bring to my
attention suggesting White House involvement?
Q If you would --
MR. McCLELLAN: I haven't seen any.
Q Would you not want to know whether someone had leaked
information of this kind?
MR. McCLELLAN: The President has been -- I spoke for him earlier
today -- the President believes leaking classified information is a
very serious matter. And it should be --
Q So why doesn't he want --
MR. McCLELLAN: -- pursued to the fullest extent --
Q Right, so why --
MR. McCLELLAN: -- by the appropriate agency. And the appropriate
agency is the Department of Justice.
Q Why wouldn't he proactively do that, ask people on the staff
to say that they had not leaked anything?
MR. McCLELLAN: Do you have specific information to suggest White
House involvement? I saw a media report that said "senior
administration officials." That's an anonymous source that could
include a lot of people. I've seen a lot of "senior administration
officials" in media stories.
Q Would they know -- to the White House?
Q Scott, when you say that it should be pursued by the Justice
Department -- Justice has not said whether it actually is conducting an
investigation. Does the President want the Justice Department to
investigate this matter?
MR. McCLELLAN: If someone leaked classified information of the
nature that has been reported, absolutely, the President would want it
to be looked into. And the Justice Department would be the appropriate
agency to do so.
Q And do you know that they are doing this?
MR. McCLELLAN: That's a question you need to ask the Department of
Justice. My understanding is that if something like this happened and
it was referred to the Department of Justice, then the Department of
Justice would look to see whether or not there is enough information to
pursue it further. But those are questions you need to ask the
Department of Justice.
Q But, Scott, something like this did happen, right? Bob Novak
had information he should not have had, that he was not authorized to
have. So something --
MR. McCLELLAN: Terry, all I can tell you is what I've seen in the
media reports. And I've seen different statements in the media reports
from, the CIA hasn't confirmed or denied that this was a covert agent
for the CIA; I've seen media reports to suggest that it was referred to
the Department of Justice, and that -- and comments the Department of
Justice would look into it.
Q So the President of the United States doesn't know whether or
not this classified information was divulged, and he is only getting
his information by reading the media?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?
Q He does not know whether or not the classified information
was divulged here, and he's only getting his information from the
media?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, we don't know -- we don't have any information
that's been brought to our attention beyond what we've seen in the
media reports. I've made that clear.
Q All right. Let me just follow up. You said this morning,
"The President knows" that Karl Rove wasn't involved. How does he know
that?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I've made it very clear that it was a
ridiculous suggestion in the first place. I saw some comments this
morning from the person who made that suggestion, backing away from
that. And I said it is simply not true. So, I mean, it's public
knowledge. I've said that it's not true. And I have spoken with Karl
Rove --
Q But how does --
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not going to get into conversations that the
President has with advisors or staff or anything of that nature; that's
not my practice.
Q But the President has a factual basis for knowing that Karl
Rove --
MR. McCLELLAN: I said it publicly. I said that --
Q But I'm not asking what you said, I'm asking if the President
has a factual basis for saying -- for your statement that he knows Karl
Rove --
MR. McCLELLAN: He's aware of what I've said, that there is simply
no truth to that suggestion. And I have spoken with Karl about it.
Q Does he know whether or not the Vice President's Chief of
Staff, Lewis Libby --
MR. McCLELLAN: If you have any specific information to bring to my
attention -- like I said, there has been nothing that's been brought to
our attention. You asked me earlier if we were looking into it, there
is nothing that's been brought to our attention beyond the media
reports. But if someone did something like this, it needs to be looked
at by the Department of Justice, they're the appropriate agency charged
with looking into matters like this --
Q Well, you do know that they are looking at it, don't you?
MR. McCLELLAN: -- and so they're the ones that should do that.
Q They're telling reporters that they're looking at it; haven't
they told you that they're looking at it?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, there you have it. There you have it.
Q Haven't they told you? Haven't you asked?
MR. McCLELLAN: We've seen the media reports. There has been no
requests made of us at this time.
Q But, Scott, it gets to the question if you know, if the
President knows that Karl Rove was not involved, then maybe you can
tell us more about what the President specifically is doing to get to
the bottom of this, or what has he ordered to be done within the White
House to get to the bottom of this?
MR. McCLELLAN: The President wants anyone, anyone who has
information relating to this to report that information to the
appropriate agency, the Department of Justice. That's what the
President wants, and I've been very clear about that.
Q Is the President convinced that there was no White House
involvement in this?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, if I could get "anonymous" to 'fess up, that
would make my life a whole lot easier.
Q That's not the question. That's not the question.
MR. McCLELLAN: But there has been nothing -- there has been
absolutely --
Q Does the President --
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm answering that.
Q Scott, does he know -- is he convinced that no one in the
White House was involved with this?
MR. McCLELLAN: There has been absolutely nothing brought to our
attention to suggest any White House involvement. All we've seen is
what is in the media reports. The media reports cite "senior
administration official," or "senior administration officials."
Q But they're wrong, as far as you're concerned?
MR. McCLELLAN: But I haven't seen anything before that. That's
why it's appropriate for the Department of Justice, if something like
this happened, to look into it.
