For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 23, 2004
Press Briefing by Scott McClellan
The James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
12:47 P.M. EST
MR. McCLELLAN: Good afternoon. I have a couple of announcements
and a couple of updates to begin with. On March 29th, 2004, the
President looks forward to welcoming to the White House the Prime
Ministers of Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia,
and Slovenia, as well as the NATO Secretary General, for a meeting and
ceremony marking the formal accession of these nations to the North
Atlantic Treaty on that day.
President Bush will also welcome the Prime Ministers of Albania,
Croatia, and Macedonia, the three nations seeking NATO membership and
participating in NATO's Membership Action Plan.
These Central and East European democracies have already acted as
allies through their strong solidarity and actions in the war on
terrorism, and in helping to strengthen peace and democracy in
Afghanistan and Iraq. As NATO acts to face these new challenges of the
21st century, the membership of these seven nations in NATO will
advance the cause of freedom and strengthen the Atlantic Alliance, the
central pillar of transatlantic relations.
Earlier today, the President met with President Uribe of Colombia.
They had a very good meeting in the Oval Office. The United States and
Colombia have a strong partnership, and the President reaffirmed our
commitment to building upon our strong partnership. The President
commended President Uribe for his strong leadership, particularly his
efforts in standing firmly against terrorism and combating drug
trafficking. The two leaders discussed the importance of continuing to
work together to combat terrorism and drug trafficking.
They also discussed the announcement made earlier today about our
shared commitment to expand trade and open markets by entering into
discussions on a free trade agreement between our two nations. And
they also discussed various regional issues, as well.
The President, after that meeting, spoke to Portuguese Prime
Minister Barroso. It was a warm and friendly call. The two leaders
discussed the importance of international solidarity to fight terrorism
and to help the Iraqi people consolidate their freedom and security.
The President expressed his appreciation for the Prime Minister's
leadership on these critical issues.
And here shortly, the President -- I'll try to keep the briefing
moving -- the President looks forward to meeting with his Cabinet to
talk about our economy and job creation in America, as well as the
progress in the war on terrorism. Our nation's economy is strong and
continues to grow stronger. When you look at the unemployment rate, it
is below the average of the '70s, '80s and '90s, at 5.6 percent now.
The last six months have led to an increase in employment in America.
Productivity remains high; disposable income is up. So the economy is
moving in the right direction. But we're also in a changing economy
and the President will likely discuss this with the members of the
Cabinet, to talk about how we make sure that workers in America are
prepared to meet the new and better jobs being created in the 21st
century.
And he will also, I expect, talk about his six-point plan to make
sure that we create as robust an environment as possible for job
creation in America, including his efforts to make the tax relief
permanent and pass a comprehensive national energy policy, and control
the rising health care cost in America, and reform our legal system,
among other issues.
And with that, I will be glad to go straight to the questions.
Go ahead, Tom.
Q Scott, various Israeli officials have said that they will
target other Hamas leaders, other Palestinian militants. Does the
United States have a message for Israel on that?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry, who --
Q Various Israeli officials have said they will go after other
Hamas leaders. Does the United States have anything to urge Israel?
MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, I think we continue to urge all parties to
exercise restraint and to help restore calm in the region. That's our
message. We want to get the parties back working together to move
forward on the peace process, the two-state vision that the President
has outlined. And that's what we continue to emphasize.
You obviously heard our comments from yesterday about the current
situation, but we continue to urge all parties to exercise maximum
restraint, going forward.
Q Does this further up the ante, the fact that they're
promising to go after others?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, what needs to happen, again, is for the
parties to get back to working together to move forward on the
President's two-state vision. It's important during this time that
everybody exercise maximum restraint and work to restore calm in the
region. That's the President's message.
And it's important that parties live up to their obligations. All
parties have obligations to meet. The Palestinian Authority certainly
has obligations to meet when it comes to cracking down on terrorism.
The Israelis also have responsibilities that they need to meet, as
well.
Q Scott, is the President watching the 9/11 Commission
testimony? And also --
MR. McCLELLAN: No.
Q No?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, he's been in meetings, as you are aware.
Q Okay. And also, why has the White House chosen Deputy
Secretary Armitage to replace Dr. Rice in publicly testifying, when
they have clearly different roles?
MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know anything about replacing. One, Dr.
Rice was pleased to sit down and visit with the 9/11 Commission and
answer all the questions that they wanted to bring up. The meeting
went for well over four hours, even though it was scheduled, I think,
for maybe half that time. And she looked forward to visiting with
them. And if they want to visit further, then we'll be glad to talk to
them about that.
