For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
December 12, 2003
Press Briefing by Scott McClellan
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
12:15 P.M. EST
MR. McCLELLAN: Okay, I'll go right to questions. Happy Friday to
everybody. Yes.
Q Scott, why is there so much secrecy surrounding Baker's trip
abroad? We haven't gotten an itinerary or any details. You've given
general details about what he hopes to accomplish.
MR. McCLELLAN: Actually, I announced the countries he would be
going to yesterday. These are the initial fact-finding meetings. And
as I described it yesterday, Secretary Baker looks forward to visiting
with the heads of states in those countries and talking to them about
the importance of seeking to restructure and reduce Iraq's debt burden
for the Iraqi people. They should not be burdened with a debt of a
brutal regime that had little interest in helping the Iraqi people, but
had a lot of interest in building palaces and building torture chambers
and pursuing weapon programs.
Q But there's no plans for reporters to go on the trip. It
seems like every effort is being made to keep this as low-key as
possible. And what's the reason for that?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, Secretary Baker is the President's personal
envoy. Again, these are the initial meetings that he will be having on
this very topic. And the President spoke with the leaders of the
countries he will be going to, to ask those leaders to receive his
personal envoy, Secretary Baker, and discuss this very important
priority for the Iraqi people, and this very important priority of
helping the Iraqi people build a free prosperous and democratic
future. And I'm sure that you will be kept up to date as those
meetings occur, either from the countries abroad, or we'll do our best
to do it from here.
Q Scott, the top U.N. official in Afghanistan says the U.N. may
have to abandon its effort -- two-year-old effort to stabilize
Afghanistan unless security improves. He cites rising violence, and
that they may have to pull out. Is the United States aware of their
concerns? Is there anything that --
MR. McCLELLAN: I've only seen his comments in the news reports, as
I'm sure you have, as well. But the security and safety of the people
in Afghanistan is obviously one of our highest priorities. That's why
we continue to carry out offensive raids against the enemy in
Afghanistan. And our military and those working with us there, as
well, in the coalition efforts have done an outstanding job other
improve the security situation. There's more to do, and they're
continuing to do that. But the U.N. has an important role to play in
the efforts going on there. They have been playing an important role,
and we hope they will continue to.
Q Given Secretary Baker's ties to the law firm which represents
Halliburton, and also to the Carlisle Group, is it enough for him to
say that he will recuse himself from anything that will financially
profit either of those entities? Or does the President believe that he
should do more to recuse himself? Should he leave those firms in order
to do this job?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, first of all, he's taken significant steps to
avoid any potential conflict. Secretary Baker is widely respected
across partisan lines. He is widely respected across the country and
across the world for his experience, for his expertise, for his
diplomacy, and for being someone of the highest integrity. And
Secretary Baker is someone who follows not only the letter of the law,
but the spirit of the law. And he takes all appropriate steps to make
sure that he is meeting the highest ethical standards.
Now, what you specifically are referring to I think is this status
as a special government employee. This is a volunteer, unpaid
position. It is a temporary position. If you look at the way the law
is, it spells out that he can perform those temporary duties for no
more than, I believe, 130 days in a calendar year. We fully expect
he'll be able to perform his duties over a course of 60 days in a
calendar year. That's over the course of a calendar year, because
again, this is part-time. This is not a full-time position. And he
has renounced any fees or compensation that he might receive that would
pose a possible conflict.
There has been a thorough review by the law firm -- by the White
House Counsel's Office. He is complying with all applicable ethics
laws and rules, including the filing of a financial disclosure form
disclosing his assets and incomes and liabilities and outside
positions.
Q When was that filed, Scott?
MR. McCLELLAN: With the White House Counsel's office. It is
actually under the special government employee law that was created by
Congress. He is required to do that, and he has done that. And this
law specifically spells out what is required for a special government
employee. But he's also made a commitment to make sure that if any
additional information comes to light that could raise a potential
conflict of interest, that we will address those issues. So he's gone
-- he's taken great -- he's gone to great lengths to avoid any
potential conflicts of interest.
Q Just so I have this clear. You're saying that not only has
he fulfilled all the requirements of the special government employee
law, but that -- is it your feeling that he's gone over and above
that? And has the President and the White House Counsel, are they both
satisfied?
MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, he is, he is fully complying all laws and
rules on the books, and has taken significant steps to avoid even the
potential for a conflict of interest.
Q Can you tell us what those significant steps are?
MR. McCLELLAN: First of all -- I kind of summarized that. I would
summarize it in terms of renouncing any fees or compensation that he
might receive that would pose a -- that might pose a conflict of
interest, the thorough reviews that I mentioned by the law firm, as
well as the White House Counsel's Office. And I mentioned that the
issue of the special government employee -- let me back up, because I
think this is more of an issue of the law that Congress created for a
special government employee -- a special government employee position
was created by Congress to allow individuals with unique qualifications
and expertise to serve in temporary capacities without having to sever
all their ties from the private sector.
Specifically, this would include such categories as people that
maybe could help with developing vaccines or keeping the environment
safe or protecting national security, as well as, in this case, public
diplomacy. This is helpful to conducting the business of the American
people. And these are usually short-term missions that we're talking
about here. Like I said, a volunteer, unpaid position.
But what he has done specifically in regards to the law firm, he
has taken several steps. As I mentioned, he has renounced his
partnership share of fees in client matters, if any, that might
constitute a conflict with his official duties, so there would be no
benefit personally through his partnership income from this mission.
Baker Botts partners have been reviewing all sources of firm revenues
for conflicts or potential conflicts. And they are also, in addition
to that, contacting their top 100 clients, representing over two-thirds
-- or two-thirds of the firm's total revenues to further look at
possible conflicts.
But, in any event, the firm has committed to making sure that he
will receive no benefit of any potential conflicted matters, should
such matters be identified. And in terms of the -- and I would also
mention that he has resigned from the board of EDS, which he served
on. In addition, you mentioned, he is a partner in the Carlisle
Group. Several things have been done there, mainly by the Counsel's
Office. They have gone through some 11 volumes of materials, based on
a thorough search of both domestic and international databases to look
to see if there could be any potential conflicts there with his
official duties. And as I mentioned, the Counsel's Office has received
the financial disclosure form, as well.
In terms of the Carlisle Group, out of an abundance of caution, he
has renounced his partnership share of future benefits, if any, that
might constitute a conflict with his official duties.
Q Scott, what kind of concerns does the White House have over
the apparent overbilling by Halliburton? And is the White House taking
any steps to try to make sure something like this doesn't happen?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, one, this was a matter -- a contracting
matter that was decided at the Pentagon. And there are some oversight
measures that are in place to make sure that tax dollars are protected,
to make sure that tax dollars are being spent appropriately. And from
our standpoint, we expect those measure and procedures that are in
place for oversight purposes to be followed, and we expect the Pentagon
to look at this and get to the bottom of it.
Q Is the White House concerned that this actually had --
clearly, the oversight procedures clearly must not have worked or they
wouldn't have been overbilling.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the Pentagon is looking into this. And, one,
I think you need to direct those specific questions to the Pentagon,
but the Pentagon discovered some things that they felt needed to be
looked into further, and we expect them to get to the bottom of it.
That's the White House view. But this was a matter that was decided by
the Department of Defense, relating to contracting. And there are
appropriate oversight measures and procedures that are in place. We
expect those to be followed, and we expect the Pentagon to get to the
bottom of this.
Q Scott?
MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, Jacobo.
Q Wasn't the White House aware that the timing of the Pentagon
announcing its new policy of who would get contracts and the naming of
Secretary Baker to go on a mission to some of those same countries that
would not get contracts to ask them to forgive debt to Iraq, didn't the
White House see a possible problem arising from that?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think we've explained this decision. We've
been through this yesterday, and the day before to an extent --
explained the decision in terms of U.S. taxpayer dollars, and those
dollars that are going to reconstruction cost. And I look at it --
again, I can't emphasize enough that I look at it as something that is
inclusive, instead of looking at it as something that was exclusive,
which some have chosen to look at it as, for the very reason that the
President stated yesterday, and that I stated even the day before
that. These are U.S. taxpayer dollars that we're talking, and we
believe it's perfectly appropriate that those United States taxpayer
dollars go to the those countries and the Iraqi people and others that
are contributing troops to the cause in Iraq for the purposes of
reconstruction.
Q Yes, but my point --
MR. McCLELLAN: Because they're the ones that have been there
sacrificing and supporting our efforts from the beginning.