Q Those media reports are wrong, as far as the White House is
concerned?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we have nothing beyond those media reports to
suggest there is White House involvement.
Q And the President is pretty passive on this, right?
MR. McCLELLAN: There's been no specific information brought to my
attention to suggest --
Q He's not doing anything proactive?
Q Let me just -- let me follow up on one of the --
MR. McCLELLAN: He's making it clear that this is a serious --
through his spokesman, me -- that this is a serious matter, and if
someone did this, it should be looked into and it should be pursued to
the fullest extent.
Q But has he ordered an investigation inside the White House?
If he thinks it's that serious, wouldn't you do that?
MR. McCLELLAN: Do you have specific information, Helen, to bring
to my attention?
Q No. Are you --
MR. McCLELLAN: If you have specific information, bring it to my
attention.
Q Scott, you are answering questions out there for a few days
on media reports. I just wonder, isn't there an internal investigation
going on to find out what's happened?
MR. McCLELLAN: The Justice Department would be the appropriate
agency to look into this. And if something like this happened, the
President believes it should be pursued to the fullest extent.
Q Why wouldn't this be the --
Q Can I follow --
MR. McCLELLAN: Ed. I'll come back to you in a minute.
Q Scott, this is clearly a serious matter, with possible
penalties being going to jail. It's not going to go away. Why -- and
as you said earlier, there probably is a limited number of people with
access to this information. It doesn't take much for the President to
ask for a senior official working for him to just lay the question out
for a few people, and end this controversy today.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, Ed, do you have specific information
to bring to our attention?
Q No. But it's not --
MR. McCLELLAN: But are we supposed to chase down --
Q -- for me a big story --
MR. McCLELLAN: Let me finish. Are we supposed to chase down every
anonymous report in the newspaper? We'd spend all our time doing
that. That's what -- I think you need to --
Q The anonymous reports, though, allege criminal activity.
MR. McCLELLAN: You need to keep in mind that there has been no
specific information, there has been no information that has come to
our attention to suggest White House involvement, beyond what has been
reported in the newspapers.
Q The implication you're leaving us with, I'm afraid, is that
nothing is being done here at the White House to even look into this
matter --
MR. McCLELLAN: Wait a second, I made it very clear that if
something like this happened, the President believes the Department of
Justice should look into it and pursue it to the fullest extent.
Leaking classified information, particularly of this nature, is a very
serious matter.
Q Do you see any need to appoint a special counsel for this
case, as some Democrats are demanding?
MR. McCLELLAN: At this point, I think the Department of Justice
would be the appropriate one to look into a matter like this.
Q Can I follow up on that? Does that mean that you would say
to the Attorney General, whose responsibility it is to determine
whether a special or outside counsel is necessary, that you believe it
is not necessary at this point?
MR. McCLELLAN: There are a lot of career professionals at the
Department of Justice that address matters like this. I have made it
clear that they're the ones, that if something like this happened,
should look into it. You need to direct that question to the
Department of Justice. It would be a Justice Department matter; it
wouldn't be our place to get involved in that.
Q But wouldn't you like to see all questions about the
independence of any investigation taken care of by putting it in the
hands of somebody who has no formal statements out there?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, but I think we're assuming certain things
have happened. That's why I said you need to direct a question like
that to the Department of Justice, to find out what has happened here,
or to get a response to that.
Q Well, clearly, there is, at least on a preliminary basis, an
investigation going forward.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, keep in mind what I said earlier, that
it's my understanding that in a situation like this, that if
information was forwarded to the Department of Justice, the first step
would be to look at it to determine whether or not it warrants looking
into further. So that's where -- that's what I understand the process
is on something like this.
Q Scott, what do you say to people out there who are watching
this, perhaps, and saying, you know, I voted for George Bush because he
promised to change the way things work in Washington. And, yet, his
spokesman --
MR. McCLELLAN: And he has.
Q -- and, yet, his spokesman is saying that there's no
internal, even, questioning of whether or not people were involved in
this and he's just letting that be handled at the Justice Department,
and letting it be more of a criminal investigation, as opposed to
almost an ethical --
MR. McCLELLAN: Dana, I mean, think about what you're asking. If
you have specific information to bring to our attention --
Q No, but you say that --
MR. McCLELLAN: -- that suggests White House involvement. There are
anonymous reports all the time in the media. The President has set
high standards, the highest of standards for people in his
administration. He's made it very clear to people in his
administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards
of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they
would no longer be in this administration.
Q Scott, the Independent Counsel Act, as you know, is no more.
Prior to that act, what would normally be done in an instance like
this, I believe, would be -- as you say, if there's enough evidence
that warrants it, the Attorney General would appoint a special
prosecutor. Do you think that --
MR. McCLELLAN: You need to talk to the Department of Justice about
what they do, or what their intentions are.
Q And, also, the Executive Office the President is the only
agency or entity in the federal government that does not have an
inspector general's office to do its own internal investigations. Do
you think, because of what is allegedly arising here today, the White
House should revisit the idea of establishing an office of inspector
general within the White House?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry, I mean, you know, you're assuming that
certain things happened within the White House, so I'm not going to get
into that kind of speculation in the current environment that we're
asking that question.