Q One of the commission members said that it was an agreement
that the White House was offering Armitage to replace the testimony of
Dr. Rice. Is that --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, this goes -- this goes to the issue that
we've discussed previously, that -- between the executive branch and
the legislative branch. This is a legislatively-created commission,
and there's a principle involved here regarding separation of powers.
And I think we previously addressed that, and we've addressed that from
the get-go when it comes to this issue. It's not a matter of Dr.
Rice's personal preference. It's a matter of principle.
Q Where do you disagree with Mr. Clarke on the facts of what he
observed and didn't observe, what you did and didn't do immediately
after coming into office?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think we went through that yesterday. We
went through a lot of the assertions that were being made. And I think
maybe one thing to look back to is the Dick Clarke of January 30th,
2003, who submitted a letter of resignation on that day to the
President of the United States. And I think this letter runs counter
to what he is now asserting. Let me just read parts of this letter,
and we'll be glad to make this letter available to you shortly here.
This is in his own words.
Mr. Clarke says, "It has been an enormous privilege to serve you
these last 24 months. I will always remember the courage,
determination, calm and leadership you demonstrated on September
11th." Then he went on to say, "I will also have fond memories of our
briefings for you on cyber-security and the intuitive understanding of
its importance that you showed. I thank you again for the opportunity
to serve you have provided me, and wish you good fortune as you lead
our country through the continuing threats."
So at this time period, when he was leaving, there was no mention
of the grave concerns he claims to have had about the direction of the
war on terrorism, or what we were doing to confront the threat posed by
Iraq, by the former regime.
Q You and others at the White House made a point of saying
yesterday that the timing was suspect because it's an election year.
You asked why he had waited this long to make his concerns known. He
says that the book could have been published in December, but for the
White House security review process.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, let's be clear here. His book went through
the normal review process. It went through the normal national
security review process to look at classification issues. This is
standard practice to make sure that classified information is not
inadvertently released. Dick Clarke could have released his book at
any time, but the fact is he chose to release it at a time and in a way
where he could maximize coverage to sell books, and at a time when he
could have the impact to influence the political discourse. That's
very clear.
Q He could have released it at any time --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, his publisher put out that he was going to
release it at the end of April, I might point out to you. That's been
in the public domain.
Q And could he have released it before the security review?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, certainly if he had such grave concerns, he
could have raised those a year ago when he was leaving the
administration, or over a year -- more than a year ago.
Q You just shifted the question, though. When did the security
review conclude? In other words, when was he free as far as the United
States government was concerned to publish this book?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, first of all, keep in mind that his publisher
put out that it would come out at the end of April. There is a normal
review process you go through in a situation like this that involves
discussing information that's potentially classified for national
security reasons. It went through the normal review process.
Q But he says that normal review process ended up delaying the
publication of the book.
MR. McCLELLAN: No, look, Terry, he could release this book at any
time. It's very clear that he chose to release it at a time --
Q No, he couldn't release it at any time --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, Bill, he chose to release it at a time when he
could maximize coverage for promoting and selling his book, and he
chose to release it at a time --
Q When was he free to release it?
MR. McCLELLAN: Can I finish? He chose to release it at a time
when he could influence the political discourse. I can get you the
exact time period of when that --
Q You've made that point, but Terry and I are trying to find
out when it could have been released without -- having been reviewed
for the security --
MR. McCLELLAN: I can get you the time period when it was given to
us, things like that.
Q And then I just have one other question. This morning, he
raised an allegation I had not heard before, which is that he says that
in the presidential directive which President Bush signed after
September 11th, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld requested and received
within the four corners of that document, a presidential order to
prepare plans for the invasion of Iraq. Is that true?
MR. McCLELLAN: This is another example of his revisionist
history. As we have said, the President made it very clear that his
decision at Camp David was to -- this was in the immediate aftermath of
the September 11th attacks -- was to go after the Taliban and al Qaeda
in Afghanistan. And we also should keep in context that during this
time period, Iraq continued to shoot daily at our pilots and remained a
threat to the United States. Mr. Clarke even pointed out, himself,
that Iraq was a serious threat. And he talked about Iraq's history in
just -- in the recent past. I quoted you some of his remarks
yesterday.
Q But the presidential directive following the attacks of
September 11th focused on counterterrorism and how the United States
was going to, as you put it, eliminate al Qaeda --
MR. McCLELLAN: Remember, at the National Security Council meeting
--
Q -- did that include -- did that include a directive to the
Defense Department to prepare plans for the invasion of Iraq?
MR. McCLELLAN: The invasion of Iraq -- the decision to go to war
in Iraq, as you know, came at a much later time. But obviously, Iraq
--
Q But he's making the charge that the President was already
directing the Pentagon to prepare plans to invade Iraq.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, but, obviously -- and Mr. Clarke
acknowledges, himself, in his recent past that Iraq was a threat. He
met -- he sat down and met with Dr. Rice shortly after he left the
White House, and nowhere did he raise a concern about the action that
we were taking in Iraq. And that was right at the time period when we
were confronting the threat posed by -- posed by the former regime.