Q Yes, but my point is that these countries that were affected
by this measure, wasn't the timing -- couldn't it have been done in a
different way? You bring up one -- and then you expect them to try to
help another way.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I don't determine when media stories are
written. This was something that was announced previously, prior to
this week, by Pentagon officials. And we welcome the opportunity to
visit with countries about that decision and talk to them about any
questions they may have. The President made that very clear.
Q Can I ask one quick follow-up on that? And then I want to
ask about a different subject. But your argument that taxpayer dollars
should go to those countries that are sacrificing in this cause is
really an argument about justice, about what the right thing to do is.
How is that a matter of essential national security? It's not really
--
MR. MCCLELLAN: We actually went through this two days ago on this
very issue, that that was relating to some international obligations.
I think USTR can address that further. We are -- we believe that this
is fully consistent with our international obligations and with our
trade obligations. And that specific line you need to direct either to
the Pentagon or to -- questions about that to the Pentagon or to USTR,
because they can explain to you some of the legal reasons why.
Q So, in other words, it's not in normal English, when it says
--
MR. MCCLELLAN: Well, no, you look at --
Q -- this is essential national security, you, who speak the
same language as me, can't explain that?
MR. MCCLELLAN: Well, we went through this the other day. Look at
the memo. It was posted publicly on our website and it made it very
clear. There is some language that I think they decided to put in
there for reasons to meet our international obligations.
Q Shouldn't the language mean what it says?
MR. MCCLELLAN: Well, you need to address that question to the
Department of Defense. The language did mean what it said. If you
looked at the memo --
Q Can you explain it?
MR. McCLELLAN: -- it talked about the importance of expanding
international cooperation and international efforts going on in Iraq.
It talked about the importance of continuing to encourage those that
are contributing and sacrificing to stay the course, and continue to be
involved in our efforts in Iraq.
We all share the same goal, to help the Iraqi people to build a
better future. We all share the same goal about a peaceful and free
Iraq. But we went through this question two days ago. I think I was
asked about it a few times and I directed people to talk to the
Pentagon because it was a Pentagon memo.
Q Just very quickly on another subject. The group Human Rights
Watch has released a report saying that the United States and Great
Britain used cluster munitions bombs and artillery launched munitions
in the war in Iraq, and they say that that led to the deaths of
hundreds of civilians, and said the United States was perhaps violating
its international legal obligations. Does the President have a
response to that?
MR. McCLELLAN: The United States and coalition forces went into
Iraq to enforce the serious consequences that were called for under
Resolution 1441. Coalition forces removed a brutal regime from power
and liberated some 25 million Iraqis after three decades of being
oppressed, tortured -- oppressed and tortured. The military, our
military and coalition forces went to great lengths to remove this
brutal regime while at the same time minimizing the loss of innocent
civilian life. And they did an outstanding job in that context. And
we appreciate the job that they did. And I think that the Iraqi people
are grateful that they have been liberated from such a brutal and
oppressive regime.
Q So you reject the accusation that the use of cluster bombs in
that effort was irresponsible, perhaps even illegal.
MR. McCLELLAN: I think that our military went to great lengths to
minimize the loss of innocent civilian life. That's what happened, and
people can look back at the facts and they will see that. We removed a
regime in a very swift and rapid fashion, while minimizing the loss of
innocent civilian life. And our military did an outstanding job. And
the American people are forever grateful, and I think the Iraqi people
are grateful, and the world is better and safer because of those
actions.
Q Do you even know whether those munitions are used?
MR. McCLELLAN: You need to direct specific questions like that to
the military. I think they would be in a better position to address
what specific tactics that they use during warfare.
Q The President was pretty emphatic yesterday in defending his
contracting policy. Today Prime Minister Blair said, he certainly
understands that the American government would have every right to
decide how American tax dollars were spent, but he also said he thought
it would be helpful, looking forward, if a compromise could be reached
on this issue, and people could move on. Does the White House, the
President share that sentiment, that he'd like to reach a compromise on
this issue? We've been trying to figure out exactly where that line
might be in the last few days. Any way you can explain to us where
that compromise could be --
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I can't emphasize enough that there are
many, many ways for countries to participate in what is going on in
Iraq -- through the international funds, the international funds that
were committed at the Madrid Donors Conference; they can participate --
countries that maybe are not on this list can participate as
sub-contractors. A number of those countries have companies that are
already participating on the ground in Iraq, through, I believe,
sub-contracts. So there are many, many ways that countries can
participate.