Q Scott, a quote coming out of this controversy is that the
real story is why Ambassador Wilson was chosen for this mission. Has
the White House asked the CIA why they've sent somebody who was so
vehemently opposed to the administration's position on Iraq?
MR. McCLELLAN: Not that I'm aware of. We made it clear that we
weren't aware of his trip before we saw it in the media reports, and
that still stands.
Q Scott, since the President takes it so seriously, and since
the revelation was made two-and-a-half months ago, why does the
President only now, since others have called for a Department of
Justice inquiry, support that action?
MR. McCLELLAN: Do you recall what I said a couple of months ago,
as well? Because I made it very clear then what I'm making clear now,
that there was no information that has come to our attention to suggest
any White House involvement. So that's where things stood. But I made
it very clear that that is not the way this White House operates, that
the President expects people to adhere to the highest standards of
conduct and the highest ethics -- and that he has made that very clear
from day one of this administration.
But I answered this question a couple of months ago. I'm glad you
brought that up, because we're answering some of the same questions
today.
Q Did George Tenet -- did George Tenet bring this matter to the
President's attention prior to the weekend?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not aware that anything was brought to our
attention before information was apparently forwarded to the Department
of Justice.
Q We do know one thing that did happen, and that is that a name
was leaked of a CIA operative. Whoever did it, does the President want
some type of Justice Department investigation into just that?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, like I said, one, I've only -- I've seen the
media reports and in one report I saw that the CIA had neither
confirmed or denied that this individual was a covert operative for the
CIA.
Q Why don't they deny it, if it's --
MR. McCLELLAN: But, yes, if something like this happened, a leak
of highly classified information of this nature, the President would
want it looked into and pursued to the fullest extent by the Department
of Justice.
Q Are you saying the President is not even aware whether or not
this actually was a CIA operative who was identified? I mean, you're
not even saying that that is a given in this matter?
MR. McCLELLAN: What I just said is what I've seen in the media
reports, was the CIA has neither confirmed or denied that. I don't
know. But --
Q But that's always their policy. They never confirm.
Q They never do.
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I understand that. And I'm saying, if someone
leaked classified information of that nature, then it should be looked
into by the Department of Justice. Now you need to ask the Department
of Justice what their procedures are and what they would do.
Q And if the President thinks the Department of Justice should
look into it, what kind of cooperation would the White House provide?
In the past, there have been some concerns about records and that sort
of thing --
MR. McCLELLAN: Of course, we always cooperate with the Department
of Justice in matters like this. And you could expect we would in this
matter, as well.
Q Like phone records and that sort of thing?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I'm not aware of any requests that have been
made. I mean, we can go down a whole list, but as far as I know, at
this moment no request has been made. And I've checked on that --
Q They can't get on the phone with the CIA?
MR. McCLELLAN: -- but of course, of course, we will always
cooperate with the Department of Justice in a matter of this nature.
Q Okay. Now, in terms of your efforts to -- and in terms of
the issue of whether or not to contact senior administration officials,
are you saying it is inappropriate to contact them on behalf of the
President, or that it's too difficult?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry, contact them in the sense of asking
whether or not there is any involvement?
Q Well, obviously, someone contacted Karl Rove. There was some
effort to knock down a specific allegation here. So I'm wondering, why
not contact others? Were others contacted in the -- among the
President's senior advisors?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, there was a specific allegation leveled -- I
saw it has now since been backed away from -- about Karl Rove. And
that's why I responded to that question. But I think we could go down
the White House directory of every single staff member and play that
game. I'm not going to do that. What I've made clear is that if
anybody has information relating to this, they need to report it to the
Department of Justice, and the Department of Justice should pursue it
to the fullest. It is a serious matter. But I'm not going to go down
a list of every single staffer in the White House, when there's not
specific information that has been brought to my attention to suggest
--
Q No, I understand your argument there. But there are a
limited number of people who would be aware of this information. Is it
--
MR. McCLELLAN: That's right, I would think so.
Q -- is it inappropriate in your view? Or is it just too
diffuse, it's too difficult? I don't understand exactly what the
reason is that you wouldn't expand the effort from Karl Rove to,
perhaps, another dozen or so people who might have been knowledgeable.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we've got important work to do here in
Washington, D.C. for the people of this nation. And the President will
continue to focus on the priorities we are pursuing: the war on
terrorism, strengthening the economy. There are a number of important
priorities we are focused on. There are a lot of anonymous media
reports that happen all the time. And it's not our practice to go and
try to chase down anonymous sources every time there's a report in the
media. If there's specific information that comes to our attention,
that's another matter. But there has not been any information beyond
what we've seen in just anonymous media reporting to suggest that there
was White House involvement.
Q So you're telling --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, are we supposed to go through every anonymous
source?
Q No, no, no. But the President --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, no, no, let's make that clear.
Q All the President has to do is pick up the phone and call a
meeting here and find out. And if they all say, we didn't do it, he
also can call the CIA. What is the big barrier?