Q He's right that in October -- in October of 2001, when the
President signed this directive, the President was directing the
Pentagon to prepare plans for the invasion of Iraq?
MR. McCLELLAN: That's why I said, that's part -- that's part of
his revisionist history.
Q That's not true?
MR. McCLELLAN: That's part of his revisionist history, that's what
I'm saying --
Q Are you saying it's not true?
MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, that's right. I am.
Q You are saying that it's not true?
MR. McCLELLAN: That's part of -- that's just his revisionist
history to make suggestions like that. He knows that at that point
that our focus was on going -- was on Afghanistan and removing the
Taliban and taking away the safe haven for al Qaeda.
Q You are saying from that lectern that he did -- that the
President did not sign an order to prepare to invade Iraq at that
time?
MR. McCLELLAN: No.
Q Scott, I have two quick questions. One, if you can clarify
for me --
MR. McCLELLAN: And, Bill, I would just point out to you -- hang on
one second, Goyal -- we made everything publicly known in terms of the
steps we were taking to confront the threat posed by Iraq. But Iraq
was a threat, and because of the action that we took, we are helping to
advance freedom and democracy in a very volatile region; we are making
America more secure; and making the world a safer and better place. So
it was -- you all covered all the steps taken up to the decision by
Saddam Hussein to continue to defy the international community.
Q -- an order was prepared to prepare plans to invade Iraq at
that time. And you're saying that it was not.
MR. McCLELLAN: As you're aware, when the President sat down in the
immediate aftermath of the September 11th attacks, he directed his team
to lead an effort to remove the Taliban from power and to deny al Qaeda
a safe haven. That was the action we took at that time period. But
during that time period, it's important to keep in mind that Iraq was a
threat and Iraq was shooting at our planes. So, obviously, you are
looking at those issues during that time period. Iraq has been a
threat for quite some time.
Q Did he then sign such an order?
MR. McCLELLAN: I just addressed that question.
Q You said no.
Q Change the subject?
Q No.
Q Same subject.
MR. McCLELLAN: Okay, go ahead.
Q Scott, you have spoken directly with President Bush about
Mr. Clarke's charges, and I wonder if you would characterize for us
the President's personal reaction. Is he disappointed in these actions
by someone with whom he formally worked closely and from whom he
received such a glowing resignation letter? Is he stung by this in
some way? How would you, having observed the President, as we have
not, how would you characterize how he's reacting personally to it?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the President has got a lot of priorities to
focus on, and that's exactly what he's doing. The President is
continuing to focus on our efforts to strengthen the economy even more
and to win the war on terrorism. In fact, you're going to hear from
him shortly, where he will talk about some of those priorities. The
President continues to focus on our nation's highest priorities.
That's where his attention stays.
Q And one other question. You said that this was part of the
normal vetting process for classification issues, Mr. Clarke's book.
Was a similar process undertaken with Secretary O'Neill's book?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think, as you know, the Treasury Department has
addressed that matter. You can direct those questions to the Treasury
Department.
Q Well, NSC, he was a members of the NSC and his book deals
with some of that, so I wonder if the same process was followed.
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I don't think that was here. I think the
Treasury Department, you would have to look at what they did in terms
of classified documents.
Q But you're unaware of any NSC vetting?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I'm not aware of that.
Q Scott, when the White House was given this book six months
ago, did anyone in the Communications Department or the President's
political team receive copies of the book?
MR. McCLELLAN: No.
Q No?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not aware of anything of that nature. Again, I
addressed this issue earlier when you brought it up. So it's the same
response.
Q And Vice President Cheney alleged yesterday that Richard
Clarke was, "out of the loop." If he was so out of the loop, why was
the President asking him directly on September 11th if Iraq was
involved in September 11th?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, first of all, I think we went through that
issue yesterday. In terms of the immediate aftermath of September
11th, of course, you want to explore all possibilities. And, in fact,
Mr. Clark said that very same thing in a "Frontline" interview
previously.
Q That he was out of the loop?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, he talked about the importance of keeping an
open mind, and he cited how they were, in the immediate days after
September 11th, keeping an open mind.
Q The charge was leveled that Clarke was out of the loop. If
you read Clarke's book, even in 1991, he went with the Vice President
to Riyadh to deal with the first Persian Gulf War. Then, in 2001, does
the President ask people who are out of the loop who was involved in
September 11th?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, you're making assumptions there. We
addressed this issue yesterday, and I stand by what I said yesterday on
that matter. So don't try to put words in my mouth or try to
recharacterize what we said yesterday on that matter. But I think that
we've been through that issue. But the fact of the matter is that he
appears now to be, all of a sudden, focused on the process and not the
substance.