If other countries want to join with the coalition forces and those
countries that are contributing troops on the ground, then we would
welcome that. And, as I said, if they -- if countries want to join in
our efforts, the coalition efforts and the efforts by the Iraqi people
who are also sacrificing in this cause, then the circumstances can
change. But we will be glad to discuss issues with those countries
that relate to this.
Q So if they give in to the bigger international funds, they
can -- of course, anyone can bid for that money. But in terms of this
$18.6 billion in U.S. money, there has been mixed signals. Does that
require troops on the ground, or would say a major commitment to
Secretary Baker be enough?
MR. MCCLELLAN: Actually, if you look at the memo, it talked about
who was eligible and listed all the 63 countries that were eligible,
and it included the United States, it included Iraq -- many Iraqi
companies are involved in the contracts and carrying out some of the
reconstruction efforts, as I pointed out the other day. It includes
coalition partners and it includes other countries that may be
contributing troops to the cause. And as I said, if additional
countries want to join in those efforts, we would welcome that, and we
can talk to them about matters and circumstances can change.
Q Can you help me define efforts, though? If a French company
wanted to get a major contract under the $18.6 billion in U.S. money,
what would France have to do?
MR. MCCLELLAN: Number one, I'm not going to get into hypothetical
situations. Well, one, I believe there already is a French company
involved in some of the reconstruction efforts on the ground in Iraq.
I think I pointed that out the other day. But we would welcome the
opportunity to visit with them about this decision and talk to them
about why we made this decision about U.S. taxpayer dollars going to
those countries and the Iraqi people and the United States, because
they have been the ones that have been on the ground, serving and
sacrificing, and they have been the ones that have been supporting and
helping with this effort from the beginning.
Q Two questions. Is there final resolution on the Colonel West
situation and does the White House have a reaction?
MR. MCCLELLAN: I don't know the latest on that. Address that to
the Pentagon.
Q Could you let us know if the President --
MR. MCCLELLAN: Are you talking about what was under
investigation? Yes, you need to direct that to the appropriate
authorities.
Q Also, is the U.S. giving any compensation to the Afghan
families whose children were killed in the accident --
MR. MCCLELLAN: I'm not aware of any updates on that matter
either.
Q The question is, since this Bush administration, Halliburton
has come up time and time again, in mostly negative light. Is there a
concern, especially now, that Halliburton may need to go away and some
other company may need to come in and take these contracts? Granted,
Don Rumsfeld is saying that it's just a disagreement, but there seems
to be a conflict of interest, some are saying. There seems to be
constant negatives as it relates to Halliburton in relation to this
administration and the administration's connection to Halliburton.
MR. MCCLELLAN: I appreciate the question and this question relates
to a specific contract matter that was decided upon by the Pentagon.
The Pentagon is looking into that matter under some of the measures
that were put in place to ensure that those tax dollars are being spent
appropriately. And we expect the Pentagon to get to the bottom of it.
That's our view.
Q Okay, this is about this one thing, but there is a continual
negative --
MR. MCCLELLAN: Do you have a specific question? If the specific
questions relating to a contract that was decided upon by the Pentagon,
then you need to talk to the Pentagon about that matter.
Q No, I'm asking you, does the relationship with this
administration and Halliburton cause some Americans to say, hey, you
know, there is a problem?
MR. MCCLELLAN: No, April. I mean, if you have a specific question
or specific instance you want to reference, I welcome that.
Q That is my question. I asked my question.
MR. MCCLELLAN: But this question is relating to the contract
matter over at the Pentagon, and you should direct specific questions
about that to the Pentagon. But make no mistake about it, we expect
the Pentagon to get to the bottom of it. That's our view.
Q I have a follow-up to April's question. Was there any
political concern, any concern -- political concern at the White House
when Halliburton or Kellogg, Brown & Root was awarded this contract?
Did anybody say, hey, wait a minute, this is not going to look that
great? No one said that?
MR. MCCLELLAN: It's a Pentagon decision, it's a Pentagon matter.