MR. McCLELLAN: Because the Justice Department is the appropriate
agency to look into a matter like this. There's nothing specific to
suggest -- there's no information that's been brought --
Q I'm not saying that.
MR. McCLELLAN: Hold on, let me finish. There's been no
information brought to our attention to suggest that there was White
House involvement, beyond what we've seen in the media reports. And
those are anonymous media reports, at that.
Q You're challenging anyone who has information about this --
MR. McCLELLAN: Absolutely.
Q -- to step forward --
MR. McCLELLAN: Absolutely.
Q -- and contact the Department of Justice?
MR. McCLELLAN: Absolutely. And if there's a senior administration
official -- I saw quoted in one article -- that senior administration
official, if they have specific information, they should go provide it
to the Department of Justice, absolutely, you bet, because this is a
serious matter.
Q On pre-war intelligence, Scott, on pre-war intelligence, has
the White House seen this letter from the House Intelligence --
MR. McCLELLAN: Wait, let me finish with -- are we finished with --
let me finish this topic, and I promise I'll come back to you.
Q You said that the President knows that Karl Rove was not
involved, and you specifically have spoken to Karl Rove and gotten
those assurances. By those statements, you've implied that the
President has not talked to Karl Rove specifically about this.
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I said that --
Q Is that a correct inference, or did we --
MR. McCLELLAN: I've already answered this question, when Terry
asked it earlier, and I said that it's not my habit to get into
conversations the President has with staff or with advisors. I'm not
going to get into those conversations.
Q So he has --
MR. McCLELLAN: I've made it clear that it simply is not true, and
I'm speaking on behalf of the White House when I say that.
Q Scott?
MR. McCLELLAN: Yes. Are we on the subject? We're going to stay
on the same topic. I want to stay on the same topic, and then we'll
get on to -- go ahead.
Q I have a different subject.
MR. McCLELLAN: Okay, we'll come back to that.
Q Can you explain why the President, who ran to say that he
would, himself, restore, honesty and integrity to the Oval Office, that
he would do it, is now saying he has to do nothing proactively on this
front and will leave it to the Justice Department, when it's his own
staff who's been accused of committing a very, very serious federal
crime?
MR. McCLELLAN: And I think I've asked and answered that.
Q No, but why is he not doing anything proactively?
MR. McCLELLAN: I've been asked and answered that question. I had
that asked up here. I mean, I'll go back through it.
Q You haven't said why -- you haven't said what his thinking is
and why he doesn't --
MR. McCLELLAN: Because there has been no information that's come
to our attention, or been brought to our attention, beyond what we've
seen in the media reports.
Q -- classified --
MR. McCLELLAN: Let me finish, and then you can ask your question.
I've seen the anonymous media reports. But like I said, there are
anonymous media reports all the time. Are we supposed to go chasing
down every single anonymous report?
Q No, no --
Q There are serious consequences --
MR. McCLELLAN: If there's -- no, no, there are anonymous reports
all the time making accusations about the White House.
Q There are not anonymous reports all the time about serious
leaks. The White House in the past has called for investigations based
on leaks, based on anonymous sources up in Congress.
MR. McCLELLAN: And what -- what have I said?
Q So why not do the same in this case?
MR. McCLELLAN: And what have I said? The President believes that
if someone leaked classified information of this nature, that it should
be looked into. The Department of Justice should look into it, they
should pursue it to the fullest extent possible. So we very much are
saying -- we very much are saying what you're asking.
Yes, sir, Bob -- oh, sorry. I'll go to Kate next.
Q Has the White House Counsel Office issued any kind of paper
to staffers --
MR. McCLELLAN: No --
Q -- regarding the President's, you know, desire to cooperate
with any probe or anything like that?
MR. McCLELLAN: No. Again, I've said that nothing has been brought
to our attention. There have been no requests made of the White House
and nothing has been brought to --
Q -- step forward. You said people should step forward --
MR. McCLELLAN: They should.
Q -- if they have information. Is there going to be anything
circulated telling --
Q -- could put it in writing --
MR. McCLELLAN: I've made it very clear -- well, there's no
specific information being brought to our attention to suggest White
House involvement. I think I've been through that.
Q -- then you're not saying you're going to tell people that?
MR. McCLELLAN: That's why I'm saying, because there's no specific
information, or there's no information, period, that has been brought
to our attention beyond what is in the media reports. But if someone
has information, they should report it to the Department of Justice.
We've made it very clear that if the Department of Justice looks into
something like this, of course, we always cooperate with them in that.
Q Scott, you keep saying: if there was a leak. But Ambassador
Joe Wilson has been all over the place, on ABC this morning, in other
media outlets saying, himself, that his wife was outed, that she was --
he has confirmed it, that she was a CIA operative and that her identity
has been revealed. So if that's the case, why wouldn't the President
be proactive about this in trying to find out where that leak came
from?
MR. McCLELLAN: Okay, so if it's a "senior administration official"
we should go to every single agency? I think that's -- the Department
of Justice can do that, and that's what they're charged with doing. So
they will look into it. If there is specific information relating to
the White House, someone is welcome to bring it to our attention. But
I have not seen any information, beyond what is in the media reports,
to suggest White House involvement.