Look at the action that we took. This administration made al Qaeda
a top priority when it came into office and it certainly took the
threat very seriously from al Qaeda even after September the 11th.
September 11th taught us important lessons, and this President acted to
take strong steps to make sure we are doing everything we can to
prevent something like September 11th from ever happening again. And
that was a twofold strategy, to take the offensive and go after the
terrorists and bring them to justice before they could carry out their
attacks on the American people -- because September 11th taught us we
must confront dangers before it's too late -- and to also strengthen
our homeland, to take steps to secure the homeland by creating the
Department of Homeland Security, by improving intelligence gathering
and sharing of information, by passing the Patriot Act to provide our
law enforcement officials with the tools they need to do their job.
Now, obviously, these threats did not develop overnight. These
threats had been emerging and building for quite some time. You go
back to the attacks of 1990 -- the attack in 1993 on the World Trade
Center, the bombing there. Go back to the attack of 1998 on the U.S.
embassies. Go back to the attack on the USS Cole back in 2000. And
it's important to ask people, what did they do after those attacks.
Q Well, how can he be responsible if he was out of the loop?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, he was in --
Q Just --
MR. McCLELLAN: Hang on a second. Hang on a second, Norah. He was
in the counterterrorism position for some eight years. Now, remember,
on October 9th, that position was separated into two functions. Then
you had General Wayne Downing come on board to head the
counterterrorism efforts. And Dick Clarke, as I pointed out, in his
letter was then focusing on cyber-security efforts.
But the fact of the matter is, he was not in most of the meetings
to be able to make some of the assertions that he is now making. He
was not at the Camp David meeting where the map of Afghanistan was
rolled out on the table in the immediate aftermath of September 11th,
and the decision was made that we're going to go after the Taliban and
al Qaeda. He wasn't in those meetings. Those are the facts.
Q Scott, one on the 9/11 Commission, as well as Mr. Clarke's
book. You're saying things that 9/11 taught us lessons about how to
deal with terrorism. Is this country now safer? And also, you say --
they're saying we didn't know about -- we didn't understand the threat
of al Qaeda before. Are we safer now from learning the lessons of 9/11
and learning about al Qaeda?
MR. McCLELLAN: Absolutely, because of the actions this President
has taken to go after the terrorists before they can carry out their
attacks. We've gone on the offensive. We're taking the fight to the
enemy -- and because of the steps we've taken here at home to protect
the homeland.
Now, Dick Clarke has made some assertions about ideas that he
proposed. And remember, he was in position during all these attacks
that occurred in the '90s and leading up to 2000 with the USS Cole.
And he's now come out and made some claims that it was White House
going to the battle stations and having meetings that prevented the
Millennium plot, when, in fact, if we go back and look at the facts, it
was a Customs agent, a woman who disrupted the Millennium plot.
Because of the action, and the heads-up action she took, that plot was
disrupted.
Yet, what did we do after that? We need to ask the questions.
Instead of focusing on the sleeper cells that Dick Clarke acknowledged
were here in the United States, he remained focused on what was going
on overseas. And that's why when we came into office, the President
said, we're going to have a comprehensive strategy to eliminate al
Qaeda -- not to roll back al Qaeda, but to eliminate al Qaeda.
Q Scott, back to --
Q Wait a minute, I'm not finished. I want to follow up. Going
back to --
MR. McCLELLAN: We're running up to the Cabinet meeting. So I'm
going to keep going. Mike, I think --
Q Wait a minute, Scott, please. Going back --
MR. McCLELLAN: April, we're getting ready to -- the President is
getting ready to meet the Cabinet. I want to be there for that --
Q -- before 9/11, did this administration fail to react to the
new reality of the threat of al Qaeda? Did this administration fail to
react to the new realities of al Qaeda, just before 9/11?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry? The new --
Q Did this administration --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, this administration came into office and we
acted. We made -- the first major foreign policy directive of this
administration was to develop a comprehensive strategy to eliminate al
Qaeda. And this President --
Q You had warnings. Did this administration --
MR. McCLELLAN: -- and this President acted. And I think it's
important to keep in context and for the American people to know that
we did everything we could, based on what we knew at the time, prior to
September 11th, and based on the tools and resources that were
available to us at that time, to prevent attacks on the American
people. But, obviously, September 11th taught us that there are
additional steps that we need to take, and we have implemented those
additional measures to prevent something like that from ever happening
again.
And I'm sorry for the shortness of this. But I'll be around
today. The President has got a Cabinet meeting, and you all will talk
to him shortly. Thanks.
END 1:10 P.M. EST
|