They're the ones who made that decision --
Q And the President just said, oh, I know nothing about this?
MR. McCLELLAN: -- and I've said that -- I've said that
previously. So you need to direct those questions over there. That's
matters that they decide.
Q Scott, was the White House not aware that the Pentagon was
making this decision?
MR. MCCLELLAN: That was a matter that was decided upon by the
Pentagon. If you have specific questions about it, ask --
Q This isn't a specific question --
MR. McCLELLAN: Ask them about the decisions that they made
relating to that contract. It's not something that, as a contracting
matter, the White House decides; it's something that the Pentagon
decides.
Q We're asking about Halliburton in general.
Q Nobody at the White House said --
MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, and I think I've answered this. Let's go on.
Q Scott, why the President doesn't send -- or don't send
Secretary Powell instead of Mr. Baker to Europe? Is not the public
diplomacy the role of Mr. Powell as Secretary of State?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, as I said, the restructure of Iraq's debt
burden is a priority for us. And this was -- our first focus and
priority was to work on the Madrid Donors Conference and increase
international participation financially for the efforts going on in
Iraq. And so that was our focus initially, and we had a very
successful conference at Madrid. There were some initial efforts
underway at the Department of Treasury when it came to the
restructuring of debt. And after the Madrid Donors Conference, we
turned to this -- turned more focus to the issue of restructuring
Iraq's debt. And Secretary Powell and Secretary Snow were very
involved and aware of these discussions about appointing Secretary
Baker to focus specifically on this one area, the restructuring and
reducing of Iraq's debt burden. And so they've been involved in this
from the beginning.
But as I said, this was under the special government employee law
that Congress created to bring people on who have unique qualification
that can help in efforts like this, that can help in public diplomacy
efforts. And Secretary Baker has been in close contact with Secretary
Powell and Secretary Snow throughout these efforts.
Q Scott, how much of the debt -- the Iraqi debt that the U.S.
holds is the administration willing to forgive?
MR. McCLELLAN: This effort is just getting underway --
Q -- I'm sorry -- and how much does it expect other countries
to forgive? And the basis for this question is, number three, why
should Baker's mission not be looked at as the start of negotiations,
of bargaining over the debt?
MR. McCLELLAN: One, Secretary Baker's mission is just getting
underway, in terms of the initial meetings. And he will be seeking to
restructure Iraq's debt burden. He's overseeing that effort. And
we're going to be looking at the entire debt burden, and that includes
United States, as we move forward on these efforts.
But those efforts are just getting underway. But the goal is to
help the Iraqi people realize a free, prosperous and democratic
future. And I'm not going to try to predict things at this point. We
need to let the initial meetings occur, and then we can go from there.
Q Are you suggesting, then, that the debt forgiveness the U.S.
is willing to commit to depends upon the debt forgiveness that other
countries are willing to commit to? And if that's the case --
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm suggesting that --
Q If that's the case, why should Baker's mission not be seen as
the start of negotiations?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I'm suggesting that these efforts are just
getting underway. And we'll have those discussions with countries in
Europe and Russia -- he's going there, as well, this week -- and
others. But we will be having those discussions. But they're just
getting underway, Wendell. We need to let the meetings occur and the
discussions take place. I'm not having those discussions from this
podium with these leaders. Secretary Baker will be having those
discussions in person with the leaders of those countries.
Q And consequently, the debt forgiveness the U.S. is willing to
commit to is in some way related to debt that other countries will
commit to?
MR. McCLELLAN: Now, see, you're jumping ahead of where the process
is.
Q I don't think so.
MR. McCLELLAN: As I was just talking back there in the back to
that question, these efforts are just getting underway. Our focus
initially was on the donors conference. Now our focus is more so on
the restructuring of the debt. So these efforts are just getting
underway. Let's let that process begin. But it's an important
priority, and part of helping the Iraqi people achieve a free and
peaceful and prosperous future.
Q California has repealed a law that allowed undocumented
immigrants to obtain California driver's licenses. Does the President
have any reaction?
MR. MCCLELLAN: I think that the Department of Homeland Security
has previously commented on that and addressed that issue. I think
there have been some changes in what that -- what happened, what
occurred there initially. But we have addressed that previously about
some of the concerns that we would have.