Q But isn't the President concerned when there is a leak of
this magnitude, that could threaten someone's very life?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think I addressed that earlier. Absolutely, the
President believes that this is a serious matter when you're talking
about the leak of classified information. The leak of classified
information, yes, you're absolutely right, can compromise sources and
methods. That's why the President takes it very seriously, and we've
always taken it very seriously. And if it happened in this case, it's
a particularly serious matter and it should be looked into by the
Department of Justice.
But if you have specific questions about where it -- who is looking
into it and what is happening, talk to the Department of Justice.
Q You're still saying "if" --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, talk to the Department of Justice and they'll
get you more information.
Terry.
Q Scott --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, we're on ABC right now.
Q Thank you. In the Enron -- tag-teaming -- in the Enron
matter, the White House Counsel's Office issued a request to all
personnel to save their emails and phone logs and that kind of thing.
That was proactive. Has that been done here? And, if not, why not?
MR. McCLELLAN: There had been some information there that we were
pursuing to find out more about what contacts there had been. Again,
there has been no information brought to our attention, beyond what is
in the media reports, to suggest White House involvement.
Q So at this point there has been no request from the Chief of
Staff's Office, from the President, for White House personnel to save
emails, to save phone logs, to recall and account meetings and --
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, if the Justice Department made a request of
us, of course we would always cooperate. It is the appropriate place
for the Department of Justice to look into this. I believe we did
receive some request previously on that matter.
Q Do your words also speak for Vice President Cheney? And can
you categorically say that he was not involved in this?
MR. McCLELLAN: I've made it clear that there's been nothing,
absolutely nothing, brought to our attention to suggest any White House
involvement, and that includes the Vice President's office, as well.
When I'm talking about the White House, I'm talking about the Vice
President's office as well.
Ken, did you have a question?
Q Yes. Your answer to Dick's question about a special
prosecutor was to point to the career prosecutors at Justice who are
going to be handling this. But those career prosecutors ultimately
report to political appointees -- ultimately, of course, to the
Attorney General. Why is that not precisely the kind of conflict of
interest that the special prosecutor law envisages, and why, therefore,
should there not be a special prosecutor?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think we went over this earlier, Ken. And,
again, you need to talk to the Department of Justice. That's assuming
certain people may be involved in something of this matter. I have not
seen anything to suggest that anyone -- suggest who is or who is not
involved in looking into this.
Q The Justice Department is run by the Attorney General. He's
a political appointee.
MR. McCLELLAN: Right.
Q Ultimately, it's his call as to whether or not there is
grounds for a criminal investigation.
MR. McCLELLAN: And have you asked the Department of Justice if
he's involved in looking into something of this nature?
Q Are you saying he's refused --
MR. McCLELLAN: I have no idea. I don't know where the Department
of Justice stands and whether or not they're even pursuing this
further, if there's a need to.
Q Should the political appointees at the Justice Department, in
the White House's view, recuse themselves from dealing with this?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, the Department of Justice, they have a lot
of professionals over there and we believe that they are the
appropriate ones to look into this, and that they can do an independent
job of doing so.
Q Scott, just a couple quick clarifications. Weeks ago, when
you were first asked whether Mr. Rove had the conversation with Robert
Novak that produced the column, you dismissed it as ridiculous. And I
wanted just to make sure, at that time, had you talked to Karl?
MR. McCLELLAN: I've made it very clear, from the beginning, that
it is totally ridiculous. I've known Karl for a long time, and I
didn't even need to go ask Karl, because I know the kind of person that
he is, and he is someone that is committed to the highest standards of
conduct.
Q Have you read any book about him lately?
Q -- have a subsequent conversation with Mr. Rove in order to
say that you had this conversation --
MR. McCLELLAN: I have spoken with Karl about this matter and I've
already addressed it.
Q When did you talk to him? Weeks ago, or this weekend?
MR. McCLELLAN: What I said then still applies today, and that's
what I've made clear.
Q I have one other follow up. Can you say for the record
whether Mr. Rove possessed the information about Mr. Wilson's wife, but
merely did not talk to anybody about it? Do you know whether for a
fact he knew --
MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know whether or not -- I mean, I'm sure he
probably saw the same media reports everybody else in this room has.
Q When you talked to Mr. Rove, did you discuss, did you ever
have this information, could you have talked to him?
MR. McCLELLAN: We're going down a lot of different roads here.
I've made it very clear that he was not involved, that there's no truth
to the suggestion that he was.
Q Well, I'm trying to ask how --
MR. McCLELLAN: And, again, I said I didn't -- it is not something
I needed to ask him, but I like to, like you do, verify things and make
sure that it is completely accurate. But I knew that Karl would not be
involved in something like this.
Q And that conversation that you had with Karl was this
weekend? Or when was it?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry? No, I've had conversations with him
previously. I'm going to leave it at that.
Q -- on the record?
Q Has the President spoken to the Attorney General today, or
over the weekend, on this subject? Or directed any aides to speak to
the Attorney General?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not aware of any contact. And, no, that -- we
would not do that, talk to the -- I'm not aware of any contact the
Attorney General has had with anyone in this administration about
that.
Q What about intelligence letters? Does the White House --
MR. McCLELLAN: Wait, are we through with this subject?
Q No.
Q No.
MR. McCLELLAN: Because I'm going to move on. I'm going to go
quickly. Paula, you've already one, so I'm going to go to April, and
then we're going to move on to another subject.
Q You continue to talk about the severity of this and if anyone
has any information they should go forward to the Justice Department.
But can you tell us, since it's so severe, would someone or a group of
persons, lose their job in the White House --
MR. McCLELLAN: At a minimum.
Q At a minimum?
MR. McCLELLAN: At a minimum.
Q Scott, can I ask you something from earlier, it was part of a
-- I'm sorry, were you done, April?
Q No, I wasn't, but go ahead.
MR. McCLELLAN: No, finish, then we'll go to Bill, then we'll go to
Ken.
Q All right. But you also -- you are also saying --
MR. McCLELLAN: Then David and then Sarah.
Q You are also saying that, you know, for your knowledge,
including the Vice President' Office, no one divulged this kind of
information. But with this assuredness, why do you think the husband
came out and pointed fingers and said this?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry, why what?
Q Why do you think the husband came out and pointed fingers
saying that this was actually leaked?
MR. McCLELLAN: I can't speak to why people say certain things.
But I did notice that there was some backtracking from some of the
earlier comments today.
Q Are you doubting that the leak came from the White House
directly? I mean, you seem to have been casting doubt throughout this
whole conversation. I mean, you talked about --
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm telling you the facts. The fact is that we
don't have any information beyond what we've seen in the media reports
to suggest White House involvement.
Q It seems like the White House -- you're sort of operating on
an honor system, almost a do not -- look, don't ask, don't tell system,
when it comes to this.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, if there is specific information that you
have to bring to our attention, please do so. But --
Q That's the core question. You keep on saying, you keep
pointing the finger at us to step forward with information. I mean,
you're asking us to come forward and reveal things, but you haven't
asked the White House staff to --
MR. McCLELLAN: You're a reporter and you recognize that there are
stories written all the time, with all sorts of accusations and all
sorts of allegations, a lot of times from anonymous sources. If we
spent all our time going through all those stories and trying to track
down information, we couldn't keep our focus where it needs to be,
which is on the people's business.
Q But this is a different level of story. I mean, you're
talking about all other stories -- maybe the economy, maybe some policy
-- but you're talking about a potential -- almost a potential national
security breach, which is a step above, sort of, the daily story of the
day. So wouldn't that -- wouldn't that inspire somebody in the White
House to talk to a staffer and say, hey, look, this happened, do you
know anything about this, do you know anything about this?
MR. McCLELLAN: The Department of Justice is the appropriate place
to look into this. Where does it stop? I mean, the anonymous source
quoted -- was quoted as a senior administration official. That doesn't
say "White House" in and of itself.
Q Scott, you, yourself, said there's a limited number of people
who could be involved in this --
MR. McCLELLAN: Paula, I've got to -- I'm going to try to keep
moving so we can get to David's question.
Q Just to clarify something earlier that came out of a
question. Has this White House, this White House specifically, in the
past conducted an internal investigation into media leaks?
MR. McCLELLAN: Into media leaks?
Q Yes, has this White House ever looked into media leaks?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'd have to check. If you have a specific one you
want me to check in. There have been some requests of us from others
at times that have been looking into matters. And we've always
cooperated, just like we would in this one, as well.
Q Right. And just to follow up, in the 70's we had a very
similar situation where a CIA operative was outed. That actually ended
up -- resulted in a loss of life.
MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, it's a very serious matter.
Q At that time, we had FBI, CIA, Interpol, many agencies around
the world looking into it. Why would we not, at this point, want to go
to the full extreme and have as many different eyes looking for this as
possible?
MR. McCLELLAN: Make no mistake about it, something like this
happened, someone leaked classified information of this nature, the
President wants it pursued to the fullest extent. And that's what
should happen.
Do we have any more on this topic? Yes, go ahead.
Q How is it that the Justice Department, and I know you -- this
has been asked before, but I didn't get a clear answer -- the Justice
Department, headed by a man that the President, himself, appointed, how
can that Department credibly investigate a claim that could be very
embarrassing, could be -- could result in criminal prosecution for
someone in the White House? How can that be fairly --
MR. McCLELLAN: There are some -- there are some outstanding career
employees at the Department of Justice that do an outstanding job, and
they look into matters like this. And we expect that they would treat
this just like they should and that they would treat this just like any
other matter of this nature.
Q Certainly, the minute the Justice Department came out with
something that exonerated anyone --
MR. McCLELLAN: You can obviously try to suggest that about
anything in the administration that went to the Department of Justice.
Q I don't see how a Justice Department that's headed by a man
--
MR. McCLELLAN: The Department of Justice is charged with
independently looking into matters like this, as well as other law
enforcement matters. And that's fully what we would expect them to do
in a matter like this.
Anymore on this topic? No more? One more?
Q Has the White House seen or been told about the CIA letter?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?