Q One of the goals the President has repeatedly stated is
cutting the deficit in half within the next five years. It's being
reported that the administration is considering scaling back one of the
savings tax breaks it announced last year that would have replaced
existing IRAs with two other types of savings accounts. Is the
administration revisiting that proposal?
MR. MCCLELLAN: I haven't seen that report. I'd be glad to take a
look at it if you want to bring it to me, but I haven't seen that
report.
Q Two questions today, please. The FDA is considering allowing
the morning after pill to be sold over the counter without a
prescription. Not only does this drug cause a pharmacological
abortion, making it available over the counter also undermines parental
authority and promotes irresponsible behavior. The President has
previously spoken about developing a culture of life but this action is
clearly a step in the opposite direction. Is he going to take a
position on this FDA proposal?
MR. MCCLELLAN: You did state the President's view correctly about
building a culture of life. What you're referring to right now is a
law that governs the status of medications and whether they are
prescription or over the counter. And that law says that a company may
apply to the FDA for a change in status at any time. In this case,
there is a company that has applied to the FDA that is seeking a change
in the status on its medicines. And when those applications are
received, the FDA is required by law to have its advisory committees
review the application and hold public hearings. And that is happening
now. And so there is an FDA panel looking at that issue to make a
determination. But there are some requirements under law that are
being followed and that's where it stands.
Q The North American Free Trade Agreement is about to hit its
10th birthday. Various studies have shown significant losses of
American jobs. In addition, the American trade surplus with Mexico has
now turned into a deficit. Against that backdrop, how does the
administration evaluate NAFTA, as a success, a failure, or --
MR. MCCLELLAN: The President is a strong supporter of expanding
trade. And he is also a strong supporter of making sure that we have
free trade and fair trade, trade with a level playing field. And
that's what we always work to do. And we always look at the trade laws
and make sure that those are being enforced, as well.
But the President is a strong supporter of expanding trade because
he knows that American workers can compete with anyone globally. And
so we are continuing to work on our efforts with Central American
leaders, with leaders in South America, too, on free trade agreements,
both all together, as well as individual free trade agreements. Trade
is one of the economic engines of job growth and economic engines of
growing our economy even
more. So it's part of his -- it's part of his six-point plan to
create an even more robust environment for job creation.
Q Based on the requirements of NAFTA --
MR. MCCLELLAN: I don't know that I agree with your assessment.
But the President is a strong believer in free trade, but he also
believes that that trade must be fair.
Q So should NAFTA be used as a template for the free trade area
of the Americas, or for --
MR. MCCLELLAN: We're continuing to build on our efforts to expand
trade and strengthen our economy at home and create an even more robust
environment for job creation.
Q About the six-way talks, is there any proposal from the
Chinese side? And are you still -- that the six-way talk will happen
somewhere in the next week?
MR. MCCLELLAN: In the next what?
Q Next week or this month.
MR. MCCLELLAN: Well, we're continuing to have discussions. We
remain committed to seeking a peaceful resolution to the situation in
North Korea with regards to its nuclear weapons program. And we
continue to have discussions with the other parties.
This is a multilateral approach that we are taking. We had the
initial talks. We are hopeful for a new round of talks soon. It's
important that there be a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula. All parties,
or at least five of those parties, agree that that is an important
priority and are committed to a nuclear-free peninsula. So we're
continuing to have those discussions. There's no update in terms of
the timing of the next round of talks, but the Chinese have been
helpful in those efforts. And we are continuing to visit with them
about that.
Q No proposal?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we've made it very clear that we are prepared
to go to the next round of talks without any preconditions. And we
continue to seek a peaceful resolution to the verifiable and
irreversible end of North Korea's nuclear weapons program.
Q With Mr. Martin coming to power in Canada today, can we
anticipate a meeting between the President and the new Prime Minister
in Monterrey or perhaps before? And what about an exception on the
Iraqi contract issue as a show of good faith to an incoming government
which has pledged stronger --
MR. McCLELLAN: First of all, President Bush very much looks
forward to working with Prime Minister Martin. As you mentioned, he is
assuming his new post today, and the President wishes him well in his
new position. And I'm sure that they will have an opportunity to build
upon a good relationship that the United States has with Canada. And
if there are issues that he wants to discuss with the President, the
President would look forward to doing that.