Q Has the White House seen or been told about the CIA letter to
Justice?
MR. McCLELLAN: What may have been sent to the Department of
Justice? Not that I'm aware of. You're talking about "seen it"?
Q Have you seen it or --
MR. McCLELLAN: I mean, we read the media reports about what has
happened.
Q Yes, I understand that. But I mean outside the media
reports. Have you seen a copy of the letter or been told about it by
anybody at the CIA?
MR. McCLELLAN: A copy? No, I've not been told about a specific
letter or a copy of that.
Q I'm talking about Mr. Gonzales or anybody else?
MR. McCLELLAN: Not that I'm aware of. We've seen the media
reports.
Q Scott, on another letter --
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm going to Russ, and then we're going to go to
you. We've got to keep moving.
Q Even though the independent counsel statute has lapsed, there
is a provision where the Attorney General can appoint a special
prosecutor. Why wouldn't the President support --
MR. McCLELLAN: I've been asked this question earlier and I
answered it. So I'm going to move on. I've already been asked that
question and I answered it earlier. And now --
Q Scott, the statement you gave about why there shouldn't be a
special prosecutor was almost word for word what the Clinton people
said in 1994 about why there shouldn't be a special prosecutor in
Whitewater. Why should it stand now if it didn't stand then?
MR. McCLELLAN: Ken, I just reject that comparison.
Q You can reject it, but it is the same issue. Why is --
MR. McCLELLAN: Do you have specific information to suggest White
House involvement?
Q No, but why --
MR. McCLELLAN: Do you have any information to suggest White House
involvement?
Q My issue -- the issue is the credibility --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, bring it to my attention if you have
information. But there's no information we have beyond the media
reports to suggest White House involvement.
Q But Novak --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, but I think the media has obligations, too.
If they are aware of something that has happened, of the leaking of
classified information, like anyone else they should report it to the
appropriate authorities. In this case, it would be the Department of
Justice.
And with that, I'm going to move on to a new topic. I know we
could go through this all day. I'm going to David -- David first, then
Sarah, then Goyal.
Q Is the White House aware of the House Intelligence letter to
the CIA on prewar intelligence, and what's the reaction to it? And
does the President think that he was given bad or incomplete
information that ultimately led to his decision to war?
MR. McCLELLAN: One, if you look at the statement put out by
the CIA, they said that the intelligence community stands -- and this
is a quote -- "The intelligence community stands fully behind its
findings and judgments as stated in the National Intelligence Estimate
on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs."
And that is the part of the judgment -- that is the judgment of the
intelligence community. We looked at that, as well. But let's go back
when we're talking about Iraq and look back at everything here. Let's
look at what we knew. We knew, just like the United Nations Security
Council and intelligence agencies across the world and previous
administrations, that Saddam Hussein had possessed and used weapons of
mass destruction, that he had used chemical weapons, that he had a
history of doing that. We knew that Saddam Hussein had large,
unaccounted for stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons. We knew
that he had -- and everybody knew -- that he had invaded his
neighbors. So this was a very unique situation.
Saddam Hussein and his regime defied the United Nations over 12
years and some 17 resolutions -- they were in defiance of the
international community. They went to great lengths to conceal their
program. We know that he had -- that Saddam Hussein's regime had ties
to terrorist organizations. We know that it was a brutal and
oppressive regime. We've seen that from the torture chambers and the
mass graves. So we knew all these facts.
Then came September 11th, the attacks of September 11th.
September 11th taught us that we must confront the new, dangerous
threats of the 21st century, that we can no longer wait for threats to
gather and come to our shores before it's too late. The nexus between
outlaw regimes with weapons of mass destruction and terrorist
organizations is the most dangerous threat of our times. And we must
confront those threats before it's too late.
Q Given that 180 members of Congress cited the nuclear threat,
as reported to them by the President of the United States, as a primary
reason to support a war authorization resolution, and the fact that no
weapons of mass destruction have been found to date in Iraq, why
shouldn't the American people believe that this President overstated
the predicate for war?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think I answered that with some of what I just
went threw. But Chairman Goss, who is also one of the signatures on
this letter, stated that he believes that what our -- at least sources
in his office have stated that he believes that this was accurate
information presented by the intelligence community. He was certainly
-- he was concerned about one area, about the human intelligence. And
you look at the letter and it talks about this is a preliminary
assessment, that they want to get some comment, they're still looking
at this, they're still looking at the findings. So that's where things
--
Q -- the White House been sent the letter?
MR. McCLELLAN: That's where that stands.
Q Has the White House been sent the letter?
MR. McCLELLAN: I've seen a copy of it.
Q You have?
MR. McCLELLAN: Yes.
Q But, Scott, you said --
Q Can I follow on that?
Q -- you just said a moment ago that: we knew there were large
unaccountable -- unaccounted stockpiles of chemical and biological
weapons. In 2001, in March or February, Colin Powell said there
weren't, as we learned of two days ago --
MR. McCLELLAN: Secretary Powell went before the United Nations and
said, there were.
Q No, no, listen to this. No, no, he said, at that point,
there weren't. The DIA produced a classified --
MR. McCLELLAN: That's not what he said.
Q -- assessment in October 2002 which said: we don't have any
hard or reliable information about stockpiles. And the U.N.
inspectors, themselves, said they had no hard information about
stockpiles. So where are you getting your information from?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I think you're mischaracterizing Secretary
Powell's comments. Secretary Powell went before -- and he said, that I
never said that he was not a threat. He went before --
Q -- looking for WMD.
MR. McCLELLAN: Let me finish. Secretary Powell went before the
United Nations and presented that very case to the world and made it
very clear what was unaccounted for. Secretary Powell went through an
exhaustive process to back up everything that he said, talking directly
with members of the intelligence community --
Q -- to what he said in early 2001. You said, before 9/11 we
knew there were accounted stockpiles. He said, there weren't.
MR. McCLELLAN: Before 9/11 -- I'm glad you pointed that out,
because September -- and, no, that is not what he said. September 11th
taught us --
Q He said that in --
MR. McCLELLAN: It was well documented by the United Nations
Security Council that there were undocumented stockpiles of chemical
and biological weapons.
Q That's not true. Talk to Ekeus, the Chairman. He has said
that that's not the case, that you are mischaracterizing U.N. reports.
MR. McCLELLAN: We're going to move on. I think I've answered this
question. I think September 11th, again, changed the way we look at
threats. I want to make that point very clear, and that it became even
more real after September 11th, the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and
his regime.
Let me make very clear --
Q (Inaudible.)
MR. McCLELLAN: -- no let me make very clear the results of the
action that we took. America is safer, the world is better, the world
is safer because Saddam Hussein and his brutal regime have been removed
from power. Saddam Hussein will no longer be able to oppress the
people of Iraq. He will no longer be able to carry out the brutality
that he did in the past. His regime is gone, it is removed from power,
and it is not coming back. And it's very clear that America is more
secure because of the action that we took.
Q Can I follow up? When the Secretary of State says, as he did
yesterday, that the administration believes Iran is trying to pursue
nuclear weapons and that there is no legitimate justification for any
of its nuclear programs, does the failure to find weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq and what seems to be the gulf between pre-war
claims and post-war reality, does that hurt the credibility of the
country, in making it --
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I think, one, Dr. Kaye continues to do his
job. I think the CIA, in their statement, put out -- let me go back to
this part of their statement that they put out about the NIE and the
letter from the congressional leaders: "David Kaye has, for only
two-and-a-half months, been attempting to unravel Iraq's WMD programs.
His effort, which has only just begun, will be important in our process
of continuing self-evaluation."
There are miles of documents that Dr. Kaye is still going through
in his Iraq survey group. There are interviews that he is still
conducting with Iraqis, themselves, who are providing more
information. So that process needs to continue. We'll know the
truth. He'll pull together the full extent and full picture of Saddam
Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and weapons of mass destruction
program.
But I, again -- look at the results that we've achieved. Look at
the opportunity that is presented to us in Iraq. The stakes are very
high in Iraq. The world has a stake in seeing a free, sovereign and
prosperous Iraq. It's the central front in the war on terrorism. And
foreign terrorists and remnants of the former regime are desperate,
because they know we are making significant progress. And when we
prevail in this front in Iraq, then we will have dealt a significant
blow to the terrorists, and we would have made a significant -- we will
make significant progress in the war on terrorism. And we will see it
through.
Q I have two questions. An audiotape claims to be from the
number two leader in the al Qaeda, says the U.S. war on terrorism is
really a war against Islam. Any comment from the White House?
MR. McCLELLAN: The President -- first of all, people who carry out
attacks in the name of a religion are not committed to that religion.
The President has made it very clear that Islam is a faith that teaches
peace. And the enemies of peace are those who carry out brutal
terrorist attacks in the name of a religion like that.
Let me keep going. Goyal.
Q Scott, two quick questions. Just came back from the United
Nations. There were -- the President saw the demonstrations against
many countries and dictators, including demonstrations against the
U.S., India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Burma and also China.
Is President so busy in other issues like Iraq and also -- that he
didn't care or doesn't have time for the (inaudible) of information
that are being committed against the people of minorities in Bangladesh
and also people of -- religious persecution in China and also against
the people of Burma?
MR. McCLELLAN: Absolutely not. In fact, we're pursuing all those
areas you just talked about. Human rights abuses cannot be allowed to
stand, and we speak out against them, we pursue action to be taken to
reverse that trend, and we will continue to do so.
Q Thank you.
MR. McCLELLAN: Thank you. Oh, wait, wait, I'm sorry -- go ahead.
Last one.
Q The Vice President continues to suggest that there is a
direct link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. And the
President a few days ago said there is not any link. So what does the
Vice President know that --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I think we're saying the same thing -- that
there has been no evidence that's come to our attention to suggest a
link. Now, again, it goes back to what I said before --- 9/11 taught
us that we have to confront these kind of dangerous new threats we
face. Saddam Hussein and his regime certainly had ties to terrorist
organizations. That is well documented and not in dispute. And he
publicly supported terrorist organizations.
Thank you very much.
END 1:03 P.M. EDT
|