And Canada certainly played an important role in the overall
efforts on the war on terrorism. And we appreciate the contribution
that they made, or the commitment that they made at the Madrid donors
conference to the efforts going on in Iraq.
Q Would they likely meet in Monterrey at the Summit of the
Americas --
MR. McCLELLAN: I don't have anything to update on the President's
schedule from this point. But we will keep you posted if there are any
meetings to update you on.
Q Just as a follow up. Mr. Martin, one of his first acts was
to name a Minister of National Defense who supported the war in Iraq,
and as a member of Parliament supported increased spending for the
military. And he also named a special assistant for Canada-U.S.
relations. Do you take this as a positive sign about where the
Canadian government is going?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we typically don't get into commenting on
internal matters that are in individual countries. But the President
very much looks forward to working with Prime Minister Martin and
building upon what is a good relationship.
Q Scott, a New York Times article yesterday said the White
House believes that Governor Dean is the Democratic candidate that it
will be facing in '04. Is that accurate, and is that the candidate --
MR. McCLELLAN: I saw a lot of anonymous sources in there. But
again, we'll leave the Democratic primary to the Democratic
candidates.
Q Is that the candidate that the White House would like to
face?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think the voters in the Democratic primary will
pick the Democratic candidate. I'm certainly not going to be voting in
that primary.
Q Wouldn't you like to have --
Q Get Rove out here, he'll tell us. (Laughter.)
MR. McCLELLAN: John.
Q I want to try one more on the Halliburton issue. To the
extent that I understand your points about any questions about this
specific audit should go to the Pentagon, they're doing the audit, and
all that, this has come up in the past, as April and Elizabeth were
noting. And just in the past 24 hours, Congressman Waxman is out again
saying this is a company that has benefited --
MR. MCCLELLAN: He says a lot of things about the White House.
Q I understand that. Several of the Democratic candidates
today for President have said, this is another example.
MR. MCCLELLAN: They're candidates for President, right?
Q I understand. That's why I'm getting to my question which
is, have there been conversations here about, people like yourself, who
work closely with the President and have to defend his political
interests, conversations about how fairly or unfairly, as you suggest,
this has become a political piata because of the Vice President's ties
to this company, and do you need to get people out there to rebut these
people who are making what you say are crazy allegations?
MR. MCCLELLAN: As the President's spokesman, I think I expressed
his view. We expect the Pentagon to get to the bottom of this matter.
They are looking into this. They are the ones that understand the
facts of the contracts and the decisions that were made, because that's
where the decision was made, that's where the matter was decided upon.
Q You're not answering the question, though. Scott, the issue
is, granted, they are getting the contracts through the Pentagon. But
the administration, the Bush administration, President Bush himself can
say, look, I don't want this anymore because, as John just said, it's a
political piata, it's an albatross around this administration's neck.
The negative stories that continued to come out about Halliburton.
Now, will you answer the question that is, is Halliburton a negative?
Is this the company that you feel that's doing the best for the -- the
best reconstruction effort --
MR. MCCLELLAN: They can talk about their company. What I'm
talking about is the President's views and the President's
expectations. The President very much expects the procedures and
measures that are in place for oversight purposes to be followed. And
the President expects the Pentagon to get to the bottom of this.
Q You keep staying on one story. We're talking about the whole
--
MR. MCCLELLAN: It is a matter that is being looked into by the
Pentagon.
Q Scott, does the White House have a direct response to the
accusation by Democrats that this Halliburton business proves their
contention that the administration is rewarding its contributors with
the spoils of the war in Iraq?
MR. MCCLELLAN: I think it -- right now it shows that the Pentagon
is following the oversight measures that are in place. You need to
direct those questions to the Pentagon.
Q Do you have a response to that accusation?
MR. MCCLELLAN: The White House expects the Pentagon to get to the
bottom of it.
Q Different subject. Al Jazeera has been airing the remarks of
Senator Hilary Clinton that she made during her trip to Iraq, where she
criticized the President's leadership and said that the outcome of the
war wasn't assured. While the President has always supported the right
of free speech, is he at some point going to comment on statements like
this that demoralize our troops and give encouragement to our enemies?
MR. MCCLELLAN: I think you've heard the President's comments and
his views on the matter and I would leave it there. The President
believes in setting a high tone, and that's what he will continue to
do.
END 12:52 P.M. EST
|